Job-market advice and SLACs: an inside look from a recent hire

In our recent thread on how much hiring committees at SLACs care about applicants' career stage, a reader writes:

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.

I wanted to bring this comment to the fore so that everyone who routinely visits the blog sees it--as in my experience many people seem to erroneously think (or be advised in their PhD programs) that publications in highly ranked journals matter the most on the job-market. As I've noted before, there isn't a single job market: there are multiple ones, each with their with their own priorities. I thank the above reader for sharing their experience!

Comments

[OP from earlier thread]

Thanks for highlighting this comment, Marcus, and thanks to this commenter for the feedback (I'm the OP from the original thread).

I'm pretty surprised nobody cared about your publication record (except the one person who rightly recognized the AJP piece--Congrats!). You really do not believe having 10 papers in 10 good journals played hardly any role in your hiring? That's really interesting.

[assc prof]

Here's my ideal candidate for a job at my non-elite SLAC:

-broad teaching experience, including in the advertised areas (and ideally also in areas I don't want to teach)

-a clear love of philosophy, and not just their area of philosophy (even better if it's a love of the kind of philosophy that might be of interest to undergrads)

-evidence of imaginative/creative teaching, in response to the challenges of teaching our students

-successful publication, ideally with at least one in a semi-elite place (for someone 0-3 years out from the Ph.D., I don't give need to see more than 1-3)

-not too many pubs, or else it looks like a flight risk

-someone with a sense of humor

[another recent slac-er hire]

This is very much true of my experience on the market as well, so just ibid.

[everwhat]

I recently interviewed at a non-elite SLAC, and did not make it to the campus stage. However, in seeking a bit of feedback, I was told a couple of things that align with what the OP of this thread says.

One was that I stood out in having done my research on the university, showing a real knowledge for the kind of place it was that I was interviewing at. I was also told that I came across as knowing the kinds of students I'd be teaching, and that my teaching seemed well-aligned with the teaching aims of the university.
As far as research, I have 3 articles in decent journals (both general and specialty), and a couple in edited volumes, even though I've been on a 4/4 for the last three years. So meeting research tenure requirements was likely not an issue. That said, none of this was enough to get me to the stage of being a finalist, because at that stage, I was told, "fit" mattered most.

Now I don't know exactly why I did not fall under the elusive concept of "fit" they had in mind. The reasons I got from the person I spoke with were (understandably) general and vague. One thing it could've been was that there was too much teaching overlap with the other philosophers in the department (though they explicitly hired in the tradition the all work in...).

So yeah, I think what the OP above says about SLACs is right.

But then again, it's hard to guess how you fit their "fit" if the criteria they're going to use to assess you in that regard are not explicit in the ad. Maybe we need committee members to be more explicit in what they look for in fit.

[The Person From Earlier]

I'm the OP in this thread (the commenter in the other threat).

@OP from earlier thread: I followed the usual grad student advice and published as much as possible. I think it helped to some degree; I was well-published. But that's not what got me the job; it got me an interview, given other boxes were checked (teaching experience, interest in this kind of university). I guess I'd say this: for a lot of SLACs, publication record matters, but it won't get you the job. At the end of the day, the search committee wants someone who can deal with their students, in their environment, and is a decent human being. Publications aren't evidence of this stuff.

@Assc Prof: I agree 100% with sense of humor. My colleagues and I get along; we also have light hearts about all the BS that goes on at a SLAC. Politics, idiot administrators, and so on. You want someone who is in your corner, someone you can look to and say, 'that person in the faculty meeting was a schmuck, right?!' My job would be miserable if not for a handful of philosophers I could turn to and talk about small college/university goings-on with. One needs a chin, and a sense of humor, to make it worth it.

In general, as for fit: it is elusive because it is elusive. As Marcus has said: be yourself, but your best self. No one on a hiring committee can stand up for you unless you show them a side of you worth standing up for. So, you need to show yourself, your true self. Just don't go overboard!

[J]

Thank you for this, it's very helpful! Related question: I'm a Ph.D. student at a school that isn't much like a SLAC. (You can take this as a general problem--Ph.D.-granting institutions seem generally unlike SLACs--but it's also the case that recent job candidates from my school apply for both R1/R2 jobs and SLAC jobs and are much less likely to get seriously considered for the latter.) What sort of things can I do to get background and experience that shows I'd be a good fit for SLACs? I'm sure I can do research on the school's mission and express enthusiasm, but something more concrete and long-term would be great given the seeming uphill battle. assc prof's comment is useful here.

[G]

Based on my own experience, part of the issue is that all of us were trained in PhD-granting, research-oriented programs. This training was more than how to do philosophy. For example, many of us formed working habits in a research environment, and we learned academic skills (time-management, dealing with politics, etc.) from professors who were hired primarily to do research.

However, some of these working habits do not fit some other institutions. People might have different examples. From my experience, I find that my professors in graduate school tend to be very protective of their research time. They have good reason as they are primarily researchers. But at some non-elite SLACs and R2 schools, you are hired as a teacher and you are expected to do a lot of service. While you still need to learn to say no, you just cannot behave like an R1 professor as you witnessed in graduate school.

Also, teaching undergraduates is also different. Some of the differences are hard to put into words. But I feel that the research-oriented programs tend to focus on philosophical content in undergraduate teaching (I guess this is partly because professors approach teaching based on graduate level courses), and in some other schools you have to diversify the learning outcomes. You might have to focus more on skills and the habits of mind. You might need to ask students to do journaling, finish creative artwork, and/or participate in some community-engagement as part of your course. You will also have the responsibilities as undergraduate advisors (which entail very different kind of, and sometimes more difficult, work from graduate advisors).

[Marcus Arvan]

Fwiw, most of what the OP says coheres with my experience on both sides of the market.

[Anony]

Question: @assc prof highlights "evidence of imaginative/creative teaching, in response to the challenges of teaching our students"

I teach in a fairly traditional, non-imaginative, non-creative way. I also have extraordinarily high student evaluations of my teaching. Would I really be hurt in an on-campus interview if I did not do something fancy in my teaching demonstration? Would my years of great evaluations across dozens of classes be enough to show that I can respond to "the challenges of teaching our students"?

[Marcus Arvan]

@Anony: in my experience, many people can be pretty skeptical of student evaluations, or at the very least take them with a heavy grain of salt, given various empirical findings tying good scores to things like easiness, physical attractiveness, race, gender, etc. (compared to little evidence that evals predict student learning). So. I wouldn’t hang your hat on those. In my experience, people want to look at the rest of a candidate’s portfolio and performance in the classroom during an on-campus visit to evaluate their effectiveness and fit as an instructor.

If you do teach traditionally (“chalk and talk”) and you don’t have any already, I would strongly suggest that you have more than one faculty member observe your teaching and detail why your teaching is effective in teaching-focused letters of recommendation. When it comes to teaching demos, my sense is that creativity and innovative approaches are likely to help a candidate all things being equal—but it’s entirely possible for an “innovative” demo to go poorly, and if a demo is more traditional but *excellent*, then I think it can win over a hiring committee. I think you just have to be very, very good at it—otherwise, there’s a risk that a candidate who teaches traditionally hasn’t given teaching much thought, which can make them look like a bad fit.

Long story short, traditional “chalk and talk” teaching isn’t a disqualifier by any means, but it may be a bit of an obstacle to overcome in terms of demonstrating goodness of fit.

[Anonystace]

Let me chime in on this comment about chalk and talk teaching, which I don't entirely agree with. I don't want to make things complicated but I'm a little older and think that many candidates try too hard to use technology and such. A good class lecture to me is not about being creative or using creative methods or whatever, but engaging the students and conveying the relevant ideas about the topic. Many faculty in my department do not use powerpoint and are chalk and talkers and do this effectively. So their following the "more traditional but excellent" approach mentioned.

[sahpa, unreconstructed traditional pedagogue]

I've never totally understood this, so maybe Marcus or others could explain. If hiring committees are looking for 'creative and innovative' approaches to teaching as such, this would presumably only make sense if a) we knew traditional methods were inadequate, and b) we did not know what better methods to use. Without either, we wouldn't want creativity and innovation in the classroom, we'd want the tried and true, effective, traditional or newer methods to be used.

So what's the evidence for a and b? Why is this the standard view across so many teaching-oriented places?

[Marcus Arvan]

@sapha: well, at my university our courses are 4 credit hours, which means that all of our 2-day-a-week courses meet for 1-hour-and-50 minutes twice per week. Learning how to deal with longer class times (with a 3/3 load to boot, usually all different/new preps) was without a doubt one of the most difficult things I had to deal with in my career. When I started at the university, I was a traditional chalk-and-talk instructor, which had always worked well at previous institutions where class times were shorter. My “tried and true” approach didn’t merely fail to translate. It was a catastrophe—and no matter what I tried to do to improve it (such as doing close textual readings in class), nothing worked. I had always gotten good evaluations before (4s and 5s), but my students hated it (now I was getting 2s) and it was a miserable experience for me—and my students were tuning out and not learning. Given that I was hired into a teaching position, I seriously worried that I was going to lose my job.

Other people who have come to our university have reported similar challenges, and it can very much be an issue when it comes to tenure and promotion. Quill Kukla once taught here as a visitor for a year and reported that they found it immensely challenging as well. In my experience, even though it’s just a 1 credit hour difference than most universities, in practice it necessitates about double the course prep for each class you teach.

The lesson I learned is this: you just can’t stand in front of undergrads and talk for two hours every day, particularly lower levels—especially at a university where teaching is a major focus and most people are doing creative stuff (which students and others come to expect). I was eventually able to handle it by getting students to do other creative things, but it took a lot of time and trial and error, and I had the good fortune of learning how to do it before I had a tenure track position.

Long story short: it’s not impossible, but traditional/non-creative approaches just don’t generally seem to work well here given the conditions we face on the ground. What's tried and true in one environment can be tried and false in another. That being said, if someone shows they are really good at it, then a hiring committee may feel good about their ability to adapt.

[NN]

Marcus, could we maybe have a thread about how people deal with longer class times? I'd love to get some new ideas.

[Anonystace]

I think what Marcus says here makes sense. At the program where I teach we have 3 credit classes for 1:15 minutes twice a week. This is different than a two hour class I agree. I don't mean to imply that one shouldn't try to be creative when teaching since this term covers a lot of territory. I think one wants to find a way to engage students so that they attend to the class and learn the material. At my school a lot is being done in my department with chalk and talk and discussion. What I'm trying to say is that I've sometimes seen demos with lots of clips or online elements and this comes with issues too and can be overdone and would not be expected by all of us.

[sahpa]

Marcus, thanks for your take. A couple followup questions.

It sounds like the teaching strategies that work at your school have to do with the specifics of your school. So, first: why expect potential hires to already know how to handle your school specifically? And, second, why look for "creative and innovative" techniques, when presumably you know broadly what needs to be done to teach at your school specifically? Or is "creative and innovative" a proxy for what you're looking for?

[assc prof]

Creativity and innovation are important for at least two reasons, at least for instructors at my university, where students are generally both underprepared and undermotivated. First, a candidate who has them signals that they can identify challenges and potential ways to address them. Our kinds of students are not unique to our institution, and a candidate who shows, via creativity and innovation, that they are aware of the challenges of teaching these students will have a leg up on other candidates, other things being equal. There are of course potential ways to address challenges that are already "out there" and so fail to qualify as creative or innovative. But it's not as if there is a solution for every challenge we face--many are, at the finer grain of detail, relatively recent or unique to a particular situation, etc. I want to see that an instructor can address challenges on their own, without just falling back on what they did in grad school or on what's worked for others. Sometimes what's worked for others doesn't work for our specific situations; sometimes our situations haven't been studied (empirical research, e.g., is always conducted long after a problem first arises), etc.

Second, creativity and innovation often uncover things that work, and work well. Not always--sometimes things fall flat, as any long-time instructor knows. But an instructor who is willing to take risks and try things out will almost surely be a better instructor ten years in than one who plays it safe.

[worked at four departments]

I don't think people generally are trying to oppose creativity to traditional methods. Creative teaching encompasses a lot of things - the readings you pick, how you create a narrative, the assignments you give, whatever. And it is reasonable to want to know how candidates do those things and hope for some creativity in the "how," surely?

Nor would I expect anyone to think of a powerpoint as creative. Most of the time, this is the opposite.

[sahpa, don't call me shirley]

@assc prof: thanks, that's helpful. I think some of what you're saying feeds into my concerns in reply to Marcus, though – it isn't clear what value 'creativity and innovation' get you as opposed to prior familiarity and success. It isn't clear why creativity and innovation per se would signal the ability to ID and address the challenge of teaching underprepared and undermotivated students. Presumably, *using techniques that work* for such students is what you're looking for – or at least the willingness to do so. You then emphasise that there's sometimes more institution-specific challenges that you want a candidate to be able to tackle. But here again, the question is, why think a 'creative and innovative' teacher, who does not have experience with those specific challenges, is somehow more able to tackle them than someone who uses familiar techniques? The point may be put this way: suppose you see someone who is using familiar, not 'creative and innovative' techniques; these could easily be what they have settled on (with success) in response to the kinds of students they've dealt with so far. Why think they would not, or could not, adapt to new students? It seems you should care about *thoughtful* teaching choices – signals that the candidate is reflective about why they do what they do – not creativity and innovation. Or perhaps you are just looking for someone who gives a damn about teaching well.

@worked at four departments: I don't know what 'creative' teaching means in this context if it is not opposed to familiar methods. You are helping me to see, though, that 'traditional' may have more specific connotations than I mean. I want therefore to avoid 'traditional' here on out because I don't want people to think I only have in mind standing up in front of the room and lecturing at length. There are many familiar techniques at this stage – discussion-driven teaching, specs grading, etc. – that do not require creativity or innovation to implement. They're just different available methods that prima facie work for different situations. So why should we hope for some creativity, 'surely'?

[sahpa, sorry for the double post]

I suppose, to be honest, that much of my concern here, and speaking as a failed job-market candidate, is that all this emphasis on 'creative and innovative' teaching may be mainly incentivising job marketeers to play to or perform for hiring committees – to try to give them something *they haven't seen before* so that their interest is piqued, when they are nodding off after reading dozens of very samey teaching statements. But, of course, if the hiring committee's department is at all good at teaching, then many (most?) successful methods *will not be novel* to them and so won't pique their interest in that way. Obviously students' interests threaten to be ignored in such a strange performative arms race.

[lesson learned]

Sahpa
Maybe this will comfort you. Some years ago, we interviewed a candidate who was very creative and innovative in the classroom. It was my classroom, and my colleagues sat in on it, and they enjoyed it very much. The candidate had constructed an interactive activity that was intended to engage the students and illustrate a philosophical point. My colleagues loved it. When the candidate and my colleagues left the room, I asked the class to explain what they learned and how it related to the topic of discussion. They were speechless. They could not articulate what the point of the activity was and its relationship to what they were being taught. That is a failure by any measure. Fortunately we hired one of the other candidates.

[recent-ish SLAC hire]

I want to second Marcus' point that there isn't a single job market, and add a second point. There isn't a single SLAC market either!

I work at an interesting category of SLAC that I don't see mentioned on here very often. Not tippy top, but regionally prestigious, financially stable, and currently attempting to build a national profile. I have great students, a 3/2 teaching load, and real research expectations. I also interviewed at a slightly less regionally prestigious but otherwise similar school with a 3/3 load.

I would guess that there is a lot of variation in how search committees assess teaching when hiring at these places. In our department, most faculty use pretty traditional pedagogy (chalk and talk) and would be completely fine with a candidate who does the same. Even those who use other approaches think of effective teaching as something that can be done in many different ways. We just want to see evidence that you are doing it already and that you intend to keep doing it for the rest of your time at our institution. As some others have mentioned above, that means demonstrating some ability to identify and respond to new challenges, hence the need for creativity.