I don't visit this blog very often, but on this visit, I found something troubling. By process of elimination, I think I must be the person indicted as non-"decent" by "Sally G." I'm not sure what I did to deserve being publicly stripped of my "good person-hood", but I'm truly sorry to have anyone out there who thinks that way about me.
I know this website is supposed to be anonymous, but "deductive disclosure" is pretty easy in a world this small. I think it's common courtesy to request not being anonymously slandered by your professional colleagues.
If "Sally G." has a problem with me, I would appreciate it if she would do the right thing and bring it to my attention first rather than airing it to all the world. If I've done something to offend, it would be much easier to make amends if I knew what the offense was!
I hope anyone out there who's deduced my identity will at least meet me in person before making judgments of my character. I think that's a basic human courtesy.
I probably don't know anyone on this blog. But I do agree, what Sally G. did struck me as nasty (and hypocritical). Sadly, there has been a lot of ugliness in many forms on this year's blog. Perhaps this is symptomatic of the shifting labor market... ripe for sociological analysis.
9:45, I'd never form an opinion on someone based on reading something on this blog--and I purposely try to not ID people. I think a lot of us would feel the same way.
Last year, the discussion on this blog was uniformly polite and supportive. Compared to the vicious, ugly id on display on the job market blogs of other disciplines, sociology was an oasis of sanity. The feeling was one of, “well, we’re not all ‘superstars,’ but that is ok, and we hope that all do well and find a job that they are happy with.” What a difference a year makes! Let's see... Affirmative Action? Check. Dissing the “animals and society” crowd (the guy who studies rats with wings)? Check. Envious invective launched against the "stars" of the market? Check. "Qualitative" vs. "quantitative" like it wuz 1987? Check. All we need is a mention of Hitler/facism* and we can stick a fork in this blog...
*...Or - following special ‘sociology rules’ for when blogs jump the shark - a visit from any blogger who works in Evanston, IL
3:06 - I don't think anyone here would try and deduce someone else's identity, especially not from a mean-spirited comment (at least I would hope not). I don't know who you are or how you deduced that you were the subject of the comment, but I encourage you not to take it personally since none of us know who you are (if you can follow that...no wonder my dissertation writing gives me headaches...). I can think of a handful of people the "Sally" post might have refered to, or it could have just been BS meant to be mean.
In any case, to everyone who is doing well on the market: good job!!!
I'm a blog regular and I am pretty convinced that the caustic comments are not from people who are actually on the job market or who are a part of this blog community. They seem to pop up out of nowhere and are not followed-up on.
I think some of the discussion about affirmative action was productive dialog. I recall people expressing admiration for the job candidate who did ethnographic work on pigeons, and appreciation that top schools were interviewing a candidate with unusual research interests. The blog has not been entirely hostile.
That being said, there have been some comments made out of line. My advice: ignore them.
I'm glad that person spoke up. I think it was very easy to figure out from the slander who the candidate was. I certainly did, and I thought it was awful.
I could tell who Sally G was calling out, and it wasn't nice. We live in a small world. Take a trip amongst dept websites' "on the market" link and you can figure these things out pretty quick.
I've tried to get people to play nice, but it seems the pressure of the market is too great. Sigh.
I thought most people on here were rather impressed with the pigeon fellow. His work sounds awesome and interesting (unlike many a dissertation). Personally, I think he deserves all the invites (and offers) extended to him. Gosh, if I were interviewing for the same position, I would practically just tell the search committee to give it to the pigeon guy. Practically.
okay, i admit i was too lazy to bother looking up who the slandered person might be. if the rest of y'all did, i take your word for it.
(but i would encourage people in the future not to try and deduce identities - it only empowers the malicious people)
my original sentiment that ANYONE landing interviews should be encouraged and not insulted still stands. that goes to pigeon-guy, slandered superstar, whomever.
Karl, i think all the regulars here have appreciated your pleas for civility even when they have been ignored by people looking to pick an argument. I have :)
I'm as clueless as CPL, and have no idea who "Sally G" was slandering, nor do I care. I don't think most of us would take such comments seriously, so do not worry, whoever you are. I have found the blog to be mostly supportive and insightful, and I really wouldn't put the discussions about affirmative action or even the qual/quan divide on the same plane as the handful mean-spirited comments.
When I read that comment, I was concerned that it had "crossed the line" and thought about perhaps deleting it. I really prefer not to have to censor this blog unless there are really really blatant and offensive things being said. I am, however, happy to see the supportive responses on your behalf (I, for one, wish you and all the rest of us the best of luck!).
I agree that overall our community is (mostly) supportive and friendly--let's all try to keep it that way!
As offers start to be listed in the Wiki, I was wondering what salaries for Soc are normal at everything from Top 10 R1s to elite SLACs to CCs. Thanks.
Here is the link if you want to know the average salary at the different levels of particular universities and colleges.... http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/aaupresults.php
Hi 9:04. Thanks. But, my problem with the AAUP has always been that it is of ALL disciplines. Econ and Sciences tend to get way more than Soc so it's tough to say from AAUP stats where Soc falls.
at our mid-elite R1 we pay in the low 70s to new asst. profs. It will be a huge range, though, depending on where you are and what kind of school it is. I'd say from a low of about $55K to a high in the low 80s for superstars with multiple offers from top schools.
Our "top school" (apparently now ranked 3rd by some sources) is a state school and hence all salary information is public.
New assistant profs. make 40's to mid-50's. After 4-5 years or so, if they land some grants and do well, they look to be making in the 50's and 60's. We have some tenured people who are only a couple years past tenure making in the 80's. We top out around 150K for a senior endowed chair. Our most recent senior hires have come in around 100K.
You can look this information up for most, if not all, state schools. The librarian who found the records for me told me that the faculty salary listing book was one of the most requested reference books in the library!
If you are negotiating salary I would suggest you look up salary information for the school you are negotiating with and comparable places. If you have multiple offers, first pour a 40 on the curb for those of us who don't. Then do some research on salaries at both schools. And always: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate! No school with withdraw their offer because you ask for a higher salary. They may tell you that they won't give you a higher salary, but they still want you.
I am still 1 year away from applications (and hopefully, negotiations) but I've already been researching salaries and other negotiables. i also make discreet enquiries to friends with recent appointments - oftentimes they will volunteer their offers/negotiations.
the negotiation advice is critical - oftentimes women, especially, fail to negotiate. we've gotta change this!
I heard that part of the negotiating package should include--in addition to salary--other things like: (a) research start up grants, (b) time off teaching, and (c) summer funding/support. Am I missing other important things on this list?
I've been wanting to ask this question for a while, regarding negotiating. Can international students negotiate things related to sponsoring work visas, U.S. residency applications etc (in terms of speed, paying for the process etc)?
10:56 - these shouldn't be issues to be negotiated: if you are offered the position, the university will sponsor your work visa, end of story. In many cases, around the time of your 3rd year review they will suggest changing your visa status to permanent residency and will help you through that paperwork.
YES! There was a recent NYT article about how women tend not to negotiate job offers and therefore end up at a significant disadvantage earnings-wise over the course of their careers. At the same time, women who do negotiate are perceived as overly aggressive by employers while men who negotiate in the exact same way are seen as confident.
I wanted to thank everyone for the lively discussions and insights. I'm going on the job market next year and have 2 interrelated questions. First, how much do single-authored publications in non-sociology journals count (i.e. environment, IR, Asian studies), if at all, in terms of getting a job. Second, has anyone talked to their faculty about working abroad and then trying to come back? I focus on East Asia and would like to work there for a few years to continue my research, language learning, etc but am worried that I won't be able to come back.
Also, a note about the recent productivity ranking posted earlier. It had Cornell as 4th, Cornell has 2 soc programs (Sociology in Arts+Sciences and Development Sociology in Ag+Life Sciences) as well as a number of sociologists in ILR and other depts (thus the multiple Cornell job listings this year). Given the ranking's methodology, it's clear that a schools' listing is not based solely on sociologists in the sociology program. Thanks again for the great advice.
I have been told that publications in non-sociology journals are of marginal benefit, but it varies. If you publish in a physics journal, that's not going to mean much! But if your work is cross-diciplinary, and you are publishing in well-regarded non-soc journals, that it is probably going to help.
the issue it comes down to is whether the work you are publishing is sociological in nature. If not, it is not especially relevant. If it is, you may be asked why you elected to publish in a non-soc journal.
This did come up with me as I have published in a top policy journal. The article is clearly sociology, although the topic is policy-relevant. I explained that I was using sociological theories to speak to an existing body of literature in the policy field that sociologists may not be familiar with. That seemed to go over well with a department that emphasized cross-discipline work, and less-well at a different department.
At the end of the day, however, you can't change where you've already published. The one consistent piece of advice you will hear is: publish in a top sociology journal whenever possible. Beyond that, its hard to know how much benefit one type of publication has over another.
I know of a person who got an interview and subsequent offer from a top 5 department, and this person had 0 accepted publications at the time. I belive 1 under review at the time. This person got some good interviews because of reference letters and connections from chair of dissertation committee.
7:32: I have a book chapter but no journal pubs, peer-reviewed or otherwise. I've gotten quite a bit of interest from more teaching-oriented schools (4 phone interviews, 2 campus interviews, and at least 1 other indication of interest). I applied really widely, and I'm broadly trained with good teaching experience. Some schools are moving so slowly, it seems... I wouldn't lose heart yet. Good luck.
7:32- For these last few responses, I guess it depends where you want a job. However, I would avoid going on the market without peer-reviewed publications. The market is such a huge time sink and emotional roller coaster that I don't think it's worth even testing unless you're really ready to be on it. Peer-review is the standard in the field for evaluating our work, and most of these schools (at least research universities) depend on it to evaluate candidates.
I don't begrudge anyone their interviews, but it is very strange to me that some people are getting interviews without journal publications. After my experience this year, having a few top publications but no interviews, I would say that the job market is such an incredible crap shoot that you should just go on it whenever you want. It will be a lot less painful to get rejected if you can at least say to yourself that the reason is that you don't have any journal publications. And if you get interviews without journal publications, all the better. Seriously, people have posted here about candidates getting interviews at R1's without having journal publications. It happens. And other people with good publications can get no interviews anywhere. There are likelihoods involved, but they don't seem nearly compelling enough to make someone avoid the market in a given year.
10:34 and, to a lesser degree, 10:48, I waited a few hours to respond, hoping that if I read your posts later they would seem different in tone. Didn't happen. It sounds as if there are only a handful of schools good enough for you, and that applicants and publications that haven't earned your approval are beneath you too, to the degree that if these lowly applicants are able to find a job, it's a miracle - a freak of luck. A lot of smart people put in years of hard work to earn their degrees and to become well-rounded enough to be attractive job candidates on more than one front. Please don't discount that. You don't have to be snobby to be a good sociologist or a good candidate.
i didn't pick up on any snobbery in those posts but snobbery or not, anyone in the reality-based community must be aware that it's extremely difficult to get a job without a pub in a peer-reviewed journal. I would think that the only exceptions are people who: a) come from a top department; b) have a "famous" mentor vouching for them; c) have a topical dissertation; and d) can point to evidence suggesting that they'll have pubs soon.
That said, it does happen, and if you think you have a shot and don't mind going through all the work and heartache of the market, go for it. But I think you're probably better off waiting until you get some publications.
can anyone with access to the Chronicle of Higher Ed summarize the findings of this story:
New Study Calls for 'Paradigm Shift' in Social-Science Graduate Education
By RICHARD BYRNE
Doctoral education in the social sciences requires a "paradigm shift" that takes into account significant changes in the job market and uncertain early career prospects, according to a new study that tracked the experiences of recent Ph.D.'s in six social-science disciplines.
it's behind their paywall, and i don't have a sub. just curious what they said for the discussion here.
Doctoral education in the social sciences requires a "paradigm shift" that takes into account significant changes in the job market and uncertain early career prospects, according to a new study that tracked the experiences of recent Ph.D.'s in six social-science disciplines.
A report on the study, "Social Science Ph.D.'s—Five+ Years Out," will be published today by the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington's College of Education.
The study surveyed more than 3,000 recent Ph.D.'s in anthropology, communications, geography, history, political science, and sociology about their education and early career experiences.
The investigators' recommendations in the report focus largely on creating awareness of the changes in the job market and setting up structured avenues for career development within Ph.D. programs.
"Career preparation," they write, "should begin at the beginning of a doctoral program."
Late-Blooming Doctorates
While the study found that most of those who receive a Ph.D. in the social sciences do eventually find full-time jobs in their respective fields, many struggle in the period immediately after earning their doctorates.
The researchers found that only 42 percent of those surveyed had obtained a tenured or tenure-track position six months after attaining their doctorate. The proportion rose to 50 percent after one year, and reached 75 percent only three years after receiving a Ph.D.
The study also found that while the job market remains tilted toward academe, a growing number of Ph.D.'s in the social sciences find work outside universities. While approximately two out of every three Ph.D.'s eventually become professors, 20 percent of those surveyed now hold positions outside of academe.
"It's a myth that all those who earn a doctorate in the social sciences become professors," said Maresi Nerad, director of the center and the principal investigator on the study. "It's also a myth that the career path is straight and smooth."
Elizabeth S. Chilton, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, was one of those surveyed for the study. She received some preliminary data from the study last year and has used some of those findings in her role as chair of the anthropology department at Amherst.
She said that based on her experiences and those of her colleagues, the report was correct in "acknowledging the changing nature of doctoral education and the job market."
In particular, Ms. Chilton said, she was not surprised by the struggles freshly minted Ph.D.'s in the social sciences have in finding full-time positions. If departments "are not looking pretty precisely for what you're doing," Ms. Chilton said, "it can take some time."
Educating for a Changing Market
The new study also found that while recent Ph.D.'s drew continuing value from the training they received in their respective programs (and the doctoral dissertations that they wrote), they also felt that the graduate educations they received did not sufficiently prepare them in areas in which proficiency was needed to cope with the changing job market in the social sciences.
Recent Ph.D.'s were largely satisfied with the academic rigor of their programs, with 66 percent of respondents ranking their programs as "excellent" in that area. The report also said that even among Ph.D.'s who took jobs outside of academe, 22 percent used specific knowledge relating to their dissertation "often" in their jobs, while 27 percent used it "sometimes." (Among those who chose to pursue a career in academe, the respective numbers were 54 percent and 32 percent.)
Yet the recent Ph.D.'s surveyed also criticized important aspects of their preparation for careers, whether inside or outside of academe.
For instance, despite a renewed emphasis on teaching in academe, only 53 percent of those surveyed said that they had been offered formal instruction in teaching or formal supervision of their teaching.
Recent Ph.D.'s also felt that their programs did not prepare them sufficiently in other key areas. While 66 percent of respondents rated "writing and publishing" skills as very important in their current jobs, only 35 percent of those same respondents rated their training in that area as "excellent." There were similar gaps in other areas of training. While nearly 83 percent of respondents ranked skills in presenting knowledge in their field as "very important," only 38 percent rated their program's training in that area as "excellent."
Ms. Nerad said she was surprised that teaching preparation had not improved more. She added that such findings suggest that while current graduate education in the social sciences is adequate, students "will best flourish when they learn and use all the skills necessary to a career." She also noted that the study demonstrated that "there are misconceptions about what skills and competencies are required for jobs outside and inside the university."
Women's Roles Explored
Another key finding in the survey was that despite major gains for women within academe in the social sciences, serious gender disparities remain in terms of employment and job satisfaction.
"Compared to men," the investigators write, "women doctorate holders in the social sciences were more likely to leave faculty positions, less likely to be coupled, more likely to forgo or postpone having the children they wanted, less likely to be geographically mobile, and generally experienced more work-family conflict."
For instance, the study notes that while "59 percent of partnered men reported their partner had moved with them to accommodate career advancement ... only 42 percent of coupled women pulled their partner with them to make a job move."
The study was supported with money from the Ford Foundation. The report will be available on the University of Washington center's Web site.
9:40, Somehow I'm not surprised that you didn't pick up on the snobbery. I think the (several) schools showing interest in me must live with me in the non-"reality-based world". Perhaps you should straighten them out; clearly they need your help. The Chronicle article was fascinating. Thanks, poster. I think it shows the need for a more well-rounded approach to training. The journal-pubs-as-only-measure-of-job-market-adequacy model seems to be too eggs-in-one-basket. Why not train us to do multiple things well? That's what we'll have to do once hired. Also, I think as students we have a responsibility to size up where our departments might not be providing what we need so that we can devise ways of training ourselves.
I am "one-of-those" who is on the market with out a peer-reviewed article but with one under review and a few in the works. I have been very happy with the market this year and really much more pleased than I expected to be. I did not apply to any research 1's but instead SLAC's and so far I have had 10 phone interviews, 4 campus interview requests (2 of which I have committed to and/or already been to), and atleast 2 informal "we-are-pretty-sure-we-will-invite-you's" so I would say don't hold off just because you do not have a pub. Test out the market and see what happens. I should also mention that it isn't as if I am interviewing at horrible places, all have master's programs!
But to also be frank, I (1) come from a pretty damn good department, (2) have excellent references who are well known and well placed, (3) have more teaching experience than some regular faculty with excellent evals, and (4) have a great portfolio which I submitted to every position I applied for.
So when you do not have pubs, emphasize your strengths. If you are a great teacher-scholar with potential for pubs (some in the pipeline), go for it and try your best.
I got some of the same advice about waiting, but it seems that I am doing just fine now....So don't give up or despair....
Have confidence in yourself and be sure that comes across in your materials. If you doubt yourself, others will too.
I'm posting here b/c more people read it...Does anyone have a sense of salaries for some of the research places? Urban Institute, Child Trends, Rand, Mathematica, Public Policy Institute of CA, Alan Guttmacher, etc?
Most research places are (understandably) in cities, and the cost of living scares me, so I'm curious if these places pay well.
For 7:04am, this is 10:48am from the prior day, the one you think is a snob. I applied to 36 programs, including some without graduate programs, and others that are way down all those rankings. It seems like it was easier for you to assume I was a snob, based on no evidence, than to accept that there is a high degree of randomness in the job market, for which there is a wealth of evidence.
I recognize that I'm probably in the minority. But you at least have to let me be a little bitter about being so unlucky. I think my bitterness came off as snobbery to you.
I'm amazed when folks pose questions, but then start mud-slinging when people respond with reasonable responses they don't want to hear.
Everyone knows publications are important. Peer-reviewed publications are most valued. If you have your heart set on a top R1 job, then you need a publication or two (or three)...or at a minimum, an R&R somewhere that "matters".
If you don't have something in print after 5 to 7 years of graduate school, I would worry about being under the tenure gun at a top R1, where the standards can be crazy high. The first couple years at a new school may not be your most productive.
If your sights are set on a SLAC or even R2 school, the expectations may be somewhat lower regarding publications, as these folks generally care more about teaching and other activities. When I started my job at a SLAC, one of the senior folks told me I already had enough publications (ie, 3 or 4 ranging in significance) for tenure here. I was shocked but have grown to be OK with it. :-)
Hi. This is 7:04/7:28 again. I'd like to apologize for my earlier snippiness. I realized after posting the second time that if I'd had to sign my name I would have spoken much more diplomatically, as 7:51 did. I think what I was reacting to was what I perceived as lack of acknowledgment that decisions might be based on multiple factors rather than just the one, and also of the hard work and painstaking skills acquisition by others like me who have tried to develop themselves in several different ways. I will do a happy dance at my first journal pub - because I agree that it is a great step - as I did at my other pubs and my teaching evals and the gratifying response to my efforts to achieve broad training. I don't come from a top 20 school, and I don't have a famous advisor, and RA opportunities were few and far between here, so I made the most of what I have, and it's serving me well on the job market. I don't want my success in that regard discounted, because it's the result of conscious effort and a whole lot of hard work. But I also shouldn't have been so sarcastic with you all. I'm sorry.
Re the debate on "what counts" for one to have a successful run on the job market. It intrigues me that we talk about "the job market" as though it is a unified whole. I think it is more correct to talk about job markets, in the plural; and the indicators of preparation, interest, and potential success for each are very different. What will get you a job at a state college (a lot of teaching experience and a broad range of interests) may undermine your candidacy at a top R1, and vice versa. The problem, I think (in addition to the obvious institutional issues—too many job seekers, most of whom are ill prepared to face multiple markets) is one of matching of skills, "markers of success", and aspirations. The ones who don't do so well and are/or most upset by outcomes are those whose aspirations are not supported by their CVs--want an R1 job but have insufficient publications, want out of the rat race of R1 but don't have sufficient teaching experience. (And, BTW, I’m not discounting “luck” here—this comes from one of this year’s job market casualties!)
Re 8:00 am As is usually the answer, there is substantial variation. RAND pays fairly well, over 80K definitely and substantially more depending on other offers, etc. Although sociologists probably make less than economists. And if you are really asking about the post-doc that pays less--about 50K.
In contrast, some of the DC policy places pay much less. I'm not sure about the specifics of each of the places you mentioned but several other similar D.C. organizations were in mid-50s range when I was on the market 2 years ago.
Re 8 am, I worked for one of these organizations prior to starting my PhD (I had a soc sci masters degree from my "earlier life"), and they paid me $50,000+ without a PhD, so the starting salary for PhDs would be at least $60,000.
I posted the original question about going on the market without pubs. I asked because I currently have none, and I am planning to go on the market next year. I am at a top-5 school, but I don't really have any good network connections or informal pipelines that could help me. So...
I am trying to make some decisions about where I should focus my efforts in the next 6-9 months: work on the one dissertation chapter that has potential to be published in a top journal (knowing it probably won't be accepted by the time i hit the market), work on a paper that is very close to finished that has publication potential in a lesser journal (probably could get published sooner), get some teaching experience (I have never taught), or get involved in a major project with my adviser that could result in several very good pubs but not for a couple years (but could improve my network channels). I feel like I have a lot of things going right now and I need to do some triage to get ready for next year or I'll end up with a cv filled with halfway-done papers!
I didn't mean to imply anything about what types of positions I think are good or not. If you have any advice, please assume I am willing to apply anywhere!
2:26, you should work on all of those projects. At once. Put the most effort in your dissertation chapter, but you really have to spread the rest of your effort around to get lots of irons in the fire. Being on the TT is a constant time management struggle, but you have to have lots of things going to get anything published. For instance, my colleague who just got tenure tries to have 4-5 things under review at all times. Obviously you're not there yet, but you should aim for working toward that.
When we think about what counts on the job market, there seems to be general agreement that peer-reviewed journal articles (particularly ASR/AJS/SF) matter. But, as has been pointed out, what about non-research focused schools?
Clearly, SLACs and others care about teaching, but what counts as sufficient or impressive teaching experience? Any thoughts or experiences to share?
I'm curious how people are weighing the (potential) difference in quality of life that accompanies the high tenure requirements at top-R1s? I've applied at both R1s and R2s, but am inclined to take an R2 offer over an R1, favoring quality of life and a higher probability of receiving tenure over (potentially temporary) early-career prestige and access.
5:48: I think this is all personal preference. I'm like you (and have chosen to pursue teaching-focused jobs), but I do have friends whose main goal is to do big-time research, and for that you need the resources (money, space, grad students and release time) that an R1 provides.
as i've posted before and probably will again... whatever your options, go to the place where you feel that you are best positioned to do YOUR work (whatever combination of things that is). when all is said and done you will be judged as an independent scholar (which doesn't necessarily exclude collaborative work), and gain a tenured slot at a place that best suits you. maybe it will be your first employer, maybe not, but 'likelihood of tenure' has landed lots of people in departments that never suited them well... don't teach 3 or 4 courses/semester just to get tenure, do it because you love to teach! don't go to an R1 for prestige, go because you want to develop your research! that QOL!
I think I may not have been specific enough in my original post - I wasn't trying to compare research-focused and teaching-focused positions. I certainly agree that the choice between them is a matter of preference and fit.
What I meant to ask about was choosing AMONG research-focused institutions. All have some level of resources (grads, space, etc.) and encourage and reward research. But, there seems to be wide variation in the tenure expectations between top R1s and lower top tier/upper 2nd tier research schools. With the high expectations at the top schools, even for the best researcher, there's still a lot of uncertainty in tenure, and I know many of these programs hire multiple Asst Profs with no intention of tenuring all of them. But, a good researcher should be able to do good work at a lower-status institution too, and at the same time being at such a place seems to reduce tenure uncertainty.
So, to grossly oversimplify things, I suppose what I'm wondering is, why would someone choose to go to a top-R1 if not for the higher pay & status? And is that higher pay/status really worth the trade-off in higher tenure uncertainty and (potentially) lower quality of life?
5:24 here. i can only speak for myself... hundreds of covariates notwithstanding, i find a correlation that approximates this: the more 'certain' tenure is at a given institution, the less resources (tangible and intangible) are available to support my research. higher pay, institutional status and all forms of other capital can help a developing career, and one that increases the options of landing a tenured spot in an institution and location that will provide QOL on your own terms... some of the top scholars i know did not get tenure at their first big R1 position, but it paved the way to another great position for them...
Take this with a grain of salt, as I am primarily looking at SLAC.
One of my (well-known) profs has kept telling me that I should take the highest prestige position possible, as it is much easier to move "down the ladder" (from an R1 to an R2 to a SLAC) later, but it will keep your options open.
An important QOL factor for me is the degree of politics in a department, so I would not take any R1 position that was characterized by animosity. However, given the choice of an R1 and R2 where there was an equal sense of collegiality, then I think the extra resources, R1 researchers to collaborate with, and social capital would be enough to pick the R1. Especially if you work well under pressure, then the R1 will give you that extra boost when it comes time for you to relocate (or perhaps just negotiate for a higher salary).
Re: Quality of life issues. I get that a high-prestige first job opens up numerous possibilities even if one were not to get tenure. But no one seems to be discussing the implications of picking up and moving. In my mind, you’re moving not only from a "job"—you’re also having to heave behind a life that one would presumably set up in the precious few hours off the job. That can be a HUGE deal, especially if you’re at a place for a substantial time. I’m dreading moving from the place where I’ve been to school, because in the process of getting my degree my spouse and I have also had kids and forged deep friendships and social networks that are really define our quality of life. I guess I envy those of you who feel they can just pick up and go, family in tow or not.
sure, all these things matter differently for different people... family, friends, climate, familiarity, setting, etc.... 5:35 already acknowledged that narrowing the discussion was to "grossly over-simplify" and 7:40stipulated "hundreds of covariates notwithstanding."
Just another opinion - some lower-tier research universities are desperately trying to raise their status. And since they can't make senior faculty up their output, they do it on the backs of junior faculty. So, at some of these R2s, the tenure requirements are high, AND faculty teach higher course loads with fewer resources.
Don't assume that tenure is more assured at a lower-tier school. Make sure you ask about promotion and tenure expectations at interviews. I was surprised to learn that more than one school combined a 3-3 load with expectations for at least 6-8 sole-authored, peer-reviewed articles by tenure.
5:35 here again - It looks like there's also a fair bit of variation in what people might consider high vs. low tenure requirements. 10:48 mentions a place with a 3-3 load that expects 6-8 pubs. That was more or less what I've been told at the lower tier schools I've visited, but I thought that was fairly reasonable. By high requirement, I was thinking more like 12-15 pubs, which is awfully difficult given the randomness of the review process, even if one is only teaching 1-1, 1-2, or 2-2. I suppose some might find that kind of pressure stimulating, but I imagine I'd find it draining and anxiety-inducing. Not to mention, it would make it difficult to find the time to put down any of the other social stakes that 9:24 is talking about.
5:35: I think it's important not to overlook resources. It's not just a teaching/research trade-off. I wanted to go somewhere that facilitated research in a manner comparable to my graduate program--a place that had site licenses for all the software I use or may need, data licenses, free copies/printing, standalone printers, office equipment that works, competent and responsive IT staff, grant support, etc. I think these types of day-to-day things are often overlooked, particularly by those who've become accustomed to them in grad school.
If you know how to publish with few resources, you may be fine, but anyone who has been spoiled at a well-stocked R1 will definitely want to find out whether the tools for his/her job are readily available at the new job. 6-8 sole or first-authored pubs with 3-3 teaching (depending on new preps and class sizes) may be very difficult if you get there and find out they don't have a site license for any of the software you use, and no one is particularly motivated to help you purchase it. Even in resource rich departments, it can take awhile to get up and running.
You know yourself best, so just make an inventory of what you'll need in terms of resources. Compare that to what they offer, and make sure you are comfortable that you can meet (or exceed if you end up not liking the place) their requirements with those resources. This is true even at an R1. While there is a strong correlation between expectations and resources to meet those expectations, you definitely don't want to end up someplace with high expectations and low resources (R1, R2, SLAC or otherwise).
If you get multiple offers, you may be able to negotiate to get more resources and/or start-up funds from your favorite lower tier place, which would allow you to have your cake and eat it too (at least in the short term).
3:09 again. Nope, not summer salary either (that was separate). I made the argument that I needed more to buy my own software licenses, to beef up my offered computing equipment, for research-related and conference travel, etc. It was a good deal, I know. I feel very lucky. They were much more willing to give me extra start-up funds than to increase the salary offer.
On negotiating - If I get an offer, I'll be negotiating a TT spousal hire (different department). To what extent should I assume this will reduce my ability to negotiate for other things like start-up costs and salary?
There seems to be a slight R1-bias on this discussion list. I attended a small, liberal arts college for my B.A. and am now finishing my Ph.D. at a large state university (my second one). I've noticed through these experiences that professors seem to be happier with their lives at small colleges (I know you can't generalize from 3 cases). Sure, there are fewer resources, but you often leave much of the political struggle and competition behind. I admire folks who make that choice (and for most it is a choice; SLAC's are not just the "junior varsity" of academia. They're institutions with different goals that attract different sorts of people). I've noticed that folks at the R1's are markedly less happy with their lives, despite being happier with their resources and compensation. SLAC's seem to be more collegial, friendly, and less stressful. What I'm trying to say is that resources, pay, and prestige don't mean everything.
1:14 - I completely agree and can speak from a N = 9 interviews, 5 of which were at research universities and 4 at SLACs. SLAC folks do tend to be slightly better balanced, happier (as happy as any academic, who strike me as more melancholy than my none academic friends) and value family time, hobbies etc more than do those at R1s, R2s. These are generalizations from a ridiculously small number of schools, but they are born out by stories I hear from others. Wasn't there a study by the Chronicle (possibly?) that indicated that those who measured the strongest in terms of levels of happiness were professors at community colleges?
I think the fact that the discussion on this list leaves out so much of what many of us consider very very important life factors - geographic desirability, political climate, friend and family ties, larger community support etc - says a lot about the priorities of many academics. One's research seems to outweigh so much else. That's not for me...I love my hobbies, reading for pleasure and hangin' with my friends and family. To the extent I can do those things and be an academic, great.
So yes, 1:14, there are those of us out here who pay attention to things besides pay and prestige, thank goodness.
actually, if you read through the blog this thread started specifically as a discussion in response to a question about R1 vs R2 departments (November 30, 2007 5:48 PM)... and it was acknowledged to be an over-simplified discussion for that purpose. to associate R1 with pay and prestige only to pit it falsely against SLAC as some bastion of QOL is silly. i have lots of perfectly happy and unhappy colleagues in all kinds of institutions...
i think the point that a lot of us keep making in a round-about way is that you will be happiest at an institution that fits your priorities. pretty simple.
i have a grad school friend whom i could not imagine being happy anywhere other than a top-5 department with the expectation to publish annually in a top journal because prestige is important to him/her (and there's nothing wrong with that!). i have another friend whose dream job is to teach at a BA-only small school because he/she just loves teaching and interacting with students as much as possible (also, nothing wrong with that!).
my priority is to be at a mid-level department with what i feel are reasonable tenure requirements because i don't want to move my family again.
it would be impossible for me, or anyone else, to give advice about what would be a better or worse situation for someone.
I just got my ASR and was really excited to see that THREE articles are sole-authored by grad students! Good work to those three, and I find it very encouraging to see that it is possible. That's just very cool.
(and double thumbs-up to ASR for publishing a qualitative ethnographic piece by a sole-author grad student too!!)
6:42- Yes, it makes it harder to negotiate things like salary when a spousal appointment is also in the works. But you should still ask for what you want. They just may not give it to you b/c they know they've given you the #1 thing on your list, presumably. It also makes it harder to leverage other schools' offers, if you have any, esp.if those schools don't have a great option for your spouse. But ask, ask, ask (without sounding like an ass...).
There was a discussion a while back about whether Social Problems has replaced Social Forces as the #3 journal in sociology and some folks felt that it was well-respected but not quite top-notch yet. So, here's my question:
I haven't seen any discussion of Social Science Research on this site. How well respected is it (beyond simply numerical rankings) and how much does a sole-authored publication help you get a job (at a lower-level research university or a small liberal arts college)? I've noticed that folks like Massey, Conley, etc. publish there pretty frequently. Any insights on SSR? Is it hurt by the fact that it's purely a quantitative journal?
Since the latest ASR issue has come up here...what do you think of including your marital status and the number of children you have in your bio at the end of the article? What's next, a list of turn ons and turn offs? Those would be equally relevant. Also, is it not a bit insensitive to all the women who don't get taken seriously after choosing to have kids? It's a bit of a celebration of the privileges of being male to put that in the bio. I don't really care, but does it strike anyone else as odd?
i actually hadn't noticed, but i don't read the bios past finding out whether someone is a grad student or not - and that's only because i feel happy whenever i see a grad student first/sole author.
having said that, i feel it is inappropriate to include personal information such as marital status or number of children in one's bio in a journal. the purpose of the bio is to provide interested readers with additional relevant information about an author to help the reader either 1) place the article in context with the author's other work, or 2) gain information about the author's credentials.
(a noteworthy tangent is how even when presenting research that is supposedly judged worthy of publication only on the merits of the work, we persist in presenting credentials and other symbolic evidence of merit relating to the author.)
including information about one's marital status or family structure implies that these attributes are credentials, which i find offensive. this serves only to further reify marriage and parenthood (fatherhood?). i further agree that these symbols have gendered meanings which have no place in academic sociology.
Well I looked up "biography" on dictionary.com and found this:
"n. a written account of another person's life"
Isn't one of the themes on this blog the fact that there's more to "a person's life" than professional accomplishment? Why does it offend you that someone puts something personal in their bio? Is it written anywhere in the ASR handbook that it should only be about the person's credentials? I've never seen that rule...
Also, just curious: do book dedications offend you too? ;-)
I put a "last updated" item at the top of the wiki. Please consider updating the time when you add an item to the wiki. This function works well on other wikis, and may make things easier in the case of further deletions. Just a thought.
ha! couldn't agree more 5:23... acknowledging, of course, that the vast majority of folks are making helpful and supportive contributions, for some this is becoming a proving ground for academic schmukitude....
6:36 here - Someone asked a question about including marital status in journal bios. I answered with my opinion because it seemed to be a valid question for sociologists to discuss.
You don't have to agree with me, but please don't roll your virtual eyes and label my opinion as "schmukitude" or "snarky" without even engaging the issue.
Well, I typically don't get involved in blog fights, but I've got something for both sides of this debate. First, I can vouch for the asr author who listed his wife and kids. He's a nice guy. Second, male privilege is real and need not be placed in quotation marks when typed.
Geez... Leave the guy alone. I think it's nice. Why discourage it? Are we all supposed to act like we don't have families now? The only way we can overcome it is to do it more. And the more people do it (especially women), the more accepted it will be.
Me again...to clarify, I did not intend to say anything personally about the individual who included personal information in his journal bio. I know him also, have for a while, and apologize if it was taken by him or anyone else as a personal attack. I'm pretty sure the author in questions knows better than to take my comments as a personal attack! I intended only to state my position on the practice in general.
My position was, and still is, that it does not belong in an academic journal. Publishing one's research IS different than the bio you would read about an author on a book jacket or even on a personal/department website. It is my personal opinion that only professionally-relevant information belongs in a journal bio. I also think that it would be taken differently if written by a woman than a man. Lisa, your point is well-taken that the best way to overcome the gendered aspect would be for more people to acknowledge their families. However, I wonder if that would imply a judgment about those without spouses or children?
Just to be clear, my comments before and now are addressing the practice and not anyone who chooses to do it. I felt that the snarky (to borrow a word levied against me) backlash against me for presenting my position was excessive.
"addressing the practice and not anyone who chooses to do it." sorry, but you can't have it both ways. besides, the "professionally-relevant" information you wish to extract from the real person is every bit a collection of abstractions for "reification" as marriage or parenthood. because people share this information does not imply anything (credentialism, male privelege, whatever...). i for one would like even more personal bio on the people who have authored a given piece... it has no impact on how i receive their academic work whatsoever...
"because people share this information does not imply anything"
Symbolic interactionism? Yes, it DOES imply something.
I would prefer to have articles published with no bios at all. I really like the idea of my peers reading a piece of research and not knowing whether it was written by a well-known senior scholar or a grad student. But if they're going to be published, we should recognize that they do communicate something and imply things. Thats true whether the bios tout one's spouse or one's academic title.
I don't know where I stand on whether family status belong on a personal bio, but as a mother I know I would never include that info. Just don't want it circulating, although yeah, I do feel like being able to do anything is like having a hand tied behind my back, being a primary caregiver. So I'm reading the response as saying the very confidence to include that info without being concerned about reprecussions is a male privelege. I should add that I'm so concerned about concealing my family status that when schools have called to schedule an interview I'd wiggle and squirm and ask for a couple of days to figure out whether a particular date works for me without being able to explain that I first need to make sure that my husband, who travels often for his work, is in town. I don't have the privelege to just say, sure December 7th is just perfect.
I'm finding this discussion very interesting. I find myself siding more with the folks who argue that personal info isn't really relevant in these professional bios. I'm more interested in professional info, so that I understand how the piece fits into one's overall research agenda. Family info is about as relevant as info about their hobbies, pets, etc. I'm not offended if people include the info; I just don't find it useful.
I think the line between personal and professional biographical information is blurrier than this discussion might suggest. Yes, understanding how a piece fits into one's overall research program is useful. But, I can imagine many papers I've read where knowing the authors hobbies, or side-lines of work, or cities they've lived in before would be nice. There are also plenty of academic couples out there whose work influences one another - how could it not - but because they have different last names, and possibly are at different institutions, the relationship is often not obvious.
I think I'd probably agree that personal information might not fit in hard science journals, where its less obvious how marital status or hobbies might directly influence one's research. But in sociology, and the rest of the social sciences & humanities, they play a huge role.
My position is that this kind of personal info does not belong in a bio, but that it's not such a huge deal if it winds up there. You can (and should) acknowledge the support of your family in the acknowledgments footnote. That sends the unambiguous message that you are grateful.
To put it in the bio section is about as relevant as saying you always order pizza on fridays. it also can be interpreted as a boast, like saying you've had to work a second job, but still manage to publish this fine piece of scholarship. but boasts generally have the opposite effect, and I just don't think this is worth our energy.
My objection to the personal 'bio' information is the way it reinforces heteronormativity (and heterosexual privilege).
Would the top journals publish a bio that read something like:
"The author lives with his partner, Jeff. They've been together 20 years but because of the state they live in, cannot legally marry, though they are deeply ambivalent about entering into the institution of marriage. They also share two cats, an impeccable taste in interior design, and occasionally enjoy sex with people outside their relationship."
i understand you want to be provocative, but i don't recall reading about anyone's belief's about marital regulations (many married couple's fully support same-sex marriage), and certainly no details about sexual networks in bios. is there something that would preclude you from stating that you have enjoyed a (_____) relationship with your partner (insert name) for X# years? hell, marriage doesn't even presume that it is a loving relationship! perhaps such a bio only helps to question heteronormativity? should one be required to identify and denounce all forms of privilege in every bio? how about the race and class background and the potential unfair benefits bestowed upon them on their path to higher education?
I understood the norm for biographical entries for journal articles to be career-related information. Where the person was trained, where they work now, other areas of research interest, etc.
The place to acknowledge the support of family, friends, colleagues, mentors, funders and reviewers is in the acknowledgments. But even there, the criteria for acknowledgment should be related to the production of the article. So, if your partner helped extensively by editing a draft or heavily commenting on it, then it seems reasonable to list the person. If my partner helped by doing ALL the domestic and emotional chores while I was writing the article, then that doesn't relate (directly) to the production of the piece. It does mean that I thank my partner personally -- we celebrate when the article is accepted for publication -- and that I sing my partner's praises to everyone we know.
Now, did you read the above paragraphs with gender, sexuality, marital or other bias? Think of me as the "Pat" character on Saturday Night Live (ca. 2000), and guess my status!
Hello all. Steve Vaisey here, the author of the controversial bio. A friend pointed me to this discussion, which, to be honest, I had to see to believe!
Let me clarify the thinking that led me to put that in the bio: I think people usually (but not always) use their bios as "ads" for themselves (i.e., "If you liked this paper, you'll LOVE the five other pieces listed here..."). That's always rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. So rather than write an "ad" I took the word "bio" at face value and thought, "What would someone who came into my office learn about me in 5 minutes?" Since it's quite unusual for a grad student to have four kids, it usually comes up when people see the pictures in my office, etc. So I figured I'd just put it in there, since it's a big (and fairly obvious) part of my life. I wasn't trying to make a statement.
I've been amazed at the response, however. I've gotten a bunch of emails saying things like "great job breaking the norm of obscuring your personal life," or "wow, what a brave thing to do." And so on. And given the discussion on this blog, there are clearly some people (for obvious reasons less inclined to email me!) that were bothered by it.
To be honest, both responses have been surprising to me. I didn't think it was a big deal either way. It does bother me, though, to have people passing judgments about the "appropriateness" of doing it, since obviously the ASR editors didn't care! It's one thing to say, "I wouldn't do it," and quite another to say, "You shouldn't have done it." (Incidentally, why do we "celebrate" breaking some norms but not others?) I for one would rather know more (rather than less) about authors' lives -- not for any instrumental reason, but simply because we all live together in a pretty small academic world. It's nice to get to know your neighbors.
One last thing: I hope no one thinks that somehow I'm celebrating an "advantage" by putting that info out there. I've been on a number of job interviews and I can tell you that the response to the fact that I have four kids is not uniformly positive! In fact, my only hesitation in putting that info in there was that it would HURT my professional image. But I decided to do it anyway because, hey, that's a really salient part of my life that everyone I know knows about.
I hope that helps provides a little Verstehen for people... :-)
Steve, Thanks for the post. We don't know each other, but I just want to congratulate you for doing so terrifically well on the job market. It sounds like you are cleaning up, and from what I hear about your CV and your research, you really deserve all these interviews and offers! I know not everyone responds well when people succeed, so I hope you're not getting a lot of flak (sp?) from disgruntled colleagues. And as a fellow parent, I'm glad you're open about your children.
This "leave your family out of it" attitude can also be taken to the extreme. In the department where I earned my Master's degree, the faculty let it be known that it was unacceptable to speak of your significant other around faculty, they were not invited to department pot-luck dinners, etc. for the most part, I couldn't even mention I had a spouse/partner. When a professor asked "How was your weekend? What did you do?" it was unacceptable to say "I went kayaking with my spouse. It was great." You had to say "I got a lot of work done. I read this interesting article by...." If a professor you were TA'ing for asked you to come in and meet on Sunday, you had to do it or you feared that faculty would stop investing in you. Even if you had something planned with your spouse/partner, you had to drop it.
The atmosphere was stifling and I hated having to hide my personal life. And, I know there are other departments like that. It seems that anytime we can strike back at academia's insistence that we give up our personal lives to become publication-machines, we should take the opportunity. Bravo, Steve.
I agree and support including family and children in a bio, and I defended this in an earlier post. However, it is a different thing to congratulate someone for "cleaning up" on the market. Presumably, some of the people being "cleaned up" are reading this blog. It's a stressful time for everyone, and many people who are "deserving" of interviews and offers will not get them.
And I think 9:26 is right -- it's probably better to keep the bio and job market issues separate. FWIW, I'm obviously grateful for the attention my research has generated, but I have a number of good friends whose experiences on the market have not been great.
And as much as it's in my interest to think otherwise, I'm NOT persuaded that these decisions are completely rational. I don't think they're random, certainly, but if you rewound the tape of history and let it run again, I don't think you'd get the exact same result. (Makes me think of Matt Salganik's work on cultural markets, which the Soc job market kind of is.)
thanks for clarifying your motives. i can appreciate the desire to shun the self-advertising format of most article bios. when i first saw the bio, i didn't think it was appropriate. your explanation has shown me that my initial strong opposition to including personal information in one's bio did not look far enough past the end of my own nose (or outside the realm of my own circumstances).
also, i found your posts and some other people's posts on the matter to be very insightful. it helps to expand my own thinking to hear well-reasoned and thoughtful perspectives, especially when they differ from mine on both sides. i do want to echo karl that words like heretonormativity and male privilege shouldn't be placed in sarcastic quotes or followed by profane dismissals.
i'm not sure that i'll include personal information in my bios in the future because i do think it would be more of a black mark against me as a single mother, but i admire steve's reasons for doing so and for taking the time to explain them.
the majority of places have contacted people by now, but jobs will continue to be posted and some places will continue to contact new candidates. if you are only interested in a top R1, than it is probably over for this year. a friend of mine was called for an interview at a SLAC last year in may, and she was offered the job a week after the interview.
Ok, it's only anecdotal evidence, but I had a friend last year who had something like 4 or 5 interviews after January 1 - including at R1s. While this may be anomalous, it is a least one data point...
Hang in there, folks, there are still jobs left! I got my R1 job in Feb several years ago, and currently know of places that still haven't filled their positions. After this week, things are on hold for most departments for the holidays, but you may still be contacted in January. Don't lose hope!
I think it's interesting that so many seem to be craving an R1 post. I have one and it's brutal. I'm not trying to be a downer, just to say that there are many jobs out there where you can do your work and live a life that may actually be even better than the coveted R1. Don't sweat it.
a question for the board - a friend asked me earlier today if there is a similar Wiki/rumor mill for marketing departments (since she thought there might be some carry-over from sociologists). I can't seem to find one, and so am asking if anyone knows if it exists? thanks!
i vote for moving the wiki. we can just link to the new one from the blog and the change in URL will be transparent to anyone who checks the wiki from the blog (as i'm guessing most of us do).
if alba thinks its a good idea. i feel like the wiki as it stands now is being rendered impossible to use by the loser who keeps messing it up.
Re: December 10, 2007 9:06 AM- this is reviving a conversation from 3 days ago, but I want to apologize for my hastily written note to Steve and to say that your criticisms are well taken. You're right that it's problematic to call someone's job market success "deserving," given all the strong applicants who don't get attention. I wrote my posting in an effort to say something positive-- I really don't like the snarky comments that sometimes get posted about people who are doing well on the market-- but clearly I should've chosen my words more carefully.
Coming from someone who fared poorly on the job market this year, I took no offense at your comment. I understand where you were coming from and did not take it that you were implying that folks who got no attention were "undeserving". After all, A=B does not mean invA=invB!
I think that everyone who has been successful on the market probably deserved it, as did many other people who were met with a different outcome. I took no offense.
I just want Steve Vaisey and the entire sociology community to know that even though I have never published in ASR, I have 3 lizards, a lot of mealworms, a nest of feeder cockroaches, a dog, some dying plants, oh and a child, too (Just in case anyone was interested in my personal bio.).
i'd like to ask for people's opinions about something, since i figure by now most of you have had some experience with the job market.
would you include information about press coverage of your research on your cv, in a cover letter, or not at all? i know that in the ASA newsletter there is a section highlighting media references to sociological research. does this make a difference to search committees? does it depend on the type of job?
Some people do include that stuff and have been successful on the job market, although I'm sure their peer reviewed articles were more impressive. It simply shoes that you have affected people outside of the sociological community. Your research mattered to someone other than an academic.
people who have received interviews or offers from SLACs, what type of teaching background did you have going on the market? How long had you been teaching and how much?
I have taught two courses independently and have been a TA for another six courses. However, it's probably advantageous that the two independent courses were stats and methods, which schools often have trouble filling.
I've taught a couple of classes independently as well as TAing for 2 others, both core courses. I also worked in our undergrad advising office for a year and taught a couple of different online courses. The online courses seem to have benefited me in my job search, as has my ability to teach stats. I applied obscenely widely and had good advice when creating my application materials. I'm seeing a lot more interest than I expected.
I too have had a lot more interest than I ever expected....and many are really good SLACs. I have taught four different courses (including stats) - one of which had never been taught in the department, as well as an online course...total semesters taught alone=8.
can anyone comment on the appropriateness or inapproriateness of asking for a "transition" day when traveling internationally for an interview? one school mentioned having a casual dinner with faculty on the day i arrive, which seems a bit daunting after 10 hours of traveling. could i ask for a flight the day before? or would that be terribly tacky?
12:47, based on my experience, you seem pretty lucky in your itinerary. a friend of mine had to give his job talk 1 hour after arriving on campus following a transatlantic flight. no time at the hotel at all! also, if it is the right place for you, the faculty may energize you more than you expect at dinner. it might be fun. i would just do it and show my flexibility. (unless, of course, you have a health or other reason to think this would be bad for you in particular.)
I figure I might show early for my interview and go to the job talk of the candidate before me , but I will probably go incognito , maybe even make him an offer he can't refuse so he doesn't take the job
So the level of faculty salaries has been discussed over in the Hires blog. It appears that the capitalist market, whatever that is, has decreed that academic salaries are low (though higher in some fields with more competition from industry for PhDs). It seems unfair that academics, with such specialized training-intense skills, earn so much less than people in quite a few specialized professions outside of academia (not always requiring as much training).
Clearly, individual job candidates can't do much to change them (department chairs will eventually say no to notably high salary requests). It occurs to me that this is exactly what unions are for. Does anyone know anything about how faculty unions work? Where they are and who they include? The tools they are willing to use? How well they work? What they tend to get, or not get? I know a bit about grad student unions, and at least some have negotiated for clear benefits. What about faculty?
Faculty unions exist at lots of schools, especially public universities in the North. In addition, some schools have chapters of AAUP that are actual unions - that is, recognized bargaining agents for faculty. At my institution, our faculty union includes full-time and adjunct faculty, and librarians. It works pretty well in terms of getting us regular raises of 4-5% per year.
I haven't seen the actual data, but from what I've heard anecdotally, faculty unions or faculty associations that act as quasi-unions get their members higher salaries and better benefits compared to their colleagues who work at universities without such unions or associations. Usually membership is mandatory. I'm really happy that I work at a university with an existing union. I would have no idea about how to get one started, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't help me get tenure to spend time on it!
Some states have laws prohibiting state employees (including public university profesors) from unionizing. It is my impression that states in the northeast and manufacturing midwest (MI, OH, IL) are more union-friendly that, say, the south.
That being said, I think faculty at my institution seem to be fairly compensated. The majority of tenured faculty make 80K - 120K with several over 150K.
It is an interesting question, whether workers should be compensated based on the work they do in their job or the work they did to achieve their credential. I have a hard time thinking we "deserve" physician-type salaries even though we spend as much time in school as a medical student does. Our work just isn't that important. The scholars who end up doing work that ends up being "important" seem to get paid very well through grants and such.
12:57, Yes! Thanks for breaking the silence. Do you all think that the search committees will begin moving again shortly after the new year, or closer to semester beginning?
I would guess that people will get moving again quickly after the 1st of the year. It is a good time to get things done before classes get started, and they don't want to lose out on candidates.
Hi all. Just found a neat Firefox add-on that will scan the wiki for you and highlight updates. There may be others who didn't know about it--hopefully it will be helpful. Find it here:
For visiting positions, do the departments/institutions tend to hire locals? I ask because I would imagine that with the possible costs associated with moving (for both the institution and the hired person), departments/institution would be more inclined to hire a VAP who lives near the area, rather than one who lives across the country. Is this the case?
Not necessarily--remember that many of these places have reputations that they want their VAPs to support. I know several people whose first positions have been as VAPs. Their positions were filled through a nation-wide search, and they had among other things generous support for moving costs.
I just came across an article from Footnotes in 2003 about soc postdocs (don't ask me how, just wish me luck finishing my dissertation). Its analysis is limited, but the author found that postdocs help medium- and long-term success (well, R1 success), even accounting for the prestige of the departments that people came from.
So I've decided to say no to the overwhelming flood of tenure-track interview invites that I'm sure are coming. And I'll pretend that most postdocs don't actually seem to be for people doing med soc.
Based on the information that we all have, has anyone pieced together which departments are getting their first picks and which departments are moving down the list or (the big question) continuing to interview?
My department (mid-level R1) interviewed 4 candidates. The first three declined offers. The fourth accepted the offer. If the fourth hadn't, they would have gone back into the pool.
I realize it's probably too early to tell, but does anyone have a sense of how a possible impending recession might influence the sociology job market?
I'm wondering especially about non-academic tracks...
The recession shouldnt affect our types of jobs. Most of the positions being hired for this year have already been approved. Non-academic research jobs should be even less at risk than faculty jobs. Think tanks, government research, market research, etc. all have plenty of funding.
I'm curious too about how an economic downturn will affect the academic job market. I wonder if anyone has any early sense about what kinds of hires their departments will be interested in making next year? I know some departments start talking about this stuff long in advance...
no way to know.... but whatever impact there is on the generation of tenure lines will likely be felt more at publicly funded institutions first and most...
At the same time, more people go to grad school during recessions, and generally the flagship state schools (Madison, UW, UNC, Michigan, Berkeley/UCLA) are a little more insulated from budget cuts (at least in terms of hiring faculty). So I'd predict more hiring at the big name public R1's but slowdowns at tier-2 places.
I think the big threat to our collective well-being is not this looming recession, but the rise of the adjunct. I once (naively) believed that faculty must have a natural opposition to the expansion of temporary positions, but I just got a job at a top-25 R1 and we use adjuncts like crazy. The TT faculty really like being able to dump the crappy courses on them, we don't get into a big fight when we hire new ones (I don't think we even have meetings about it), and I'm sure there is some luxuriating in the creation of second-class citizens.
Of course, the university loves their cost-effectiveness. There is pressure on universities to avoid having too many courses taught by grad students (i think US News penalizes them for this?), but I'm unaware of any similar pressure regarding adjuncts/VAPs.
Additionally, I'd bet that there has been a decline in research money brought in through soc. departments (certainly as a proportion, but perhaps even in real dollars), so there is less justification for TT lines. Today, the schools of public health, social work, and the interdisciplinary research centers (often health-focused) are the ones which bring in the money. And those soft-money researchers have to earn their keep or they're out, which also gives the university great flexibility.
On the plus side, the baby-boom generation is retiring in record numbers, so there will be TT jobs. But if other departments are like mine they'll hire less than 2 TT's for every 3 retirements, and I don't see any countervailing force to change that trend. Everyone wins, except the grad student (and in a coup de grace, adjuncts suck money out of the TA/RA pool).
I was just wondering about others' opinion on the 'rats with wings guy' as the 'star' of this year's job market. Please note that I have a decently paid TT job, so I am not speaking from the 'sour grapes' position. I am however very concerned that research on irrelevant, silly, even infantile topics is presented in fancy-sounding terminology and this is what our top schools consider to be desirable scholarship. I am seriously concerned that this is a sign of dramatic intellectual decline in our discipline and it will only contribute to its negative public image.
I share that concern, but I think that rats-with-wings-guy, if you had a conversation with him, would probably be able to answer the "so what?" question. Few people do research they think is meaningless and irrelevant just to get job/tenure. Instead, most people think the questions they ask are important for how we live. To what extent should we be asking only questions whose answers have the potential for solving social problems? To what extent should it be ok just to observe and record the social world? I don't have an answer to those questions, but I bet pigeon-guy would, and more importantly, I be he'd be able to explain why his research is indeed important.
12:27. You've GOT to be kidding me. Do you know anything about this research other than that birds play a part in the story? "Irrelevant," "silly," "infantile," "fancy-sounding terminology," "dramatic intellectual decline." No one who had actually READ the recent ASR article would describe the piece in this way. It's simply great work (not to mention highly relevant, serious, mature, conceptually subtle, and exemplary of high intellectual standards).
since when is this blog about questioning the intentions, integrity, and work quality of specific individuals known to have done well on the job market???
Plus, sociological investigation of human-animal relations DOES address social problems. That is, of course, unless you think that Michael Vick and dogfighting or global warming due to factory farming (and I could go on) are irrelevant and unproblematic to our social world.
The historical R-1 classification is no longer really used. Now colleges use the Carnegie classification. The first link is for the RU/VH = research university very high research productivity, and the second is for RU/H = research university with high research productivity. I am guessing the RU/VH are the R1s and the RU/H are the R2s.
To the Dec. question about the teaching experience of those getting SLAC offers. I assume this isn't typical, but I accepted a SLAC offer and I have only been a TA once. Never taught my own course, though I taught a wee bit before grad school. I am sharing this to argue that the job market does indeed seem unpredictable with a very large luck/fit/who knows what factor in terms of how hiring decisions are made. 'Apply widely' seems to be good advice....
The obsession with a particular person in this blog is troubling in two ways. First of all, this person has received some serious attacks regarding the quality of his work, his character etc. none of which he deserves or is able to address. Any person with a little sense of privacy would have been very distrubed to be a subject of such bitter exchanges on a public blog.
On the other hand, he and his work have received such a great deal of attention that many other young sociologists who are also very accomplished will never get any time soon.
So let's just leave him alone, shall we? For his own sake and ours!
8:52, I really think its less about HIM and more about the state of the field. That this much attention would be paid to research on birds, and much less attention is paid to research on poverty, racism, violence against women, etc. really upsets some people. This is much more a disagreement about what REALLY matters in society (and hence what sociologists should be researching) than about the quality of his work or his personal character.
That's c**p. I haven't posted about this at all yet, but it's not about that, because his research isn't simply "about birds." Okay, I base that on having read one article, plus a bit more about his work. Which I read because, it turns out, his work is actually related to mine, even though I don't do anything related to animals at all. Oh, and he's not the only one. I've read work of other people who probably belong to the ASA section on Animals and Society, or whatever it's called, and found their stuff really interesting and worthwhile too.
It is so easy to decide that other people are doing work that isn't worthwhile because they aren't looking at the problems you more easily name--it turns out, though, that there isn't really a shortage of worthwhile issues to look at it human social life. Turns out that there are a lot of ways that humans are interesting (or f**ed up, take your choice).
I think he's getting so much attention ON THESE BLOGS (yes, there have been a lot of other young sociologists getting attention out there in the actual job market) because someone came up with a very cool nickname for him. How can you beat "pigeon guy"?
karl, i ask myself the same question. it's like when you're on the bus and there are flashing red and blue lights out the window and you know you should just keep reading but you can't help peeking out the window to see what all the fuss is about. but i'm glad you're hanging around. nice to see some familiar (friendly) faces.
but i have learned that what really tripped me up this year was the lack of a cool nickname. when my postdoc is up and i go back on the market, i will make sure to do a better job on that front. my cv hall identify me as:
cxxxx "defender of sociology, freedom, and the american way" lxxxxxx
I think a bunch of us who have (and have had jobs) are still on the blog. It's sometimes a) fascinating b) funny c) depressing. But, beyond the entertainment value I like the fact that we are demystifying the job search process a little bit and creating some sort of community. Maybe next year we could get this thing running in a bulletin board format instead of a blog...
I agree, a board would be much better. And perhaps we could have a whole thread for trolls who want to post mean things about people. Although I suppose that might encourage their behavior; at least the rest of us could avoid it.
If you haven't seen it, the economists' job rumor board (google that and you'll find it) is pretty great. Not that I'm plugging economists.
Good to see that I'm not the only one sticking around.
Honestly, the job search requires so much time and energy, it is hard to turn it all off once you get to the finish line.
For job seekers, I'm not here to gloat. I don't even police the comments anymore to keep people from naming names. I'm just curious about how others are navigating such a confusing and opaque process.
I happen to know that Pigeon guy has read most of what was said about him on this blog and he finds it quite humorous that people are so intrigued or not. He works hard and deserves everything he receives. I challenge the haters to go read his work to realize that he's not writing about "birds." Stop hating and start reading.
This is a question for those of you who have accepted (or know anything about accepting) renewable contracts that are not lectureships.
what do you negotiate for?
Here's what I know to go after: 1- salary 2- course reduction in first year 3- computer with good replacement/service plan 4- moving costs
But what else? When you're not on the tenure-track but still carry the title of "assistant professor" (not lecturer or VAP), what else is up for grabs? 1- summer salary? 2- research funds? 3- travel funds? 4- funds to pay student RAs?
I figure that contract asst profs (is there already a better term?) will be doing the same work as t-t asst profs (ie. teaching, research, mentoring, service) but without the "job security" that goes with the t-t. Thus, I think I should try to go after as much as I can.
But I'm curious about others' experiences. Also, if you are a lecturer or a VAP and you have some experience scoring what you need to teach, travel, and research, please let me know about that, too.
This may be a little inappropriate for this forum - or at least a little off topic, but I am a new grad student trying to decide where to attend next fall - I was wondering if anyone had any info on some of the soft points of the University of Washington? I know that it is a well respected school, but I was hoping someone had some info on the department from a student's perspective.
I know nothing about U of Washington -- but I think you might try your question at the Chronicle of Education forums... there are thousands of people online in those forums.
Alternatively, you could always dial direct and email the grad student list serv at U Washington. That's pretty standard procedure at my own school -- every year, a couple of prospective students email the grads-- I think at least some of the grads even respond!
I'm not at Washington, but another well-respected school. The department always assigns a current student to be a contact person for all prospectives to answer questions. We also give students a list of people they can contact to get specific information about relevant issues such as GLBT support, parenting, minority life, etc...
I think it would be fine to email the student listserv and ask questions. However, try and be specific so you can get the information you want.
9 grad students were on the job market this year, 5 got tenure-track jobs, one is still going to interviews and 3 (all first time on the job market) decided to try again next year. Overall, a very good year.
We had about 26 on the academic market. I know of 20 with TT jobs. I think most of the rest of us are trying for postdocs, but I don't actually know about most.
six went on the market and all have TT jobs. Three are at top 40 R1 institutions, two are at state schools and one is at a SLAC. One of the humans will do a postdoc before heading off to the R1.
I can't imagine a department with 20 to 26 people on the job market. huge.
Kiss my ass, search committees! After four years of working as a postdoc while applying to learn if I'm a "good fit" to your tired-ass departments, I accepted a six-figure starting salary job in corporate world that blows away your whopping $45,000 offer to beg for tenure from a bunch of psychotic and neurotic faculty. Yes, all you "Top 10" wanna-bes can take your tenure and see "if it's a good fit" where the sun don't shine!
Fine, I know sold my soul to Beelzebub, but at least my monetary compensation matches my skill set now. And I can afford underwear that wasn't sold in a thrift store. No more ramen for me!
Fellow seekers, rejoice in the fact that there's one less candidate applying to be shat upon by the Grinnell's of the US...
828 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 828 Newer› Newest»no. 7 on the list on Uggen's blog is a eugenics journal
9:44: Huh? No. 7 is Social Problems, which wasn't a eugenics journal last time I checked...
I don't visit this blog very often, but on this visit, I found something troubling. By process of elimination, I think I must be the person indicted as non-"decent" by "Sally G." I'm not sure what I did to deserve being publicly stripped of my "good person-hood", but I'm truly sorry to have anyone out there who thinks that way about me.
I know this website is supposed to be anonymous, but "deductive disclosure" is pretty easy in a world this small. I think it's common courtesy to request not being anonymously slandered by your professional colleagues.
If "Sally G." has a problem with me, I would appreciate it if she would do the right thing and bring it to my attention first rather than airing it to all the world. If I've done something to offend, it would be much easier to make amends if I knew what the offense was!
I hope anyone out there who's deduced my identity will at least meet me in person before making judgments of my character. I think that's a basic human courtesy.
I probably don't know anyone on this blog. But I do agree, what Sally G. did struck me as nasty (and hypocritical). Sadly, there has been a lot of ugliness in many forms on this year's blog. Perhaps this is symptomatic of the shifting labor market... ripe for sociological analysis.
9:45, I'd never form an opinion on someone based on reading something on this blog--and I purposely try to not ID people. I think a lot of us would feel the same way.
Last year, the discussion on this blog was uniformly polite and supportive. Compared to the vicious, ugly id on display on the job market blogs of other disciplines, sociology was an oasis of sanity. The feeling was one of, “well, we’re not all ‘superstars,’ but that is ok, and we hope that all do well and find a job that they are happy with.” What a difference a year makes! Let's see... Affirmative Action? Check. Dissing the “animals and society” crowd (the guy who studies rats with wings)? Check. Envious invective launched against the "stars" of the market? Check. "Qualitative" vs. "quantitative" like it wuz 1987? Check. All we need is a mention of Hitler/facism* and we can stick a fork in this blog...
*...Or - following special ‘sociology rules’ for when blogs jump the shark - a visit from any blogger who works in Evanston, IL
3:06 - I don't think anyone here would try and deduce someone else's identity, especially not from a mean-spirited comment (at least I would hope not). I don't know who you are or how you deduced that you were the subject of the comment, but I encourage you not to take it personally since none of us know who you are (if you can follow that...no wonder my dissertation writing gives me headaches...). I can think of a handful of people the "Sally" post might have refered to, or it could have just been BS meant to be mean.
In any case, to everyone who is doing well on the market: good job!!!
I'm a blog regular and I am pretty convinced that the caustic comments are not from people who are actually on the job market or who are a part of this blog community. They seem to pop up out of nowhere and are not followed-up on.
I think some of the discussion about affirmative action was productive dialog. I recall people expressing admiration for the job candidate who did ethnographic work on pigeons, and appreciation that top schools were interviewing a candidate with unusual research interests. The blog has not been entirely hostile.
That being said, there have been some comments made out of line. My advice: ignore them.
-cpl
I'm glad that person spoke up. I think it was very easy to figure out from the slander who the candidate was. I certainly did, and I thought it was awful.
I could tell who Sally G was calling out, and it wasn't nice. We live in a small world. Take a trip amongst dept websites' "on the market" link and you can figure these things out pretty quick.
I've tried to get people to play nice, but it seems the pressure of the market is too great. Sigh.
-Karl
I thought most people on here were rather impressed with the pigeon fellow. His work sounds awesome and interesting (unlike many a dissertation). Personally, I think he deserves all the invites (and offers) extended to him. Gosh, if I were interviewing for the same position, I would practically just tell the search committee to give it to the pigeon guy. Practically.
okay, i admit i was too lazy to bother looking up who the slandered person might be. if the rest of y'all did, i take your word for it.
(but i would encourage people in the future not to try and deduce identities - it only empowers the malicious people)
my original sentiment that ANYONE landing interviews should be encouraged and not insulted still stands. that goes to pigeon-guy, slandered superstar, whomever.
Karl, i think all the regulars here have appreciated your pleas for civility even when they have been ignored by people looking to pick an argument. I have :)
-cpl
since everyone agrees the comment in question is inappropriate, can we ask Alba to remove it please?
I'm as clueless as CPL, and have no idea who "Sally G" was slandering, nor do I care. I don't think most of us would take such comments seriously, so do not worry, whoever you are. I have found the blog to be mostly supportive and insightful, and I really wouldn't put the discussions about affirmative action or even the qual/quan divide on the same plane as the handful mean-spirited comments.
Thanks to everyone for your supportive comments. It's good to see that the world is (mostly) full of reasonable people... ;-)
"9:45"
Dear 9:45,
When I read that comment, I was concerned that it had "crossed the line" and thought about perhaps deleting it. I really prefer not to have to censor this blog unless there are really really blatant and offensive things being said. I am, however, happy to see the supportive responses on your behalf (I, for one, wish you and all the rest of us the best of luck!).
I agree that overall our community is (mostly) supportive and friendly--let's all try to keep it that way!
I will delete the comment.
Just to get everyone's blood boiling...new rankings from the Chronicle based on research productivity (articles, books, grants, citations, honors):
1. Pennsylvania
2. NYU
3. North Carolina
4. Cornell
5. Harvard
6. Florida State
7. Stanford
8. Brown
9. Chicago
10. Michigan
Are those Chronicle rankings of sociology departments? Any source/link? Thanks!
I found it... is there a way to go beyond the top ten?
The link is:
http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2007&primary=3&secondary=32&bycat=Go
As offers start to be listed in the Wiki, I was wondering what salaries for Soc are normal at everything from Top 10 R1s to elite SLACs to CCs. Thanks.
Here is the link if you want to know the average salary at the different levels of particular universities and colleges....
http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/aaupresults.php
Wow. Wisconsin and Berkeley aren't in the 10 most productive? Surprising.
Hi 9:04. Thanks. But, my problem with the AAUP has always been that it is of ALL disciplines. Econ and Sciences tend to get way more than Soc so it's tough to say from AAUP stats where Soc falls.
at our mid-elite R1 we pay in the low 70s to new asst. profs. It will be a huge range, though, depending on where you are and what kind of school it is. I'd say from a low of about $55K to a high in the low 80s for superstars with multiple offers from top schools.
Our "top school" (apparently now ranked 3rd by some sources) is a state school and hence all salary information is public.
New assistant profs. make 40's to mid-50's. After 4-5 years or so, if they land some grants and do well, they look to be making in the 50's and 60's. We have some tenured people who are only a couple years past tenure making in the 80's. We top out around 150K for a senior endowed chair. Our most recent senior hires have come in around 100K.
You can look this information up for most, if not all, state schools. The librarian who found the records for me told me that the faculty salary listing book was one of the most requested reference books in the library!
If you are negotiating salary I would suggest you look up salary information for the school you are negotiating with and comparable places. If you have multiple offers, first pour a 40 on the curb for those of us who don't. Then do some research on salaries at both schools. And always: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate! No school with withdraw their offer because you ask for a higher salary. They may tell you that they won't give you a higher salary, but they still want you.
-cpl
this is great advice - THANKS!
I am still 1 year away from applications (and hopefully, negotiations) but I've already been researching salaries and other negotiables. i also make discreet enquiries to friends with recent appointments - oftentimes they will volunteer their offers/negotiations.
the negotiation advice is critical - oftentimes women, especially, fail to negotiate. we've gotta change this!
I heard that part of the negotiating package should include--in addition to salary--other things like: (a) research start up grants, (b) time off teaching, and (c) summer funding/support. Am I missing other important things on this list?
at top schools a salary in the 40s and 50s is very low. people at top places are getting closer to 70k. this includes state schools
I've been wanting to ask this question for a while, regarding negotiating. Can international students negotiate things related to sponsoring work visas, U.S. residency applications etc (in terms of speed, paying for the process etc)?
also, can we negotiate maternity leaves etc?
10:56 - these shouldn't be issues to be negotiated: if you are offered the position, the university will sponsor your work visa, end of story. In many cases, around the time of your 3rd year review they will suggest changing your visa status to permanent residency and will help you through that paperwork.
10:05 -
YES! There was a recent NYT article about how women tend not to negotiate job offers and therefore end up at a significant disadvantage earnings-wise over the course of their careers. At the same time, women who do negotiate are perceived as overly aggressive by employers while men who negotiate in the exact same way are seen as confident.
I wanted to thank everyone for the lively discussions and insights. I'm going on the job market next year and have 2 interrelated questions. First, how much do single-authored publications in non-sociology journals count (i.e. environment, IR, Asian studies), if at all, in terms of getting a job. Second, has anyone talked to their faculty about working abroad and then trying to come back? I focus on East Asia and would like to work there for a few years to continue my research, language learning, etc but am worried that I won't be able to come back.
Also, a note about the recent productivity ranking posted earlier. It had Cornell as 4th, Cornell has 2 soc programs (Sociology in Arts+Sciences and Development Sociology in Ag+Life Sciences) as well as a number of sociologists in ILR and other depts (thus the multiple Cornell job listings this year). Given the ranking's methodology, it's clear that a schools' listing is not based solely on sociologists in the sociology program.
Thanks again for the great advice.
I have been told that publications in non-sociology journals are of marginal benefit, but it varies. If you publish in a physics journal, that's not going to mean much! But if your work is cross-diciplinary, and you are publishing in well-regarded non-soc journals, that it is probably going to help.
the issue it comes down to is whether the work you are publishing is sociological in nature. If not, it is not especially relevant. If it is, you may be asked why you elected to publish in a non-soc journal.
This did come up with me as I have published in a top policy journal. The article is clearly sociology, although the topic is policy-relevant. I explained that I was using sociological theories to speak to an existing body of literature in the policy field that sociologists may not be familiar with. That seemed to go over well with a department that emphasized cross-discipline work, and less-well at a different department.
At the end of the day, however, you can't change where you've already published. The one consistent piece of advice you will hear is: publish in a top sociology journal whenever possible. Beyond that, its hard to know how much benefit one type of publication has over another.
Has anyone on this blog gotten an interview or offer, or known someone who did, without having any peer-reviewed publications?
Is it really a total waste of time to apply for jobs without any pubs at all?
I know of a person who got an interview and subsequent offer from a top 5 department, and this person had 0 accepted publications at the time. I belive 1 under review at the time. This person got some good interviews because of reference letters and connections from chair of dissertation committee.
7:32:
I have a book chapter but no journal pubs, peer-reviewed or otherwise. I've gotten quite a bit of interest from more teaching-oriented schools (4 phone interviews, 2 campus interviews, and at least 1 other indication of interest). I applied really widely, and I'm broadly trained with good teaching experience. Some schools are moving so slowly, it seems... I wouldn't lose heart yet. Good luck.
I've known several people to get job offers without peer-reviewed articles. Never at R1s but SLACs and state colleges seem to do that quite a bit.
7:32- For these last few responses, I guess it depends where you want a job. However, I would avoid going on the market without peer-reviewed publications. The market is such a huge time sink and emotional roller coaster that I don't think it's worth even testing unless you're really ready to be on it. Peer-review is the standard in the field for evaluating our work, and most of these schools (at least research universities) depend on it to evaluate candidates.
I don't begrudge anyone their interviews, but it is very strange to me that some people are getting interviews without journal publications. After my experience this year, having a few top publications but no interviews, I would say that the job market is such an incredible crap shoot that you should just go on it whenever you want. It will be a lot less painful to get rejected if you can at least say to yourself that the reason is that you don't have any journal publications. And if you get interviews without journal publications, all the better. Seriously, people have posted here about candidates getting interviews at R1's without having journal publications. It happens. And other people with good publications can get no interviews anywhere. There are likelihoods involved, but they don't seem nearly compelling enough to make someone avoid the market in a given year.
10:34 and, to a lesser degree, 10:48,
I waited a few hours to respond, hoping that if I read your posts later they would seem different in tone. Didn't happen. It sounds as if there are only a handful of schools good enough for you, and that applicants and publications that haven't earned your approval are beneath you too, to the degree that if these lowly applicants are able to find a job, it's a miracle - a freak of luck. A lot of smart people put in years of hard work to earn their degrees and to become well-rounded enough to be attractive job candidates on more than one front. Please don't discount that. You don't have to be snobby to be a good sociologist or a good candidate.
i didn't pick up on any snobbery in those posts but snobbery or not, anyone in the reality-based community must be aware that it's extremely difficult to get a job without a pub in a peer-reviewed journal. I would think that the only exceptions are people who: a) come from a top department; b) have a "famous" mentor vouching for them; c) have a topical dissertation; and d) can point to evidence suggesting that they'll have pubs soon.
That said, it does happen, and if you think you have a shot and don't mind going through all the work and heartache of the market, go for it. But I think you're probably better off waiting until you get some publications.
can anyone with access to the Chronicle of Higher Ed summarize the findings of this story:
New Study Calls for 'Paradigm Shift' in Social-Science Graduate Education
By RICHARD BYRNE
Doctoral education in the social sciences requires a "paradigm shift" that takes into account significant changes in the job market and uncertain early career prospects, according to a new study that tracked the experiences of recent Ph.D.'s in six social-science disciplines.
it's behind their paywall, and i don't have a sub. just curious what they said for the discussion here.
Sorry, Chronicle.
Here it is.
Doctoral education in the social sciences requires a "paradigm shift" that takes into account significant changes in the job market and uncertain early career prospects, according to a new study that tracked the experiences of recent Ph.D.'s in six social-science disciplines.
A report on the study, "Social Science Ph.D.'s—Five+ Years Out," will be published today by the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington's College of Education.
The study surveyed more than 3,000 recent Ph.D.'s in anthropology, communications, geography, history, political science, and sociology about their education and early career experiences.
The investigators' recommendations in the report focus largely on creating awareness of the changes in the job market and setting up structured avenues for career development within Ph.D. programs.
"Career preparation," they write, "should begin at the beginning of a doctoral program."
Late-Blooming Doctorates
While the study found that most of those who receive a Ph.D. in the social sciences do eventually find full-time jobs in their respective fields, many struggle in the period immediately after earning their doctorates.
The researchers found that only 42 percent of those surveyed had obtained a tenured or tenure-track position six months after attaining their doctorate. The proportion rose to 50 percent after one year, and reached 75 percent only three years after receiving a Ph.D.
The study also found that while the job market remains tilted toward academe, a growing number of Ph.D.'s in the social sciences find work outside universities. While approximately two out of every three Ph.D.'s eventually become professors, 20 percent of those surveyed now hold positions outside of academe.
"It's a myth that all those who earn a doctorate in the social sciences become professors," said Maresi Nerad, director of the center and the principal investigator on the study. "It's also a myth that the career path is straight and smooth."
Elizabeth S. Chilton, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, was one of those surveyed for the study. She received some preliminary data from the study last year and has used some of those findings in her role as chair of the anthropology department at Amherst.
She said that based on her experiences and those of her colleagues, the report was correct in "acknowledging the changing nature of doctoral education and the job market."
In particular, Ms. Chilton said, she was not surprised by the struggles freshly minted Ph.D.'s in the social sciences have in finding full-time positions. If departments "are not looking pretty precisely for what you're doing," Ms. Chilton said, "it can take some time."
Educating for a Changing Market
The new study also found that while recent Ph.D.'s drew continuing value from the training they received in their respective programs (and the doctoral dissertations that they wrote), they also felt that the graduate educations they received did not sufficiently prepare them in areas in which proficiency was needed to cope with the changing job market in the social sciences.
Recent Ph.D.'s were largely satisfied with the academic rigor of their programs, with 66 percent of respondents ranking their programs as "excellent" in that area. The report also said that even among Ph.D.'s who took jobs outside of academe, 22 percent used specific knowledge relating to their dissertation "often" in their jobs, while 27 percent used it "sometimes." (Among those who chose to pursue a career in academe, the respective numbers were 54 percent and 32 percent.)
Yet the recent Ph.D.'s surveyed also criticized important aspects of their preparation for careers, whether inside or outside of academe.
For instance, despite a renewed emphasis on teaching in academe, only 53 percent of those surveyed said that they had been offered formal instruction in teaching or formal supervision of their teaching.
Recent Ph.D.'s also felt that their programs did not prepare them sufficiently in other key areas. While 66 percent of respondents rated "writing and publishing" skills as very important in their current jobs, only 35 percent of those same respondents rated their training in that area as "excellent." There were similar gaps in other areas of training. While nearly 83 percent of respondents ranked skills in presenting knowledge in their field as "very important," only 38 percent rated their program's training in that area as "excellent."
Ms. Nerad said she was surprised that teaching preparation had not improved more. She added that such findings suggest that while current graduate education in the social sciences is adequate, students "will best flourish when they learn and use all the skills necessary to a career." She also noted that the study demonstrated that "there are misconceptions about what skills and competencies are required for jobs outside and inside the university."
Women's Roles Explored
Another key finding in the survey was that despite major gains for women within academe in the social sciences, serious gender disparities remain in terms of employment and job satisfaction.
"Compared to men," the investigators write, "women doctorate holders in the social sciences were more likely to leave faculty positions, less likely to be coupled, more likely to forgo or postpone having the children they wanted, less likely to be geographically mobile, and generally experienced more work-family conflict."
For instance, the study notes that while "59 percent of partnered men reported their partner had moved with them to accommodate career advancement ... only 42 percent of coupled women pulled their partner with them to make a job move."
The study was supported with money from the Ford Foundation. The report will be available on the University of Washington center's Web site.
9:40,
Somehow I'm not surprised that you didn't pick up on the snobbery. I think the (several) schools showing interest in me must live with me in the non-"reality-based world". Perhaps you should straighten them out; clearly they need your help.
The Chronicle article was fascinating. Thanks, poster. I think it shows the need for a more well-rounded approach to training. The journal-pubs-as-only-measure-of-job-market-adequacy model seems to be too eggs-in-one-basket. Why not train us to do multiple things well? That's what we'll have to do once hired.
Also, I think as students we have a responsibility to size up where our departments might not be providing what we need so that we can devise ways of training ourselves.
I am "one-of-those" who is on the market with out a peer-reviewed article but with one under review and a few in the works. I have been very happy with the market this year and really much more pleased than I expected to be. I did not apply to any research 1's but instead SLAC's and so far I have had 10 phone interviews, 4 campus interview requests (2 of which I have committed to and/or already been to), and atleast 2 informal "we-are-pretty-sure-we-will-invite-you's" so I would say don't hold off just because you do not have a pub. Test out the market and see what happens. I should also mention that it isn't as if I am interviewing at horrible places, all have master's programs!
But to also be frank, I (1) come from a pretty damn good department, (2) have excellent references who are well known and well placed, (3) have more teaching experience than some regular faculty with excellent evals, and (4) have a great portfolio which I submitted to every position I applied for.
So when you do not have pubs, emphasize your strengths. If you are a great teacher-scholar with potential for pubs (some in the pipeline), go for it and try your best.
I got some of the same advice about waiting, but it seems that I am doing just fine now....So don't give up or despair....
Have confidence in yourself and be sure that comes across in your materials. If you doubt yourself, others will too.
(okay that is the end of my pep-talk)
I'm posting here b/c more people read it...Does anyone have a sense of salaries for some of the research places? Urban Institute, Child Trends, Rand, Mathematica, Public Policy Institute of CA, Alan Guttmacher, etc?
Most research places are (understandably) in cities, and the cost of living scares me, so I'm curious if these places pay well.
For 7:04am, this is 10:48am from the prior day, the one you think is a snob. I applied to 36 programs, including some without graduate programs, and others that are way down all those rankings. It seems like it was easier for you to assume I was a snob, based on no evidence, than to accept that there is a high degree of randomness in the job market, for which there is a wealth of evidence.
I recognize that I'm probably in the minority. But you at least have to let me be a little bitter about being so unlucky. I think my bitterness came off as snobbery to you.
8:37 you're not alone... your post about being unlucky could have been written by me...
I'm amazed when folks pose questions, but then start mud-slinging when people respond with reasonable responses they don't want to hear.
Everyone knows publications are important. Peer-reviewed publications are most valued. If you have your heart set on a top R1 job, then you need a publication or two (or three)...or at a minimum, an R&R somewhere that "matters".
If you don't have something in print after 5 to 7 years of graduate school, I would worry about being under the tenure gun at a top R1, where the standards can be crazy high. The first couple years at a new school may not be your most productive.
If your sights are set on a SLAC or even R2 school, the expectations may be somewhat lower regarding publications, as these folks generally care more about teaching and other activities. When I started my job at a SLAC, one of the senior folks told me I already had enough publications (ie, 3 or 4 ranging in significance) for tenure here. I was shocked but have grown to be OK with it. :-)
plus it also doesn't hurt for SLACs to have publications in an ASA teaching manual of syllabi and lectures....
Hi. This is 7:04/7:28 again.
I'd like to apologize for my earlier snippiness. I realized after posting the second time that if I'd had to sign my name I would have spoken much more diplomatically, as 7:51 did.
I think what I was reacting to was what I perceived as lack of acknowledgment that decisions might be based on multiple factors rather than just the one, and also of the hard work and painstaking skills acquisition by others like me who have tried to develop themselves in several different ways. I will do a happy dance at my first journal pub - because I agree that it is a great step - as I did at my other pubs and my teaching evals and the gratifying response to my efforts to achieve broad training. I don't come from a top 20 school, and I don't have a famous advisor, and RA opportunities were few and far between here, so I made the most of what I have, and it's serving me well on the job market. I don't want my success in that regard discounted, because it's the result of conscious effort and a whole lot of hard work.
But I also shouldn't have been so sarcastic with you all. I'm sorry.
Thanks very much for the Chronicle article (I'm the one that requested it). Very interesting!
Re the debate on "what counts" for one to have a successful run on the job market. It intrigues me that we talk about "the job market" as though it is a unified whole. I think it is more correct to talk about job markets, in the plural; and the indicators of preparation, interest, and potential success for each are very different. What will get you a job at a state college (a lot of teaching experience and a broad range of interests) may undermine your candidacy at a top R1, and vice versa. The problem, I think (in addition to the obvious institutional issues—too many job seekers, most of whom are ill prepared to face multiple markets) is one of matching of skills, "markers of success", and aspirations. The ones who don't do so well and are/or most upset by outcomes are those whose aspirations are not supported by their CVs--want an R1 job but have insufficient publications, want out of the rat race of R1 but don't have sufficient teaching experience. (And, BTW, I’m not discounting “luck” here—this comes from one of this year’s job market casualties!)
Re 8:00 am
As is usually the answer, there is substantial variation. RAND pays fairly well, over 80K definitely and substantially more depending on other offers, etc. Although sociologists probably make less than economists. And if you are really asking about the post-doc that pays less--about 50K.
In contrast, some of the DC policy places pay much less. I'm not sure about the specifics of each of the places you mentioned but several other similar D.C. organizations were in mid-50s range when I was on the market 2 years ago.
Re 8 am, I worked for one of these organizations prior to starting my PhD (I had a soc sci masters degree from my "earlier life"), and they paid me $50,000+ without a PhD, so the starting salary for PhDs would be at least $60,000.
I posted the original question about going on the market without pubs. I asked because I currently have none, and I am planning to go on the market next year. I am at a top-5 school, but I don't really have any good network connections or informal pipelines that could help me. So...
I am trying to make some decisions about where I should focus my efforts in the next 6-9 months: work on the one dissertation chapter that has potential to be published in a top journal (knowing it probably won't be accepted by the time i hit the market), work on a paper that is very close to finished that has publication potential in a lesser journal (probably could get published sooner), get some teaching experience (I have never taught), or get involved in a major project with my adviser that could result in several very good pubs but not for a couple years (but could improve my network channels). I feel like I have a lot of things going right now and I need to do some triage to get ready for next year or I'll end up with a cv filled with halfway-done papers!
I didn't mean to imply anything about what types of positions I think are good or not. If you have any advice, please assume I am willing to apply anywhere!
2:26, you should work on all of those projects. At once. Put the most effort in your dissertation chapter, but you really have to spread the rest of your effort around to get lots of irons in the fire. Being on the TT is a constant time management struggle, but you have to have lots of things going to get anything published. For instance, my colleague who just got tenure tries to have 4-5 things under review at all times. Obviously you're not there yet, but you should aim for working toward that.
When we think about what counts on the job market, there seems to be general agreement that peer-reviewed journal articles (particularly ASR/AJS/SF) matter. But, as has been pointed out, what about non-research focused schools?
Clearly, SLACs and others care about teaching, but what counts as sufficient or impressive teaching experience? Any thoughts or experiences to share?
I'm curious how people are weighing the (potential) difference in quality of life that accompanies the high tenure requirements at top-R1s? I've applied at both R1s and R2s, but am inclined to take an R2 offer over an R1, favoring quality of life and a higher probability of receiving tenure over (potentially temporary) early-career prestige and access.
5:48: I think this is all personal preference. I'm like you (and have chosen to pursue teaching-focused jobs), but I do have friends whose main goal is to do big-time research, and for that you need the resources (money, space, grad students and release time) that an R1 provides.
as i've posted before and probably will again... whatever your options, go to the place where you feel that you are best positioned to do YOUR work (whatever combination of things that is). when all is said and done you will be judged as an independent scholar (which doesn't necessarily exclude collaborative work), and gain a tenured slot at a place that best suits you. maybe it will be your first employer, maybe not, but 'likelihood of tenure' has landed lots of people in departments that never suited them well... don't teach 3 or 4 courses/semester just to get tenure, do it because you love to teach! don't go to an R1 for prestige, go because you want to develop your research! that QOL!
This is 5:48 again,
I think I may not have been specific enough in my original post - I wasn't trying to compare research-focused and teaching-focused positions. I certainly agree that the choice between them is a matter of preference and fit.
What I meant to ask about was choosing AMONG research-focused institutions. All have some level of resources (grads, space, etc.) and encourage and reward research. But, there seems to be wide variation in the tenure expectations between top R1s and lower top tier/upper 2nd tier research schools. With the high expectations at the top schools, even for the best researcher, there's still a lot of uncertainty in tenure, and I know many of these programs hire multiple Asst Profs with no intention of tenuring all of them. But, a good researcher should be able to do good work at a lower-status institution too, and at the same time being at such a place seems to reduce tenure uncertainty.
So, to grossly oversimplify things, I suppose what I'm wondering is, why would someone choose to go to a top-R1 if not for the higher pay & status? And is that higher pay/status really worth the trade-off in higher tenure uncertainty and (potentially) lower quality of life?
5:24 here. i can only speak for myself... hundreds of covariates notwithstanding, i find a correlation that approximates this: the more 'certain' tenure is at a given institution, the less resources (tangible and intangible) are available to support my research. higher pay, institutional status and all forms of other capital can help a developing career, and one that increases the options of landing a tenured spot in an institution and location that will provide QOL on your own terms... some of the top scholars i know did not get tenure at their first big R1 position, but it paved the way to another great position for them...
Take this with a grain of salt, as I am primarily looking at SLAC.
One of my (well-known) profs has kept telling me that I should take the highest prestige position possible, as it is much easier to move "down the ladder" (from an R1 to an R2 to a SLAC) later, but it will keep your options open.
An important QOL factor for me is the degree of politics in a department, so I would not take any R1 position that was characterized by animosity. However, given the choice of an R1 and R2 where there was an equal sense of collegiality, then I think the extra resources, R1 researchers to collaborate with, and social capital would be enough to pick the R1. Especially if you work well under pressure, then the R1 will give you that extra boost when it comes time for you to relocate (or perhaps just negotiate for a higher salary).
~Benny
Re: Quality of life issues. I get that a high-prestige first job opens up numerous possibilities even if one were not to get tenure. But no one seems to be discussing the implications of picking up and moving. In my mind, you’re moving not only from a "job"—you’re also having to heave behind a life that one would presumably set up in the precious few hours off the job. That can be a HUGE deal, especially if you’re at a place for a substantial time. I’m dreading moving from the place where I’ve been to school, because in the process of getting my degree my spouse and I have also had kids and forged deep friendships and social networks that are really define our quality of life. I guess I envy those of you who feel they can just pick up and go, family in tow or not.
sure, all these things matter differently for different people... family, friends, climate, familiarity, setting, etc.... 5:35 already acknowledged that narrowing the discussion was to "grossly over-simplify" and 7:40stipulated "hundreds of covariates notwithstanding."
Just another opinion - some lower-tier research universities are desperately trying to raise their status. And since they can't make senior faculty up their output, they do it on the backs of junior faculty. So, at some of these R2s, the tenure requirements are high, AND faculty teach higher course loads with fewer resources.
Don't assume that tenure is more assured at a lower-tier school. Make sure you ask about promotion and tenure expectations at interviews. I was surprised to learn that more than one school combined a 3-3 load with expectations for at least 6-8 sole-authored, peer-reviewed articles by tenure.
5:35 here again - It looks like there's also a fair bit of variation in what people might consider high vs. low tenure requirements. 10:48 mentions a place with a 3-3 load that expects 6-8 pubs. That was more or less what I've been told at the lower tier schools I've visited, but I thought that was fairly reasonable. By high requirement, I was thinking more like 12-15 pubs, which is awfully difficult given the randomness of the review process, even if one is only teaching 1-1, 1-2, or 2-2. I suppose some might find that kind of pressure stimulating, but I imagine I'd find it draining and anxiety-inducing. Not to mention, it would make it difficult to find the time to put down any of the other social stakes that 9:24 is talking about.
5:35: I think it's important not to overlook resources. It's not just a teaching/research trade-off. I wanted to go somewhere that facilitated research in a manner comparable to my graduate program--a place that had site licenses for all the software I use or may need, data licenses, free copies/printing, standalone printers, office equipment that works, competent and responsive IT staff, grant support, etc. I think these types of day-to-day things are often overlooked, particularly by those who've become accustomed to them in grad school.
If you know how to publish with few resources, you may be fine, but anyone who has been spoiled at a well-stocked R1 will definitely want to find out whether the tools for his/her job are readily available at the new job. 6-8 sole or first-authored pubs with 3-3 teaching (depending on new preps and class sizes) may be very difficult if you get there and find out they don't have a site license for any of the software you use, and no one is particularly motivated to help you purchase it. Even in resource rich departments, it can take awhile to get up and running.
You know yourself best, so just make an inventory of what you'll need in terms of resources. Compare that to what they offer, and make sure you are comfortable that you can meet (or exceed if you end up not liking the place) their requirements with those resources. This is true even at an R1. While there is a strong correlation between expectations and resources to meet those expectations, you definitely don't want to end up someplace with high expectations and low resources (R1, R2, SLAC or otherwise).
If you get multiple offers, you may be able to negotiate to get more resources and/or start-up funds from your favorite lower tier place, which would allow you to have your cake and eat it too (at least in the short term).
So to evolve the conversation, what is a decent start-up package...I am hearing about $2-3,000 for a IIA.....
I got $18K at a small R1
p.s. Which didn't include computer/office equipment or moving expenses.
$18k? What did that include? (Summer compensation???) Thanks!
3:09 again. Nope, not summer salary either (that was separate). I made the argument that I needed more to buy my own software licenses, to beef up my offered computing equipment, for research-related and conference travel, etc. It was a good deal, I know. I feel very lucky. They were much more willing to give me extra start-up funds than to increase the salary offer.
3:09/4:56 - Nice negotiating! A big help for those of us hoping to get offers soon!
On negotiating - If I get an offer, I'll be negotiating a TT spousal hire (different department). To what extent should I assume this will reduce my ability to negotiate for other things like start-up costs and salary?
There seems to be a slight R1-bias on this discussion list. I attended a small, liberal arts college for my B.A. and am now finishing my Ph.D. at a large state university (my second one). I've noticed through these experiences that professors seem to be happier with their lives at small colleges (I know you can't generalize from 3 cases). Sure, there are fewer resources, but you often leave much of the political struggle and competition behind. I admire folks who make that choice (and for most it is a choice; SLAC's are not just the "junior varsity" of academia. They're institutions with different goals that attract different sorts of people). I've noticed that folks at the R1's are markedly less happy with their lives, despite being happier with their resources and compensation. SLAC's seem to be more collegial, friendly, and less stressful. What I'm trying to say is that resources, pay, and prestige don't mean everything.
1:14 - I completely agree and can speak from a N = 9 interviews, 5 of which were at research universities and 4 at SLACs. SLAC folks do tend to be slightly better balanced, happier (as happy as any academic, who strike me as more melancholy than my none academic friends) and value family time, hobbies etc more than do those at R1s, R2s. These are generalizations from a ridiculously small number of schools, but they are born out by stories I hear from others. Wasn't there a study by the Chronicle (possibly?) that indicated that those who measured the strongest in terms of levels of happiness were professors at community colleges?
I think the fact that the discussion on this list leaves out so much of what many of us consider very very important life factors - geographic desirability, political climate, friend and family ties, larger community support etc - says a lot about the priorities of many academics. One's research seems to outweigh so much else. That's not for me...I love my hobbies, reading for pleasure and hangin' with my friends and family. To the extent I can do those things and be an academic, great.
So yes, 1:14, there are those of us out here who pay attention to things besides pay and prestige, thank goodness.
actually, if you read through the blog this thread started specifically as a discussion in response to a question about R1 vs R2 departments (November 30, 2007 5:48 PM)... and it was acknowledged to be an over-simplified discussion for that purpose. to associate R1 with pay and prestige only to pit it falsely against SLAC as some bastion of QOL is silly. i have lots of perfectly happy and unhappy colleagues in all kinds of institutions...
i think the point that a lot of us keep making in a round-about way is that you will be happiest at an institution that fits your priorities. pretty simple.
i have a grad school friend whom i could not imagine being happy anywhere other than a top-5 department with the expectation to publish annually in a top journal because prestige is important to him/her (and there's nothing wrong with that!). i have another friend whose dream job is to teach at a BA-only small school because he/she just loves teaching and interacting with students as much as possible (also, nothing wrong with that!).
my priority is to be at a mid-level department with what i feel are reasonable tenure requirements because i don't want to move my family again.
it would be impossible for me, or anyone else, to give advice about what would be a better or worse situation for someone.
I just got my ASR and was really excited to see that THREE articles are sole-authored by grad students! Good work to those three, and I find it very encouraging to see that it is possible. That's just very cool.
(and double thumbs-up to ASR for publishing a qualitative ethnographic piece by a sole-author grad student too!!)
6:42- Yes, it makes it harder to negotiate things like salary when a spousal appointment is also in the works. But you should still ask for what you want. They just may not give it to you b/c they know they've given you the #1 thing on your list, presumably. It also makes it harder to leverage other schools' offers, if you have any, esp.if those schools don't have a great option for your spouse. But ask, ask, ask (without sounding like an ass...).
Re: ASR
GO PIGEON GUY, GO!
There was a discussion a while back about whether Social Problems has replaced Social Forces as the #3 journal in sociology and some folks felt that it was well-respected but not quite top-notch yet. So, here's my question:
I haven't seen any discussion of Social Science Research on this site. How well respected is it (beyond simply numerical rankings) and how much does a sole-authored publication help you get a job (at a lower-level research university or a small liberal arts college)? I've noticed that folks like Massey, Conley, etc. publish there pretty frequently. Any insights on SSR? Is it hurt by the fact that it's purely a quantitative journal?
Since the latest ASR issue has come up here...what do you think of including your marital status and the number of children you have in your bio at the end of the article? What's next, a list of turn ons and turn offs? Those would be equally relevant. Also, is it not a bit insensitive to all the women who don't get taken seriously after choosing to have kids? It's a bit of a celebration of the privileges of being male to put that in the bio. I don't really care, but does it strike anyone else as odd?
i actually hadn't noticed, but i don't read the bios past finding out whether someone is a grad student or not - and that's only because i feel happy whenever i see a grad student first/sole author.
having said that, i feel it is inappropriate to include personal information such as marital status or number of children in one's bio in a journal. the purpose of the bio is to provide interested readers with additional relevant information about an author to help the reader either 1) place the article in context with the author's other work, or 2) gain information about the author's credentials.
(a noteworthy tangent is how even when presenting research that is supposedly judged worthy of publication only on the merits of the work, we persist in presenting credentials and other symbolic evidence of merit relating to the author.)
including information about one's marital status or family structure implies that these attributes are credentials, which i find offensive. this serves only to further reify marriage and parenthood (fatherhood?). i further agree that these symbols have gendered meanings which have no place in academic sociology.
"Look, I did all this with one hand tied behind my back!"
Rats wif wings have taken flight!
Well I looked up "biography" on dictionary.com and found this:
"n. a written account of another person's life"
Isn't one of the themes on this blog the fact that there's more to "a person's life" than professional accomplishment? Why does it offend you that someone puts something personal in their bio? Is it written anywhere in the ASR handbook that it should only be about the person's credentials? I've never seen that rule...
Also, just curious: do book dedications offend you too? ;-)
LOL. Seriously, I can't believe how snarky this blog has gotten.
Got a lot of interviews? You must be a "bad person."
Acknowledge your family in ASR? You're a patriarchal exploiter enjoying "male privilege."
Are these people serious?
Hi all,
I put a "last updated" item at the top of the wiki. Please consider updating the time when you add an item to the wiki. This function works well on other wikis, and may make things easier in the case of further deletions. Just a thought.
-karl
ha! couldn't agree more 5:23... acknowledging, of course, that the vast majority of folks are making helpful and supportive contributions, for some this is becoming a proving ground for academic schmukitude....
GO PIGEON, GO PIGEON, ITS YOUR BIRTHDAY, ITS YOUR BIRTHDAY!
6:36 here - Someone asked a question about including marital status in journal bios. I answered with my opinion because it seemed to be a valid question for sociologists to discuss.
You don't have to agree with me, but please don't roll your virtual eyes and label my opinion as "schmukitude" or "snarky" without even engaging the issue.
Well, I typically don't get involved in blog fights, but I've got something for both sides of this debate. First, I can vouch for the asr author who listed his wife and kids. He's a nice guy. Second, male privilege is real and need not be placed in quotation marks when typed.
If those remarks bring on flames, so be it.
-karl
Geez... Leave the guy alone. I think it's nice. Why discourage it? Are we all supposed to act like we don't have families now? The only way we can overcome it is to do it more. And the more people do it (especially women), the more accepted it will be.
- Lisa
Me again...to clarify, I did not intend to say anything personally about the individual who included personal information in his journal bio. I know him also, have for a while, and apologize if it was taken by him or anyone else as a personal attack. I'm pretty sure the author in questions knows better than to take my comments as a personal attack! I intended only to state my position on the practice in general.
My position was, and still is, that it does not belong in an academic journal. Publishing one's research IS different than the bio you would read about an author on a book jacket or even on a personal/department website. It is my personal opinion that only professionally-relevant information belongs in a journal bio. I also think that it would be taken differently if written by a woman than a man. Lisa, your point is well-taken that the best way to overcome the gendered aspect would be for more people to acknowledge their families. However, I wonder if that would imply a judgment about those without spouses or children?
Just to be clear, my comments before and now are addressing the practice and not anyone who chooses to do it. I felt that the snarky (to borrow a word levied against me) backlash against me for presenting my position was excessive.
"addressing the practice and not anyone who chooses to do it." sorry, but you can't have it both ways. besides, the "professionally-relevant" information you wish to extract from the real person is every bit a collection of abstractions for "reification" as marriage or parenthood. because people share this information does not imply anything (credentialism, male privelege, whatever...). i for one would like even more personal bio on the people who have authored a given piece... it has no impact on how i receive their academic work whatsoever...
"because people share this information does not imply anything"
Symbolic interactionism? Yes, it DOES imply something.
I would prefer to have articles published with no bios at all. I really like the idea of my peers reading a piece of research and not knowing whether it was written by a well-known senior scholar or a grad student. But if they're going to be published, we should recognize that they do communicate something and imply things. Thats true whether the bios tout one's spouse or one's academic title.
I don't know where I stand on whether family status belong on a personal bio, but as a mother I know I would never include that info. Just don't want it circulating, although yeah, I do feel like being able to do anything is like having a hand tied behind my back, being a primary caregiver. So I'm reading the response as saying the very confidence to include that info without being concerned about reprecussions is a male privelege. I should add that I'm so concerned about concealing my family status that when schools have called to schedule an interview I'd wiggle and squirm and ask for a couple of days to figure out whether a particular date works for me without being able to explain that I first need to make sure that my husband, who travels often for his work, is in town. I don't have the privelege to just say, sure December 7th is just perfect.
I'm finding this discussion very interesting. I find myself siding more with the folks who argue that personal info isn't really relevant in these professional bios. I'm more interested in professional info, so that I understand how the piece fits into one's overall research agenda. Family info is about as relevant as info about their hobbies, pets, etc. I'm not offended if people include the info; I just don't find it useful.
I think the line between personal and professional biographical information is blurrier than this discussion might suggest. Yes, understanding how a piece fits into one's overall research program is useful. But, I can imagine many papers I've read where knowing the authors hobbies, or side-lines of work, or cities they've lived in before would be nice. There are also plenty of academic couples out there whose work influences one another - how could it not - but because they have different last names, and possibly are at different institutions, the relationship is often not obvious.
I think I'd probably agree that personal information might not fit in hard science journals, where its less obvious how marital status or hobbies might directly influence one's research. But in sociology, and the rest of the social sciences & humanities, they play a huge role.
My position is that this kind of personal info does not belong in a bio, but that it's not such a huge deal if it winds up there. You can (and should) acknowledge the support of your family in the acknowledgments footnote. That sends the unambiguous message that you are grateful.
To put it in the bio section is about as relevant as saying you always order pizza on fridays. it also can be interpreted as a boast, like saying you've had to work a second job, but still manage to publish this fine piece of scholarship. but boasts generally have the opposite effect, and I just don't think this is worth our energy.
--Maude
My objection to the personal 'bio' information is the way it reinforces heteronormativity (and heterosexual privilege).
Would the top journals publish a bio that read something like:
"The author lives with his partner, Jeff. They've been together 20 years but because of the state they live in, cannot legally marry, though they are deeply ambivalent about entering into the institution of marriage. They also share two cats, an impeccable taste in interior design, and occasionally enjoy sex with people outside their relationship."
Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.
i understand you want to be provocative, but i don't recall reading about anyone's belief's about marital regulations (many married couple's fully support same-sex marriage), and certainly no details about sexual networks in bios. is there something that would preclude you from stating that you have enjoyed a (_____) relationship with your partner (insert name) for X# years? hell, marriage doesn't even presume that it is a loving relationship! perhaps such a bio only helps to question heteronormativity? should one be required to identify and denounce all forms of privilege in every bio? how about the race and class background and the potential unfair benefits bestowed upon them on their path to higher education?
Could someone explain how to restore previous versions of the wiki. I always get a blank page.
-karl
Heteronormativity? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
I understood the norm for biographical entries for journal articles to be career-related information. Where the person was trained, where they work now, other areas of research interest, etc.
The place to acknowledge the support of family, friends, colleagues, mentors, funders and reviewers is in the acknowledgments. But even there, the criteria for acknowledgment should be related to the production of the article. So, if your partner helped extensively by editing a draft or heavily commenting on it, then it seems reasonable to list the person. If my partner helped by doing ALL the domestic and emotional chores while I was writing the article, then that doesn't relate (directly) to the production of the piece. It does mean that I thank my partner personally -- we celebrate when the article is accepted for publication -- and that I sing my partner's praises to everyone we know.
Now, did you read the above paragraphs with gender, sexuality, marital or other bias? Think of me as the "Pat" character on Saturday Night Live (ca. 2000), and guess my status!
-"Pat"
Hello all. Steve Vaisey here, the author of the controversial bio. A friend pointed me to this discussion, which, to be honest, I had to see to believe!
Let me clarify the thinking that led me to put that in the bio: I think people usually (but not always) use their bios as "ads" for themselves (i.e., "If you liked this paper, you'll LOVE the five other pieces listed here..."). That's always rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. So rather than write an "ad" I took the word "bio" at face value and thought, "What would someone who came into my office learn about me in 5 minutes?" Since it's quite unusual for a grad student to have four kids, it usually comes up when people see the pictures in my office, etc. So I figured I'd just put it in there, since it's a big (and fairly obvious) part of my life. I wasn't trying to make a statement.
I've been amazed at the response, however. I've gotten a bunch of emails saying things like "great job breaking the norm of obscuring your personal life," or "wow, what a brave thing to do." And so on. And given the discussion on this blog, there are clearly some people (for obvious reasons less inclined to email me!) that were bothered by it.
To be honest, both responses have been surprising to me. I didn't think it was a big deal either way. It does bother me, though, to have people passing judgments about the "appropriateness" of doing it, since obviously the ASR editors didn't care! It's one thing to say, "I wouldn't do it," and quite another to say, "You shouldn't have done it." (Incidentally, why do we "celebrate" breaking some norms but not others?) I for one would rather know more (rather than less) about authors' lives -- not for any instrumental reason, but simply because we all live together in a pretty small academic world. It's nice to get to know your neighbors.
One last thing: I hope no one thinks that somehow I'm celebrating an "advantage" by putting that info out there. I've been on a number of job interviews and I can tell you that the response to the fact that I have four kids is not uniformly positive! In fact, my only hesitation in putting that info in there was that it would HURT my professional image. But I decided to do it anyway because, hey, that's a really salient part of my life that everyone I know knows about.
I hope that helps provides a little Verstehen for people... :-)
Bravo Steve! It's an excellent piece of research. You and your family certainly have cause for celebration. Bravo!
~Benny
I liked it, too. It certainly was ballsy. And it sure hasn't hurt you on the market. ;-)
--Ann
Steve,
Thanks for the post. We don't know each other, but I just want to congratulate you for doing so terrifically well on the job market. It sounds like you are cleaning up, and from what I hear about your CV and your research, you really deserve all these interviews and offers! I know not everyone responds well when people succeed, so I hope you're not getting a lot of flak (sp?) from disgruntled colleagues. And as a fellow parent, I'm glad you're open about your children.
Congrats again!
- "Terry"
This "leave your family out of it" attitude can also be taken to the extreme. In the department where I earned my Master's degree, the faculty let it be known that it was unacceptable to speak of your significant other around faculty, they were not invited to department pot-luck dinners, etc. for the most part, I couldn't even mention I had a spouse/partner. When a professor asked "How was your weekend? What did you do?" it was unacceptable to say "I went kayaking with my spouse. It was great." You had to say "I got a lot of work done. I read this interesting article by...." If a professor you were TA'ing for asked you to come in and meet on Sunday, you had to do it or you feared that faculty would stop investing in you. Even if you had something planned with your spouse/partner, you had to drop it.
The atmosphere was stifling and I hated having to hide my personal life. And, I know there are other departments like that. It seems that anytime we can strike back at academia's insistence that we give up our personal lives to become publication-machines, we should take the opportunity. Bravo, Steve.
I agree and support including family and children in a bio, and I defended this in an earlier post. However, it is a different thing to congratulate someone for "cleaning up" on the market. Presumably, some of the people being "cleaned up" are reading this blog. It's a stressful time for everyone, and many people who are "deserving" of interviews and offers will not get them.
Thanks for the support, everyone.
And I think 9:26 is right -- it's probably better to keep the bio and job market issues separate. FWIW, I'm obviously grateful for the attention my research has generated, but I have a number of good friends whose experiences on the market have not been great.
And as much as it's in my interest to think otherwise, I'm NOT persuaded that these decisions are completely rational. I don't think they're random, certainly, but if you rewound the tape of history and let it run again, I don't think you'd get the exact same result. (Makes me think of Matt Salganik's work on cultural markets, which the Soc job market kind of is.)
Anyway, thanks for your time, everyone.
steve -
thanks for clarifying your motives. i can appreciate the desire to shun the self-advertising format of most article bios. when i first saw the bio, i didn't think it was appropriate. your explanation has shown me that my initial strong opposition to including personal information in one's bio did not look far enough past the end of my own nose (or outside the realm of my own circumstances).
also, i found your posts and some other people's posts on the matter to be very insightful. it helps to expand my own thinking to hear well-reasoned and thoughtful perspectives, especially when they differ from mine on both sides. i do want to echo karl that words like heretonormativity and male privilege shouldn't be placed in sarcastic quotes or followed by profane dismissals.
i'm not sure that i'll include personal information in my bios in the future because i do think it would be more of a black mark against me as a single mother, but i admire steve's reasons for doing so and for taking the time to explain them.
-cpl
Is it safe to say that the job market is closed for the year? Most institutions interview before winter break, right?
the majority of places have contacted people by now, but jobs will continue to be posted and some places will continue to contact new candidates. if you are only interested in a top R1, than it is probably over for this year. a friend of mine was called for an interview at a SLAC last year in may, and she was offered the job a week after the interview.
-cpl
Ok, it's only anecdotal evidence, but I had a friend last year who had something like 4 or 5 interviews after January 1 - including at R1s. While this may be anomalous, it is a least one data point...
Hang in there, folks, there are still jobs left! I got my R1 job in Feb several years ago, and currently know of places that still haven't filled their positions. After this week, things are on hold for most departments for the holidays, but you may still be contacted in January. Don't lose hope!
I think it's interesting that so many seem to be craving an R1 post. I have one and it's brutal. I'm not trying to be a downer, just to say that there are many jobs out there where you can do your work and live a life that may actually be even better than the coveted R1. Don't sweat it.
a question for the board - a friend asked me earlier today if there is a similar Wiki/rumor mill for marketing departments (since she thought there might be some carry-over from sociologists). I can't seem to find one, and so am asking if anyone knows if it exists?
thanks!
Some other disciplines are starting to use an alternative site to host the wiki.
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/AcademicJobSearch
This place may make it easier to restore old versions. Of course, there are also costs to using a new url so late in the game. Thoughts?
-karl
my thought would be that it's too late in the game --- but let's definitely do it for next year's market. just my 2cents.
i'll be doing this next year and i think moving the site for next year would be good. maybe start a new one there over the summer?
i vote for moving the wiki. we can just link to the new one from the blog and the change in URL will be transparent to anyone who checks the wiki from the blog (as i'm guessing most of us do).
if alba thinks its a good idea. i feel like the wiki as it stands now is being rendered impossible to use by the loser who keeps messing it up.
-cpl
new wiki link:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/SociologyPositions
I'll paste this link at the original wiki. Only one extra click. Shouldn't be too confusing.
How will the new site stop the vandal?
easier and quicker to restore past version
Re: December 10, 2007 9:06 AM- this is reviving a conversation from 3 days ago, but I want to apologize for my hastily written note to Steve and to say that your criticisms are well taken. You're right that it's problematic to call someone's job market success "deserving," given all the strong applicants who don't get attention. I wrote my posting in an effort to say something positive-- I really don't like the snarky comments that sometimes get posted about people who are doing well on the market-- but clearly I should've chosen my words more carefully.
-Terry
Terry -
Coming from someone who fared poorly on the job market this year, I took no offense at your comment. I understand where you were coming from and did not take it that you were implying that folks who got no attention were "undeserving". After all, A=B does not mean invA=invB!
I think that everyone who has been successful on the market probably deserved it, as did many other people who were met with a different outcome. I took no offense.
-cpl
I just want Steve Vaisey and the entire sociology community to know that even though I have never published in ASR, I have 3 lizards, a lot of mealworms, a nest of feeder cockroaches, a dog, some dying plants, oh and a child, too (Just in case anyone was interested in my personal bio.).
- Marcos "the Dragon" Barbosa
i'd like to ask for people's opinions about something, since i figure by now most of you have had some experience with the job market.
would you include information about press coverage of your research on your cv, in a cover letter, or not at all? i know that in the ASA newsletter there is a section highlighting media references to sociological research. does this make a difference to search committees? does it depend on the type of job?
Some people do include that stuff and have been successful on the job market, although I'm sure their peer reviewed articles were more impressive. It simply shoes that you have affected people outside of the sociological community. Your research mattered to someone other than an academic.
people who have received interviews or offers from SLACs, what type of teaching background did you have going on the market? How long had you been teaching and how much?
Thank you!
I have taught two courses independently and have been a TA for another six courses. However, it's probably advantageous that the two independent courses were stats and methods, which schools often have trouble filling.
I've taught a couple of classes independently as well as TAing for 2 others, both core courses. I also worked in our undergrad advising office for a year and taught a couple of different online courses. The online courses seem to have benefited me in my job search, as has my ability to teach stats. I applied obscenely widely and had good advice when creating my application materials. I'm seeing a lot more interest than I expected.
I too have had a lot more interest than I ever expected....and many are really good SLACs. I have taught four different courses (including stats) - one of which had never been taught in the department, as well as an online course...total semesters taught alone=8.
can anyone comment on the appropriateness or inapproriateness of asking for a "transition" day when traveling internationally for an interview? one school mentioned having a casual dinner with faculty on the day i arrive, which seems a bit daunting after 10 hours of traveling. could i ask for a flight the day before? or would that be terribly tacky?
12:47, based on my experience, you seem pretty lucky in your itinerary. a friend of mine had to give his job talk 1 hour after arriving on campus following a transatlantic flight. no time at the hotel at all! also, if it is the right place for you, the faculty may energize you more than you expect at dinner. it might be fun. i would just do it and show my flexibility. (unless, of course, you have a health or other reason to think this would be bad for you in particular.)
thanks, 6:43!
I agree. The dinners are usually fun -- IF it's the right place!
I figure I might show early for my interview and go to the job talk of the candidate before me , but I will probably go incognito , maybe even make him an offer he can't refuse so he doesn't take the job
So the level of faculty salaries has been discussed over in the Hires blog. It appears that the capitalist market, whatever that is, has decreed that academic salaries are low (though higher in some fields with more competition from industry for PhDs). It seems unfair that academics, with such specialized training-intense skills, earn so much less than people in quite a few specialized professions outside of academia (not always requiring as much training).
Clearly, individual job candidates can't do much to change them (department chairs will eventually say no to notably high salary requests). It occurs to me that this is exactly what unions are for. Does anyone know anything about how faculty unions work? Where they are and who they include? The tools they are willing to use? How well they work? What they tend to get, or not get? I know a bit about grad student unions, and at least some have negotiated for clear benefits. What about faculty?
Faculty unions exist at lots of schools, especially public universities in the North. In addition, some schools have chapters of AAUP that are actual unions - that is, recognized bargaining agents for faculty. At my institution, our faculty union includes full-time and adjunct faculty, and librarians. It works pretty well in terms of getting us regular raises of 4-5% per year.
I haven't seen the actual data, but from what I've heard anecdotally, faculty unions or faculty associations that act as quasi-unions get their members higher salaries and better benefits compared to their colleagues who work at universities without such unions or associations. Usually membership is mandatory. I'm really happy that I work at a university with an existing union. I would have no idea about how to get one started, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't help me get tenure to spend time on it!
Some states have laws prohibiting state employees (including public university profesors) from unionizing. It is my impression that states in the northeast and manufacturing midwest (MI, OH, IL) are more union-friendly that, say, the south.
That being said, I think faculty at my institution seem to be fairly compensated. The majority of tenured faculty make 80K - 120K with several over 150K.
It is an interesting question, whether workers should be compensated based on the work they do in their job or the work they did to achieve their credential. I have a hard time thinking we "deserve" physician-type salaries even though we spend as much time in school as a medical student does. Our work just isn't that important. The scholars who end up doing work that ends up being "important" seem to get paid very well through grants and such.
This silence over the holidays is killing me. Anyone else??
12:57,
Yes! Thanks for breaking the silence.
Do you all think that the search committees will begin moving again shortly after the new year, or closer to semester beginning?
silence is killing me too,,, dammit I hate this, kid, bills, stress, spending lots of time on research
I would guess that people will get moving again quickly after the 1st of the year. It is a good time to get things done before classes get started, and they don't want to lose out on candidates.
Hi all. Just found a neat Firefox add-on that will scan the wiki for you and highlight updates. There may be others who didn't know about it--hopefully it will be helpful. Find it here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/
en-US/firefox/addon/3362
happy new year to everyone. I hope everyone can have a happy life wherever you end up!
RE: VAPs
For visiting positions, do the departments/institutions tend to hire locals? I ask because I would imagine that with the possible costs associated with moving (for both the institution and the hired person), departments/institution would be more inclined to hire a VAP who lives near the area, rather than one who lives across the country. Is this the case?
Not necessarily--remember that many of these places have reputations that they want their VAPs to support. I know several people whose first positions have been as VAPs. Their positions were filled through a nation-wide search, and they had among other things generous support for moving costs.
Who needs a tenure-track job?
I just came across an article from Footnotes in 2003 about soc postdocs (don't ask me how, just wish me luck finishing my dissertation). Its analysis is limited, but the author found that postdocs help medium- and long-term success (well, R1 success), even accounting for the prestige of the departments that people came from.
So I've decided to say no to the overwhelming flood of tenure-track interview invites that I'm sure are coming. And I'll pretend that most postdocs don't actually seem to be for people doing med soc.
Based on the information that we all have, has anyone pieced together which departments are getting their first picks and which departments are moving down the list or (the big question) continuing to interview?
My department (mid-level R1) interviewed 4 candidates. The first three declined offers. The fourth accepted the offer. If the fourth hadn't, they would have gone back into the pool.
What happened to this thread?
I realize it's probably too early to tell, but does anyone have a sense of how a possible impending recession might influence the sociology job market?
I'm wondering especially about non-academic tracks...
The recession shouldnt affect our types of jobs. Most of the positions being hired for this year have already been approved. Non-academic research jobs should be even less at risk than faculty jobs. Think tanks, government research, market research, etc. all have plenty of funding.
I wonder about next year? I wonder how the economy will affect tenure-track jobs.
I'm curious too about how an economic downturn will affect the academic job market. I wonder if anyone has any early sense about what kinds of hires their departments will be interested in making next year? I know some departments start talking about this stuff long in advance...
no way to know.... but whatever impact there is on the generation of tenure lines will likely be felt more at publicly funded institutions first and most...
At the same time, more people go to grad school during recessions, and generally the flagship state schools (Madison, UW, UNC, Michigan, Berkeley/UCLA) are a little more insulated from budget cuts (at least in terms of hiring faculty). So I'd predict more hiring at the big name public R1's but slowdowns at tier-2 places.
I think the big threat to our collective well-being is not this looming recession, but the rise of the adjunct. I once (naively) believed that faculty must have a natural opposition to the expansion of temporary positions, but I just got a job at a top-25 R1 and we use adjuncts like crazy. The TT faculty really like being able to dump the crappy courses on them, we don't get into a big fight when we hire new ones (I don't think we even have meetings about it), and I'm sure there is some luxuriating in the creation of second-class citizens.
Of course, the university loves their cost-effectiveness. There is pressure on universities to avoid having too many courses taught by grad students (i think US News penalizes them for this?), but I'm unaware of any similar pressure regarding adjuncts/VAPs.
Additionally, I'd bet that there has been a decline in research money brought in through soc. departments (certainly as a proportion, but perhaps even in real dollars), so there is less justification for TT lines. Today, the schools of public health, social work, and the interdisciplinary research centers (often health-focused) are the ones which bring in the money. And those soft-money researchers have to earn their keep or they're out, which also gives the university great flexibility.
On the plus side, the baby-boom generation is retiring in record numbers, so there will be TT jobs. But if other departments are like mine they'll hire less than 2 TT's for every 3 retirements, and I don't see any countervailing force to change that trend. Everyone wins, except the grad student (and in a coup de grace, adjuncts suck money out of the TA/RA pool).
ugh.
I was just wondering about others' opinion on the 'rats with wings guy' as the 'star' of this year's job market. Please note that I have a decently paid TT job, so I am not speaking from the 'sour grapes' position. I am however very concerned that research on irrelevant, silly, even infantile topics is presented in fancy-sounding terminology and this is what our top schools consider to be desirable scholarship. I am seriously concerned that this is a sign of dramatic intellectual decline in our discipline and it will only contribute to its negative public image.
I share that concern, but I think that rats-with-wings-guy, if you had a conversation with him, would probably be able to answer the "so what?" question. Few people do research they think is meaningless and irrelevant just to get job/tenure. Instead, most people think the questions they ask are important for how we live. To what extent should we be asking only questions whose answers have the potential for solving social problems? To what extent should it be ok just to observe and record the social world? I don't have an answer to those questions, but I bet pigeon-guy would, and more importantly, I be he'd be able to explain why his research is indeed important.
12:27. You've GOT to be kidding me. Do you know anything about this research other than that birds play a part in the story? "Irrelevant," "silly," "infantile," "fancy-sounding terminology," "dramatic intellectual decline." No one who had actually READ the recent ASR article would describe the piece in this way. It's simply great work (not to mention highly relevant, serious, mature, conceptually subtle, and exemplary of high intellectual standards).
since when is this blog about questioning the intentions, integrity, and work quality of specific individuals known to have done well on the job market???
does anyone have a list of all the R1 institutions that they can post?
If you don't think the pigeon paper had a theoretical contribution, I would suggest you read it.
Plus, sociological investigation of human-animal relations DOES address social problems. That is, of course, unless you think that Michael Vick and dogfighting or global warming due to factory farming (and I could go on) are irrelevant and unproblematic to our social world.
Plus, according to his website pigeon guy HAS an article coming out in Social Problems this month!
The historical R-1 classification is no longer really used. Now colleges use the Carnegie classification. The first link is for the RU/VH = research university very high research productivity, and the second is for RU/H = research university with high research productivity. I am guessing the RU/VH are the R1s and the RU/H are the R2s.
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=63&search_flag=true&ref=784&start=784&BASIC2005=15&submit.x=28&submit.y=11
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=63&search_flag=true&ref=784&start=784&BASIC2005=16&submit.x=34&submit.y=12
Thanks 3:22!
To the Dec. question about the teaching experience of those getting SLAC offers. I assume this isn't typical, but I accepted a SLAC offer and I have only been a TA once. Never taught my own course, though I taught a wee bit before grad school. I am sharing this to argue that the job market does indeed seem unpredictable with a very large luck/fit/who knows what factor in terms of how hiring decisions are made. 'Apply widely' seems to be good advice....
The obsession with a particular person in this blog is troubling in two ways. First of all, this person has received some serious attacks regarding the quality of his work, his character etc. none of which he deserves or is able to address. Any person with a little sense of privacy would have been very distrubed to be a subject of such bitter exchanges on a public blog.
On the other hand, he and his work have received such a great deal of attention that many other young sociologists who are also very accomplished will never get any time soon.
So let's just leave him alone, shall we? For his own sake and ours!
8:52, I really think its less about HIM and more about the state of the field. That this much attention would be paid to research on birds, and much less attention is paid to research on poverty, racism, violence against women, etc. really upsets some people. This is much more a disagreement about what REALLY matters in society (and hence what sociologists should be researching) than about the quality of his work or his personal character.
That's c**p. I haven't posted about this at all yet, but it's not about that, because his research isn't simply "about birds." Okay, I base that on having read one article, plus a bit more about his work. Which I read because, it turns out, his work is actually related to mine, even though I don't do anything related to animals at all. Oh, and he's not the only one. I've read work of other people who probably belong to the ASA section on Animals and Society, or whatever it's called, and found their stuff really interesting and worthwhile too.
It is so easy to decide that other people are doing work that isn't worthwhile because they aren't looking at the problems you more easily name--it turns out, though, that there isn't really a shortage of worthwhile issues to look at it human social life. Turns out that there are a lot of ways that humans are interesting (or f**ed up, take your choice).
I think he's getting so much attention ON THESE BLOGS (yes, there have been a lot of other young sociologists getting attention out there in the actual job market) because someone came up with a very cool nickname for him. How can you beat "pigeon guy"?
I wish pigeon man would sweep me up in his crap encrusted wings and fly me away...
Please note the time and date when this blog jumped the shark.
-karl
karl- Why are you even still on here? You already have a job.
Good question. I don't know. It's bizarre.
-karl
karl, i ask myself the same question. it's like when you're on the bus and there are flashing red and blue lights out the window and you know you should just keep reading but you can't help peeking out the window to see what all the fuss is about. but i'm glad you're hanging around. nice to see some familiar (friendly) faces.
but i have learned that what really tripped me up this year was the lack of a cool nickname. when my postdoc is up and i go back on the market, i will make sure to do a better job on that front. my cv hall identify me as:
cxxxx "defender of sociology, freedom, and the american way" lxxxxxx
-cpl
I think a bunch of us who have (and have had jobs) are still on the blog. It's sometimes a) fascinating b) funny c) depressing. But, beyond the entertainment value I like the fact that we are demystifying the job search process a little bit and creating some sort of community. Maybe next year we could get this thing running in a bulletin board format instead of a blog...
I agree, a board would be much better. And perhaps we could have a whole thread for trolls who want to post mean things about people. Although I suppose that might encourage their behavior; at least the rest of us could avoid it.
If you haven't seen it, the economists' job rumor board (google that and you'll find it) is pretty great. Not that I'm plugging economists.
p.s. I also have a job but can't stay away.
Good to see that I'm not the only one sticking around.
Honestly, the job search requires so much time and energy, it is hard to turn it all off once you get to the finish line.
For job seekers, I'm not here to gloat. I don't even police the comments anymore to keep people from naming names. I'm just curious about how others are navigating such a confusing and opaque process.
woops, that last one was from me.
-karl
I happen to know that Pigeon guy has read most of what was said about him on this blog and he finds it quite humorous that people are so intrigued or not. He works hard and deserves everything he receives. I challenge the haters to go read his work to realize that he's not writing about "birds." Stop hating and start reading.
This is a question for those of you who have accepted (or know anything about accepting) renewable contracts that are not lectureships.
what do you negotiate for?
Here's what I know to go after:
1- salary
2- course reduction in first year
3- computer with good replacement/service plan
4- moving costs
But what else? When you're not on the tenure-track but still carry the title of "assistant professor" (not lecturer or VAP), what else is up for grabs?
1- summer salary?
2- research funds?
3- travel funds?
4- funds to pay student RAs?
I figure that contract asst profs (is there already a better term?) will be doing the same work as t-t asst profs (ie. teaching, research, mentoring, service) but without the "job security" that goes with the t-t. Thus, I think I should try to go after as much as I can.
But I'm curious about others' experiences. Also, if you are a lecturer or a VAP and you have some experience scoring what you need to teach, travel, and research, please let me know about that, too.
thanks!
This may be a little inappropriate for this forum - or at least a little off topic, but I am a new grad student trying to decide where to attend next fall - I was wondering if anyone had any info on some of the soft points of the University of Washington? I know that it is a well respected school, but I was hoping someone had some info on the department from a student's perspective.
I know nothing about U of Washington -- but I think you might try your question at the Chronicle of Education forums... there are thousands of people online in those forums.
Alternatively, you could always dial direct and email the grad student list serv at U Washington. That's pretty standard procedure at my own school -- every year, a couple of prospective students email the grads-- I think at least some of the grads even respond!
I'm not at Washington, but another well-respected school. The department always assigns a current student to be a contact person for all prospectives to answer questions. We also give students a list of people they can contact to get specific information about relevant issues such as GLBT support, parenting, minority life, etc...
I think it would be fine to email the student listserv and ask questions. However, try and be specific so you can get the information you want.
So, how many people at your school have gotten tenure-track jobs so far this year?
9 grad students were on the job market this year, 5 got tenure-track jobs, one is still going to interviews and 3 (all first time on the job market) decided to try again next year. Overall, a very good year.
We had about 26 on the academic market. I know of 20 with TT jobs. I think most of the rest of us are trying for postdocs, but I don't actually know about most.
Six of twenty have TT jobs thus far.
six went on the market and all have TT jobs. Three are at top 40 R1 institutions, two are at state schools and one is at a SLAC. One of the humans will do a postdoc before heading off to the R1.
I can't imagine a department with 20 to 26 people on the job market. huge.
Kiss my ass, search committees! After four years of working as a postdoc while applying to learn if I'm a "good fit" to your tired-ass departments, I accepted a six-figure starting salary job in corporate world that blows away your whopping $45,000 offer to beg for tenure from a bunch of psychotic and neurotic faculty. Yes, all you "Top 10" wanna-bes can take your tenure and see "if it's a good fit" where the sun don't shine!
Fine, I know sold my soul to Beelzebub, but at least my monetary compensation matches my skill set now. And I can afford underwear that wasn't sold in a thrift store. No more ramen for me!
Fellow seekers, rejoice in the fact that there's one less candidate applying to be shat upon by the Grinnell's of the US...
Hallelujah, I'm free!!!! FREE!!!!!
--Mike Stivic
Post a Comment