You can count the number of postings from last year on the wiki site. That sound give you a rough estimate.
It is my sense that sociology as a discipline is growing. There was an article in the ASA website a few months ago saying that each year there are more soc profs retiring than PhD graduating to take their place, creating lots of vacancies. I hope that bodes well for us!
I don't want to discourage folks, but we should keep in mind that while there may be a large number of retiring profs in sociology, that does not mean they'll be replaced with new tt salary lines. In many cases (most? the majority? a strong minority?) they'll be replaced with adjuncts.
ASA has a vested interest in maintaining the idea that the market will get/is getting better. They publish little to no empirical evualuations, though, about the strains on the job market (i.e. # of new PhDs to # of tt postings). Until the early 1990s, the American Philosophical Association sent all new grad students a letter warning them about the grim tt employment prospects. ASA is unlikely to replicate that level of frankness with new candidates.
It's also pretty ironic. A discipline that prides itself on rigorous collection of data can't come up with a clear cut answer each year when it comes to the number of TT jobs vs incoming PhD's. I know it is hard to predict when a PhD will finish or if a TT line will fall through, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out the exact number from last year.
I don't think sociology is nearly as bad as humanities departments like English or Philosophy. One good sign is that in sociology old people are actually retiring in relatively large numbers--this is not true of English, History and Philosophy. In History, there are only a handful of TT vacancies each year. Same for English and Philosophy. In sociology, there are over 200 TT opening each year, ranging from R1s (research institutions) to SLAC (=small liberal arts colleges) to CC (=community colleges). So we are lucky that we have better prospects.
Although that being said, I think there are differences across fields within sociology. Among quantitative sociologists, there are always jobs--population centers based in large R1s are growing and hiring TTs, there is a lot of grant money to support positions. I don't know about theory, culture, ethnography. But my feeling is that these fields may be more limited.
I posted the earlier comment re lack of soc. jobs.
I agree that some areas of soc are better off than others. Quantitative & criminology specialists always have many more prospects than ethnographers, theorists, and other qualitative types. And if there are in fact 200 some odd jobs listed, one must still ask how this measures up against how many new PhD's are generated in a year and, also, how many PhDs who graduate in the prior ten years but still don't have jobs are also out there on the market.
A systemic reality here seems to be that grad programs profit from having students in their pipeline yet they also almost never talk honestly with their students about job prospects. If the grad programs aren't being honest, we can only look at national groups like ASA to do so, and they clearly aren't either.
yes, I'm happy to compete against new PhD's, but not so thrilled about competing against adjuncts and VAPs who have been publishing and gaining teaching experience for 2-3 years.
At the same time, I'm sympathetic because I could be that same person next year.
I forgot to add as well that ASA could do a simple study in which they solicit from all hiring committees the number of applicants they receive for each TT line in a given year and pubilish those results along side the number of PhDs awarded in that year.
I posed this suggestion to ASA and it was more or less turned down outright (though with quasi-scientific, bureaucratic rationalizations).
I agree that, in general, the field should do a better job of at least providing accurate and up-to-date information about the job prospects.
I think information about field specific job prospects should be made clear to graduate students very early on. I don't want to wait until I am neck-deep into writing my dissertation to find out that the chances of getting a job in my subfield are very low. Not that I would necessarily change my research interests but at least I would be aware of the realities going in and could make an informed decision.
one example of what may or may not be a trend in terms of retirees. we had a guy retire in my small dept and we have to justify to the dean why we should get to replace that line. its now the second year that he's gone, and there's no word, and no likelihood we'll get that line back. so, due to administrative moves, by default those classes will end up being taught by adjuncts.
I know this is a bit off the subject, but what can a sociology PhD who focused on quantitative methods expect to make per hour if working on a part-time basis for a survey research center or a marketing firm? Anyone have any idea?
Is it me or are the California schools not hiring nearly as much as last year? Doesn't seem like any of the UCs have jobs listings and only 2 Cal-states are up so far. Or do they historically post their jobs in mid/late July. I didn't pay much attention to the job market last year so I don't know when those jobs posted, but the differences seem striking.
Do departments/search committees look at the CVs that we can post to the ASA job bank? I'm just wondering if it's worthwhile to keep uploading updated versions every few months.
My impression is that it doesn't make a huge difference. You may get a person who reaches out to you, and lets you know about a job that's available, but not a windfall of schools.
R1 schools generally post job announcements later. Mid-ranked schools and SLAC post earlier. Top-ranked schools figure that we are all sitting around waiting for them to make their announcements....
What are people's feelings about setting up meetings with faculty at the upcoming ASA meetings in an effort to network? Are you setting up meetings with faculty at places that are hiring or maybe hiring just to introduce yourself and get your name out there? Does it work?
Unless you or your advisor has an "in" at someplace that's hiring, I wouldn't contact people and try to meet at ASA. Sometimes that works--but it can also come off poorly. Ask your advisor if they know anyone at the school you could talk to. Just make sure your CV is out there--some schools are already looking on the web for people to talk to at ASA.
I was the one who asked about "lobbying" for jobs.
My advisor gave me the same advice: don't initiate contact. S/he will contact folks she knows at departments I'm looking at. But, s/he said, when it comes to expressing interest, that is the purpose of the cover letter.
Has anyone gotten different advice? Is my advisor wrong?
In my experience as observer and participant, your advisor is giving you good advice. Being known is good, but I don't personally know anyone that has reported that lobbying for a job was part of their success. It does, hoever, have the potential to backfire by putting committee members in awkward positions. Genuine recommendations from your faculty backed by a solid record are the best path to some interviews and hopefully some job talks. Once you get that far there is no need to lobby, just show them what you have to offer their department!
Hi. Great list! I'm finishing up my PhD at a top R1 in Europe and wanted to apply to R1/2's and SLAC's in the US this year. I had two questions. First, our University doesn't have teaching evaluations for TA's. Is this going to be a problem for me? Second, do you recommend going to the ASA meeting even if I am not presenting a paper so that I can be available for interviews? Thanks everyone!
Going to the ASAa is a good idea, even if you're not presenting. You never know who you'll meet and who they may know. If your advisor or a committee member (or even an established academic) is also going, you may ask to be introduced to her/his friends.
Also, go to the various section parties and smooze. You'll probably be asked who you are, what you do, etc.
Basically, just put yourself out there. Be yourself. Don't look desparate. And see what happens.
The job search is extremely stressful, so controll what you can.
On no teaching evaluations, I don't think it will hurt you that much. What you might want to do, especially if you go for SLAC, is make sure that one of the professors you've taught with writes a recommendation that attests to your teaching abilities, and also make sure to mention briefly that they don't do evaluations at your school in your own cover letter. You'll probably still want to give some evidence that you are/will be a great teacher, some specific experiences, specific things you did in the classroom that were effective, etc.
R1's in the US generally care little about teaching, over than to pay lip service to it, so you'll likely only have to pay lip service to them as well.
Thank you 4:39 and 8:32! I really appreciate the advice. I also wanted to ask what length the cover letter should be (2 pages OK?) and the CV? Lastly, does anyone have any webpages they recommend for CV templates?
If you want an R-1 job, and you're at a top tier program right now, strong/weak ties is what will network you. Dr Big Wig at R-1 will call his/her buddies at top tier PhD programs, asking if there will be any hot so-and-sos on the market in qualitative ethnographic demographic migration and evolution studies. Your advisor may be friendly with Dr Wig & would say, 'Josie Q. is a hot new qualitative demographer in migratory evolution; she'll be going to the ASAs.' You may get an email from Dr Wig asking for a meeting outside of the employment svc., or you may be instructed by your advisor to email Dr Wig to set it up. In any case, the top tier schools have their own economy of checking out the merchandise. Everybody else - and everyone without a PhD from the top 10-17 programs - will be in the more normal economy of hoping for some good introductions at the meetings, doing the employment service, and crossing their fingers. And departments/search cmtes can check CVs via job bank, if you post them, so definitely ensure they are up-to-date (especially if you earn your PhD or get a new publication).
I completely concur with 10:07. That's exactly how it works. I know because my department is doing a search and we are working our networks now for potential candidates.
I've heard a lot about this "back-channel" networking (I'm at a top 5). But for some reason, I don't really buy it. Maybe it's because I don't work in a high demand sub-field, but I don't see anyone sending me, or my advisor, an email after seeing my CV on my departmental web page.
We've got grads who publish in ASR, AJS, SF, etc. I can see this happening to them; but, as a mortal who has published only once in a "regional" journal, I'm not going to wait by the phone.
Regarding 8:56's post, I graduated from a top 10 program, and I've been an assistant prof for a few years now and have served on search committees. (I'm here because I'm going on the market again.) So I have two perspectives on the job market. Coming from a top program is helpful, but it does nothing without publications. Where your Ph.D. is from really matters when committees are comparing CV's with equally strong publications. It is true that committees are biased toward favoring good programs. But publications trump Ph.D. program evertime. When candidates from top programs apply with no publications, they don't even get a second look because so many people are applying with multiple publications, both from "less prestigious" programs and top tier programs.
When you say: "When candidates from top programs apply with no publications, they don't even get a second look..." Do you mean they don't get a look at Top R1's? Or they don't get a second look anywhere, period.
What kind of job prospects are there for new PhD's without any publications?
I guess I can only speak about R1's and R2's. Maybe other universities do not have candidate pools where there are lots of people with lots of good publications. And maybe some committees outside of the R1, R2 circuit do think differently about the need for publications. So I can't talk about all kinds of job openings. Another probable exception, when publications are not necessarily a must, is a job search at a lower-ranked department for a small sub-field (e.g., sociology of the body, etc.). In that case, the specificity of the search will narrow the pool, and if you do work in that area, your odds will be better than in more general searches.
Following on 11:43's comment, I wanted to ask what type of publications and how many one needs to have a shot at R1/R2 and relatively low teaching load SLAC's (like 2/2)? Do they have to be ASR, AJS, SF, etc. or can they be respected subfield journals (e.g. ones oriented to Body, Race, Gender, Sport, etc.)?
It totally depends. I still feel like someone with a solo-authored piece in one of the big three journals is golden. Not necessarily at their first-choice place, but last year everyone I knew with one got a good job.
If you had 2-3 in subfield journals, that's a good sign; buzz about your dissertation can't hurt, either.
But people do get jobs with no publications, certainly. They have to have a very promising dissertation and plenty of help from advisors in talking them up, though. This rarely happens for quant types, who are expected to have a pub or two (or 4) when they go on the market.
You can find lots of examples of people getting jobs at highly ranked departments without an ASR, AJS or SF on their CV. But that means they have other publications in respected subfield journals, and possibly also professional networks working for them.
In the other direction, does having a sole-authored ASR, AJS, of SF ensure a job for you? Unfortunately, it's no guarantee. I know, because it took me a second year on the job market to get a job, even after having one of these pubs. There's just so much chance involved in the job market.
Could anyone tell me what are the "top 25" schools? How do you know? I have an idea of what the "top 10" schools are (Ivy League-types and some Northeast schools), but I am not actually sure of this either.
1. University of Wisconsin-Madison 2. University of California-Berkeley 3. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 4. University of Chicago 4. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 6. Princeton University 6. Stanford University 8. Harvard University 8. University of California-Los Angeles 10. University of Pennsylvania 11. Columbia University 11. Indiana University 11. Northwestern University 14. Cornell University 14. Duke University 14. University of Texas-Austin 17. Penn State 17. University of Arizona 17. University of Washington 20. Ohio State University 20. Yale University 22. Johns Hopkins University 22. New York University 22. University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 25. SUNY-Albany 25. University of Maryland-College Park 27. Brown University 27. University of California-Irvine 29. University of California-Davis 29. University of California-Santa Barbara 31. CUNY Graduate School and University Center 31. Rutgers State University-New Brunswick 31. Vanderbilt University 34. University of California-San Diego 34. University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign 34. University of Iowa 34. University of Massachusetts-Amherst
I didn't post the list, but like any "ranking" list it is important to consider what it actually represents. This the more-or-less the traditional pecking order of the top sociology programs in R1 Universities. By it's very criteria, however, it does not reflect many outstanding departments in smaller schools (like highly selective liberal arts schools), nor does it reflect other important features of institutional environments that may be equally important in supporting your work, like college/university consortiums or law, medical, public health, business, fine arts and other schools or programs that can be vital to those who do interdisciplinary work...
Looks like the US News Top Sociology Programs, for the most part all the different rankings have about the same order, not a lot of differences, so even if it's not US News, it's all basically the same.
As usual, jobs at some of the top schools are basically open searches or very broad with respect to area of study. So how should you pitch yourself to them if you have no idea of what they are looking for? I am at a top R1, but my committee members are neither particularly well connected nor very helpful, so I have zero information about openings. Last year, I spent a lot of time looking through departmental websites and trying to figure out where the holes where, and then mentioning classes I could teach which they don't currently offer. Since my research is unconventional for sociology, that's not hard to do. However, occasionally a department had someone doing similar work, and so I was hard put to distinguish myself from them. Would I be better off just pitching the research and not worrying so much about how it fits into the department? I hear so much about how important fit is, but how do you judge fit when you have no information about what they are seeking?
A related issue -- I've been advised to apply to jobs in any fields that might be even slightly related to what I do. But if you are, say a race and ethnicity person, and the opening is for a culture person, do you try to pass yourself off as a kind of culture person?
While it is certainly good to gather as much information as possible, you will drive yourself crazy trying to think like a department. We'll simply never know exactly what any one committee will get excited about (or repulsed by).
My strategy is to present myself as I am in terms of personality and as a sociologist. This is particularly important during the campus interview: you can assume that everyone on the short-list is qualified for the position. At that point the committee (and department) is looking for someone who fits the mood of the place and will be a convivial colleague (at the least). No one wants to hire a jackass and have to sit through three years of meetings before they can kick his/her butt to the curb.
I like the idea of looking for a niche within a department that you can fill: if you can honestly fill it, you will be in good shape (I think). Last year, I had a couple of departments tell me that they already had someone in the department who did what I did, etc.
I think "we already have some who does what you do" -- which I've also heard -- is an indirect way of saying "we're not interested in you" because in my case, it clearly wasn't true except in the broadest of terms. It's seems to be a way to diffuse a situation and allow everyone to save face.
I missed the deadline to submit my CV for the employment service at the ASA mtg. I was told I can walk in on friday 8/10 and submit my CV then to join the madness. does anyone have experience with this? how badly did I screw up by missing this 7/11 deadline? thanks
I missed the deadline too, but I thought that the primary benefit was the pre-meeting communication. You can post your CV online if you're subscribed to the job bank, so my impression was that it doesn't matter all that much, for candidates.
I have some interviews arranged already, but there's been no other pre-meeting contact between us. Their interview schedules are filling up now, so waiting until Aug 10 may not get you a slot that both you and the school can both make.
Just a guess, but I wouldn't bet schools are seeking interviewees from CVs in the ASA job bank. Seems they can afford to wait for us to request interviews with them.
If you're registering 8/10 it just means that your Friday afternoon/evening will be spent combing the job ads & sending requests. Not all employers got in early either, and anyone with familiarity with the system will anticpate that many candidates won't pop up until that Friday. Just be sure you have lots of potential availability for Sat to Tues morning. (When I was interviewing, I basically just knew that everything else was relatively flexible if a good school wanted to meet me. So there were papers or panels I just didn't hear because I made myself available for an interview. But that's a personal choice.)
Are there many ads for positions that appear only through the employment service listing (i.e.not through the job bank, the Chronicle or Higher Ed jobs)? What would be the advantage (for the school) to posting only through ASA's employment service?
This is my first year doing the ASA employment service, and I've got a few interviews scheduled, but a few more schools that haven't replied to me. If I've requested an interview with a school, and haven't heard anything back, at what point do I write them off? Do any schools wait for the last minute to decide which candidates to invite?
Many schools search committees will not actually look at the interview requests until they get closer to the meetings. I would guess around August 1st. Schools posting jobs receive quite a few requests and if they respond quickly and fill their dance card early, they may not have room for candidates that are a good match for their position. Conversely, some schools are responding to requests that match their position and making requests to candidates that look interesting to them. There are several patterns. Be patient. Just because you have not heard from a school you requested an interview, doesn't mean their may not be interested.
If you did not register by the deadline, don't worry. There will be quite a number of employers who will register for the ASA Employment Service closer to the meeting dates. Additionally, many employers will keep slots open for people who register at the meetings to make sure they have an opportunity to talk to as many people as possible who match their opening. There will be plenty of opportunities to get interviewed at the meetings. You do need to be flexible. The only time that you should block off is if you are presenting, otherwise, be available.
Does anyone know about the position at Penn? There is a posting on the soc wiki about a position in demography at Penn but there is no posting on ASA or on the Penn website. Anyone have the inside scoop?
Don't count yourself out yet. It's a uphill battle for everyone but surprises do happen. I know several people who got good jobs with zero publications and plenty who didn't get any job offers with multiple publications. There is a great deal of variability.
At UCB, an open search generally means just that: whatever piques the fancy fo the search committee. So that's both good and bad - if you do something that Prof. Z finds interesting, you might make it past the initial phase, but if you do something too much like Prof. Z, you might not. Or maybe you do something that Prof. Q would find really interesting, but sadly she's on sabbatical this year (and thus will never see your file...) Just remember, it's a random process, for better or for worse...
I can fill you in on Canada. Canadian universities are all public, and because of that the educational scene is not nearly as hierarchical as the US scene. Differences between universities at both the undergraduate and graduate levels are much smaller. But there are still differences. I think the quality of Canadian soc departments is generally strongly correlated with size (I know, I know, quantity does not equal quality), but that's just how it seems to be, and we can speculate why that is. There is no quasi-official ranking like USN&WR for Canada, so here's my ranking: Toronto McGill Alberta U of Western Ontario U of British Columbia McMaster Carleton Queen's
I don't have a good sense of the relative rankings of the rest.
re open searches: My understanding is that the top programs tend to advertise open searches because they really just want to hire "the best" person out there in any given year. A good approach for applicants? apply away and hope something in your packet catches someone's eye.
Thanks for the forum and the information, everyone. A couple of quick questions:
1)Is there an average number of schools that people apply to? Just wondering what might be considered overkill if we are open to place/school caliber ...
2)If you notifed a school of your interest in an interview at ASA, and they do not get back to you, would you recommend applying through their more formal channels - or do you think that they're sending you a message, by not inviting you, to not bother?
3)If a school doesn't ask for something in their application packet (i.e. a statement of teaching philosophy), is it smart to send it, regardless, or do you think they will find it annoying to get so much paper?
I look forward to your responses - and thanks, in advance!
1. When on the market I applied for about 30 positions to cover both the liberal arts schools and research schools hiring in my subdiscipline. I wasn't sure which I wanted, so interviews help clarify it for me. 2. Having been on hiring committees, I'd say apply anyway. My experience has been that these ASA interviews are best for weeding people out rather than really finding the perfect candidate. It allows you to meet some folks who seem like a good fit for further inspection. Most people can seem qualified on paper, but when you are face-to-face it becomes clear who is really interested in the areas in which you are hiring. 3. My experience readings loads of files tells me that you are better off sending what they request. If they say something vague like "evidence of teaching effectiveness" you have more liberty to add things. However, if they give a clear list, just send those materials. If they want more, they will ask. Not to sound too discouraging, but there's a good chance that some of the materials you send will not get a close read anyhow.
Re: how many schools one should apply to. You should apply for as many as you're interested in and appropriate for. It's a good thing that you're flexible about region/caliber - it may give you more options in the end! Better to send out too many apps than too few!
as for how many applications to send out, I think it depends on what you're looking for. If you're only looking to teach at liberal arts schools within your state (which is the case for lots of people who have family or other obligations and can't move elsewhere) obviously you're not going to send out more than a handful. If you're doing a national or international search and you're interested in both research-oriented and liberal arts schools, then you're going to be sending out a lot. On the market last year I send out around 40ish. This year I've narrowed things down a bit on what I want so I may send out less, but my advisors certainly seemed to think 40-50 applications (and therefore 40-50 letters for them to send out) wasn't too much. hope that helps answer your question!
my adviser suggested 15! but there is no way i am only sending out 15. i get the impression that she does not want me to send out more b/c it would be more work for her. for me, i'm sending out 20-25 but i still think that is too low.
Re: the demography opening at Penn. This position was posted last year and went unfilled, so it's either the old posting that wasn't removed or they've posted again with new hopes.
About last year: the post was for "open" rank, but they only interviewed at the associate level. They made an offer, but the position was declined because of failed spousal hire negotiations
Re: how many is too many...there's no magic number. If you're applying to 50 because you're stretching yourself ridiculously to fit, reconsider. If you're applying to 50 because there really are 50 openings for listings that capture your skills & interests, then it makes sense. Also, the market will fluctuate - you'll do a lot in the fall & early winter and maybe a handful more in the spring, for one-yrs and post-docs. If your referees balk, suggest having a credential file prepared & sent out by the grad secretary, or have the grad secretary keep the letter on file & do mail merge for correct addresses & titles. And when you apply, definitely send only what is requested in the ad!
I disagree with the advice of sending only what is asked for in the ad. I've had the same experience on search comittees at two different institutions. At one place, writing samples were not requested (they were going to be requested from those on the short list), and at another place letters were not requested (ditto). In both cases, people who had more information on file had a distinct advantage. Even though the committee members knew that it wasn't fair, they couldn't help but give weight to the positive letters / good articles that were in some of the files. I took away the lesson that it's better to just send everything. And even though I raised the issue that we shouldn't give weight to information that wasn't requested (since not every file had it), it just wasn't possible to "forget" the positive letters or articles that were liked. And at no point did anyone suggest penalizing files that had more information than was requested
Thanks to everyone who answered my questions about number of schools to apply to, etc. We are building a great community resource here. Best of luck to you all!
Do you happen to know who was chairing the search committee last year at Penn? I'd like to inquire about the current status of the search and ask if they are planning on hiring this year.
Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the field that only applies to schools who actually ask for my specializations. Are there others out there, who read most ads and say "Nope, that's not me," and move on? Or are most of you stretching? My specializations are narrow and unpopular, btw, so this doesn't leave me with many options. And I'm not looking for advice to do the contrary, so much as wondering whether I have company in this practice. Anyone?
For a college where the focus is on teaching, I will stretch myself a bit. It doesn't take much expertise in a subfield to teach undergrads. But for research focused jobs or jobs involving graduate classes, I do pretty much stick to open searches or ones that ask for my specialty.
re: position at Penn. I would say you are better off having your advisor work a few connections to find out what's happening with their search. Or, just wait until they post an official announcement. I don't think you would really hurt yourself by asking, but it seems a little inappropriate to me...
Thanks for the quick response. You are right and I should hold off on sending an email. If there is an opening it should be announced in the next few weeks so I should just be patient! Thanks again!
re: specializations and applying to jobs....True, you don't have to be an expert in a subdiscipline to teach an undergraduate course. That being said, the next question is whether you want to teach that specific course over and over. If a job posting asks for a specific course, then it is likely to be built into that teaching line. The issue is not whether you can muster a course on the topic, but do you want to commit the next several years of your life to that area. I'm with poster 12:00am on this one.
I got the advice that field of specialization, especially for smaller schools, is the first thing they use to winnow down the applicant pool. So if you don't do what they want at all, I wouldn't (and am not going to) bother.
On the other hand, I have been told that search committees are often very divided about what they want, and so it may be worth sending your application if it's a school that appeals to you, as it might strike a chord with someone. I imagine this is more the case with larger schools and R1s.
instead of sifting through a long list of comments to find info about a specific job, this blog is organized by job opening instead. it is only just started, but it gives people an alternative way to track rumors about a specific opening. not to be a "competitive" blog to this one.
Personally, I would like to see the organization of this site changed. Or maybe there can be links from the wiki page? If I want to know if anyone has heard anything about the SUNY job, I really do NOT want to have to scroll through literally hundreds of comments.
By the time we got halfway through job market season, I have up on the old blog because the comments section was a nightmare.
PLEASE consider improving your format so we can actually FIND the info we are looking for. I know I have better things to be doing that reading blog comments for hours.
And I have better things to do with my time then re-formatting the blog to your liking.
I am on the job market as well. I understand that there are probably lots of ways to improve this blog but I am not paid to do this nor do I have the time to learn the intricacies of blog management.
If you are unhappy with the way in which information about jobs are disseminated, consider complaining to ASA or formal institutions that actually bear some responsibility.
You want things done your way then please by all means take time away from writing your dissertation and applying for jobs and format away…
Well, Alba started this thing when the other blogs went defunct. And even if there are blog tricks that might make it easier to navigate, school specific info is really the domain of the wiki. Sure 2 blogs will be easy to navigate, but it will just take more time. I vote for one blog. But, one person can't really decide these things.
No problem. I'm happy to have done it. Thank you all for posting--it is great to have a community of people out there to share this stressful time.
I understand there are may be inefficiencies with this format. I modeled it after the first blog b/c it was the easiest thing to do. Someone else mentioned that it would be helpful to archive the comments by month. I looked into that but could not find a function to archive comments (I could only find a way to archive postings). If I were to reorganize the blog, I may lose the existing comments, which I don't want. As it is, we will all have to settle with the way it is organized for now.
I realize that a long page of comments is cumbersome but, as suggested, the search function is helpful.
Anyways, in spite of the problems, I still find this site useful. I hope others do too.
i am the (anonymous) person who started the "other blog". i want to clarify that i think this blog is great and appreciate it very much! i started another blog only because i am tracking this information by position opening myself, so it made sense to make that available to others.
if i do get any information that is not here, i will cross-post. so please, no one should feel like they have to check both blogs to avoid missing anything.
anyone who makes an effort to help those of us on the market should be thanked. i personally prefer organizing information in a different manner, but that should not be taken as a criticism of this blog AT ALL!
think of the "other blog" as a quick index of job openings and (if alba is okay with this) this blog as being the place to find more in-depth information on a wider range of topics. the other blog will have more information as job activity gets going.
...from what i have read here it sounds like the people on the job market from the top 5-10 schools are the ones that departments want to hire. and the rest of us will get a shot at the jobs that those people don't want. which is not unexpected given the 2004 ASR article by Burris on prestige hierarchies in academic hiring. but i'm curious: what do the CVs of those top-10 candidates look like? do they really look any different from the rest of us if you take away the name of their college/university? do they publish more, present more, or have more professional service?
i'm just wondering how much of our job market possibilities were fixed the day we picked what grad school to attend...?
I don't think anyone knows the answer to the question behind the question you ask, which is what is the CURRENT relative importance of institution attended in getting a job. Burris' article showing that "top 15" schools' alums soak up the top jobs covers several decades of data on who gets what jobs. I think we've moved into a new world of grad school where publications are significantly more important, and school attended & advisor prestige less important, than they used to be, but beyond that simple claim it's hard to say how much. This would obviously be great stuff to have systematic data on, so it's too bad that both our own departments and ASA have no interest in helping get to the bottom of this.
I'm at a top 5 and I know folks from last year that did not get TT jobs. If you want to know what their CV's look like, just go to their dept's home page and click on "PhD's on the Market." Most depts have a variation on this theme.
Re: idle curiosity... Yes, some of your fate is connected to the grad school you went to. So that decision is pivotal. But in a hierarchical, elitist society, some of your fate is also connected to your undergrad, your social class, and other intangibles, like charisma, charm, ability to network, ability to read people & situations, ability to move past shyness, etc. Those things help on the market and as you strategize in the yrs before the actual job search. In terms of elite's CV, the eminently hire-able ones have things like: solo authorship for an article in AJS, ASR, Social Forces; maybe got a grant or predoc fellowship of national import; have demonstrated that 'potential' has already lead to results. I know of someone from a good (but not top) PhD pgm who was hired at a top-5 R1. He had national reknown for his research - cited across the country because it was eye-catching for the avg reader/viewer. So already coming in with a reputation helped him. (He was also a down-to-earth, unarrogant person, which no doubt helped.) But one thing to ask, in a sort of existential way, is what you really want for a job. Does it help to want something you probably (structurally) cannot achieve? And are those R1 jobs really that desirable, given the pressure to publish in specific places, with certain impact factors, work with hordes of PhD students, and write successful grants? For me, answer is no, but be clear with yourself about what you really want.
I'm curious about everyone else's experiences at the ASA job meatmarket.... mine was okay - I felt like the schools were more trying to sell me on them than the other way around.
I agree. The job service was fine. Everyone was nice; except for one school, where the chair was an ass and took a cell phone call during the session.
It would be easy to come away with the impression that you have 10 solid leads on jobs. But, I'm sure every candidate is thinking the same way; so it is hard to gauge how much weight they carry.
6:34 - i had the same experience. everyone seemed to be trying to sell me on their department. my feeling is that most departments want to get applications from as many people as possible so they have more to choose from. i don't know anyone who got a bad vibe from as ASA interview.
It was interesting to me that the schools lower on the hierarchy seemed to be much more in interview mode than the R1 schools who will pretty much have their pick. I think the higher ranked schools used it as an opportunity to get as many people interested so that they would apply. The lower ranked schools seemed to be both a little less nice and more annoyed that they were interviewing so many people.
Could someone provide some insight on how to put together a strong teaching portfolio. I'm assuming it should include a 1 page letter of teaching philosophy, syllabi from past courses, evaluations from students. What else should be in there? Any tips for the amount of info to include, whether student evaluations should be individually photocopied or summarized in a single document? Etc? Thanks!
As a former grad student of a top 5 school, and a junior faculty member of a top 20, let me tell you something:
It might make you feel happy to see that you have an equal number of publications (or more) with the grad students at Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton and the like. But how about the quality and originality of the work? Just because you published as much as they did, or more, does it also mean that the quality of your work is on par? How about the quality of your training? How many of the great books that you have read recently were written by people with PhDs from lower ranking schools? Let's get a little honest here. It is true that being at these top institutions make these people competitive but these people ended up at those top institutions because they were pretty darn competitive to begin with.
I'm also surprised that you think you "picked" what grad school to attend. Why didn't you just pick a top 5 school my dear? You wouldn't have to worry about any of these right now. Or even better, why don't you just pick the school where you will teach?
I'm sorry but here's the chilling reality: when you put yourself on the market to get into a grad school, you weren't really picking, you were being selected; when you are on the market for a job, you are also being selected. There's a very high correlation between the two selection processes. What's so surprising about that?
To those of you who will find my remarks seriously offensive: I do not mean that a person who attends a school outside top 10 cannot produce good work. I'm just saying that "you got the job/award/fellowship/etc because you are attending a top 10 school" mentality is seriously flawed.
Dear "get real," If you can't find it in your prestigious self to be collegial, understanding, or the least bit helpful, why not simply bask in the glory of your Top 20 faculty position and stay off this blog? What a puke.
Is it possible--just maybe possible--that you are not as awesome as you make yourself out to be?
Good luck getting tenure with that attitude. I'm sure your colleagues love you and you're an excellent fit at the illustrious institution at which you currently reside.
1:47 - Teaching portfolio - everything you mention is correct. It's also good if (with the syllabus) you include descriptions of assignments. The question about the evaluations is a hotly contested one (if you don't read the job seeking forum at the chronicle, I'd recommend it). My feeling that is that I don't want it to look like I'm selecting out good evals, but I don't want to overwhelm them with paper, so I provide them with all my quantitative summary reports, plus copies of the open-ended forms for one recent class. And if you have a written evaluation from a peer or supervisory observation, include that.
As a grad student at a top 5, bravo. Great analysis of how privilege works. My only suggestion would be to (1) learn how to spell the word "idle" and then (2) google "Merton" and "Matthew effect."
sheesh. This is a friendly blog. Let's exchange info, empathize with one another, and offer support. If you can't say something nice...
Why do some schools have such early deadlines? My advisor says her letter will be late (she's still on vacation) but this won't be a problem. Do you think it's OK? Should I insist that she sends it on time?
I am thinking we should use this blog as a space to organize a collective action: Let's all send our files to every school on October 15 :)
the peer review process is anonymous, so we're all held to the same standards. so yes, all ASR publications are equal, whether the author is at a top-10 school or not.
and let me say, i AM at a top-5 school and many of the courses we take are with professors who stopped caring about 20 years ago when they got tenure. do not assume for a second that a department's position in the prestige hierarchy has anything whatsoever with the quality of education that students receive.
i absolutely promise you that the quality of education you receive has a lot more to do with your adviser and your personal commitment than your department's prestige.
ps: MANY of the good sociology books and articles i have read recently have been written by people not at top-20 schools. go pull your back issues of ASR and AJS.
I actually think late letters are pretty common. Just make sure your materials (i.e. cv, cover letter, etc.) are in on time. Most schools accept late letters of rec, although they may not fully consider your application until all materials are submitted which can put you at a disadvantage. But I wouldn't worry too much about it b/c it is not uncommon.
Its striking to me that a "sociologist" would have so little insight into privilege. Isn't the concept of privilege one of the things we try to teach our undergraduate students? Don't we try to help them understand that one's experiences and life chances are often enhanced or diminished dependeing on factors related to race, gender, and social class and that it is not always about merit and hard work? For you to make the argument that quality of work is better at top ranked schools proves to me that your "sociological" training totally missed any components related to social inequality, power and privilege. Go back to your intro to theory class and read some Max Weber!
Here is the "chilling reality"...the reason that people from top ranked schools get jobs at top ranked school has less to do with their merit and more to do with who their dissertation chair was, who they collaborated with on a publication, and who will be able to write their letters of recommendation. We all know the top names at the top schools. We also all know that they didn't start out at those schools. In fact, for the majority of their careers, they were at lower ranked schools. They are not products of Harvard, UIC or Chapel Hill- they were recruited to those places after a 15-20 career elsewhere. Most of the "big names" did not get their PhDs from the top schools. They made names for themseleves during their first jobs.
Regardless, however, getting a letter from one of those people carries a ton of weight. Having one of those people on your dissertation committee carries a ton of weight. Additionally, since those people have a bunch of grant money, they can afford lots of grad students to do their "research" work. You get publications in top journals (as the 3rd or 4th author) because of them- not because of you!
I'm at a top 5 school and the lack of self-reflexivity in regards to status, particularly with many on the job market, is absolutely appalling. I'm sure because of the nature of sociological inquiry, people expect things to be different, but really, sociologists are just like everyone else, and many, particularly it seems at top schools, are very concerned with maintaining or increasing their status within the discipline.
The earlier poster is right about the reproduction of a certain notion of "merit" at top schools. Many people actually believe they are qualitatively better than others simply because they go to a top 5 school. Within the schools there is definitely a hierarchy of students, some schools rank their students (or so my sources tell me), though I don't think many students have a clue about that. Students definitely form cliques and avoid or give dirty looks to people who's research agenda or career goals they don't approve. It's sickening, funny and sad, when you consider that most Americans don't even know the difference between Sociology and Psychology and virtually no one (except other high status sociologists) will read the research of these status concerned sociologists.
Dear Concerned Citizens, Of course it's fine to expend time and energy debating elitism, hierarchy, and privilege in sociology if you want... but, as for the one grumpy poster, s/he just strikes me as the first troll on this board this season. Personally, I don't care to give him/her the satisfaction of being treated as anything but that.
For the person who asked about teaching portfolio materials...try to be judicious in what to include. The portfolio should not be huge. (If you cannot imagine a busy search committee actually reading it in its entirety, then it's too large.) A school that really cares about teaching will actually be looking at your syllabi - are your objectives clear? is the tone shrill and punitive? does the syllabus/reading have coherency and present a clear path of readings, assignments, etc. With teaching evals, provide a summary of -all- qualitative comments (don't send 24 separate evals, in other words) and a clear, annotated quantitative summary (don't send 24 separate evals!).
Some postings ask for a "statement of teaching and research" and others ask for a "letter describing teaching and research" while still others specify they want separate statements of teaching, research, and a cover letter.
For schools that just say they want "a letter describing teaching and research", is it acceptable to send separate documents for both teaching and research?
From the sample cover letters I've seen, this is my current strategy.
R1 schools that just say "send a letter" I spend about 75% on my research and 25% on my teaching.
For schools that want "statements" on teaching and research I have a one page letter followed by 1.5 to 2 page "statements." (I underline "statement on X" and center it as a heading... so it can act as a stand-alone.)
For schools that want a teaching portfolio or evidence of teaching effectiveness, I've got a 3 page writeup of my teaching philosophy.
To address your question, for letters that want you to address teaching and research, but don't ask specifically for statements, I usually cut about 10% from my statements and just add them to the letter (with some added text to transition between teaching and research segments).
Does that make any sense?
Again, I'm just a candidate like you. Hopefully some experts will chime in with more guidance.
As someone who is a candidate, but has also been on search committees (as a grad student and as tt faculty), I would say that a 4 page letter is excessive. I've rarely seen letters go onto a third page.
Is that for a letter that is supposed to describe both research and teaching, or a cover letter for a packet that also includes a teaching and research statement?
In the search committees I've been on, we haven't asked for separate statements, and the letters are usually 2 pages. (slightly small font, 11 pt .75 margins).
When I've been a candidate, that's what I've done, and if there are separate research/teaching statements, my letter goes down to one page or so.
The letter matters - we especially noticed letters that are well written and made their work sound interesting - but you don't have to capture every detail of your application in it. That's what CVs, writing samples and teaching portfolios are for.
For a letter that asks for additional statements on teaching and research, the letter itself is 1.25 pages. It's only 4 pages when you include the two additional statements.
If they don't want teaching and research statements, and it is a research orientated dept, the letter is 2 full pages.
Change of subject here, from a new poster. Apparently the question of whether to include "in progress" or "in preparation" works on one's vita is both controversial and discipline-specific.
So what say we? Assuming that such works are clearly labeled as such (rather than trying to pad the publications section) - yea or nay?
As long as it is clearly defined, I say include them (but not too many). But, if you presented something at a conference and you put that under publications... I'm thinking pad
Also, book reviews aren't really peer reviewed. But, if that's all you've got. I'd call it a publication...
Thanks. (3:38 again) Does anyone do this with book manuscripts? If I'm revising my diss and have a proposal and in the process of shopping it, should I list it as a work in progress?
I'd list a book proposal under work in progress, but only if the citation makes it clear that this is a proposal. This is the type of issue you should discuss in a "research agenda" or "statement on research."
From reviewing several CVs for juniors searches, one thing that I find kinda shady is when people individually list the chapters of their dissertation as "working papers" or "articles in progress." I think people should only list then after they have done substantial revision and are very close to submitting the piece for review.
i list things as "works in progress" if they are actual papers that are complete. within that heading:
1. list papers under review and specify where. obviously list any R&Rs here too.
2. list papers as "undergoing revisions" if they have been rejected somewhere and you are revising them in light of the reviews. in your cover letter, you can say when you expect to submit them and where.
3. list papers as "working papers" if you have basically done all the analysis and are in the final stages of finishing. ditto for including dates in the cover letter.
anything beyond this seems to me like padding. if you are shopping around a book deal, that is a valid "in progress" project. if you thought of something cool on the subway today, that is not.
Related question: where do you list things that are forthcoming but not in peer-reviewed journals? A study of mine is going to be the subject of a forthcoming article in a national newspaper, but I have not yet submitted the article anywhere (the reporter got her hands on a draft version that was making the rounds). Can I call that a publication, working paper, or what?
Or are publications outside of academia considered irrelevant?
Has anyone heard about candidates being rejected because they are from top-5 schools?
I have heard from some professors that they applied to non-top-tier schools and didn't get interviews because the departments didn't think they'd accept an offer so they didn't want to waste the money bringing them in for an interview.
I am at a top-5 and wonder if that fact could make some schools not consider me?
i know that with teaching positions, it is a little different because those schools probably know you're applying there because you really would accept the position. It is (hopefully) obvious from your CV. But for people from top-5's who really want R2 jobs...are we at a disadvantage? Is there something we can say in the cover letter to convince departments that we would accept an offer because they are actually our preferred institution and not a back-up if an R1 doesn't work out?
I feel like it is pretty simple to explain that you want a teaching position for reasons X, Y, and Z. But I have very good reasons for wanting an R2 position although I could probably land an R1 slot, none of which are evident on my CV.
It means that they are interested but this does not mean that they are not also interested in a lot of other people as well.
I've also received a few invitations to apply to schools. It feels nice for about two seconds until you realize that this email was probably sent to others. It is definitely not a guarantee of anything.
i'm at a teaching-emphasizing (supposedly) uni. it's tough to offer someone from a top 5 place a job for the fear it's your "safety" job, or that you'll jump ship in a year or two when a better offer comes along. but you still have to apply and just charm 'em in the interview. they can be convinced and, like all people, are susceptible to the right kinds of flattery.
i am also in a similar situation. for personal reasons--ie. family and spouse--I want to staying in a specific geographical location and would be happy to take a R2 or SLAC job in the area. i'm from a R1 with no teaching experience though.
i've been told that alluding to my personal circumstances for wanting to stay in the area in my cover letter would help my chances. it helps makes you seem like a more serious candidate--ie., one that will actually accept an offer and stay put for a while.
I have a question. A number of the positions posted on the ASA job listings site state that they start reviewing applications on X date. Should I consider this a firm deadline or is it okay to send an application in after they start the review process? Will this affect the consideration they give my application?
How is everyone holding up writing all these letters? If you're tailoring 30-40 (or even 10-20) letters and teaching/research statements, you must be getting as foggy and exhausted as I am. Right? Help! I'm drowning.
blood and flesh are biological hazards and therefore could cause your application to be delayed for decontamination. if you do want to send them, be sure and send them separate from your other application materials.
as for writing a personalized letter/statements for every position, i don't think it is necessary. in your latter, include a few lines that are school-specific but mostly try and focus on your qualifications in general. i think someone mentioned earlier that it works to have 3 letters: R1 research school, teaching college, lower-tier school. another approach would be to write a paragraph for each of your primary research areas and one for teaching. then you can cut and paste in the ones that are specific to the job.
your teaching statement and research statement should generally be general and not school-specific, although you may want to emphasize one thing more heavily than another depending on the school. and no, schools are not going to pick apart individual sentences. what will get you on the short list is your overall qualifications and compatibility with the position. your application materials should be strong, but not necessarily school-specific.
oh, yeah! my eyes are bugging out of my head at this point. And there's still so many more applications to go.
I find myself using weird logic at this point, too. Like... this is more of a safety school, so they get the statement that I printed right before I changed the ink cartridge...
I initially went through all the jobs, flagged the ones that I wanted to apply to - supposedly thought about them all... and now that it's time to write the letters, I find myself seriously questioning my choices. I survey the departments' online presence (how much does that reflect reality, I wonder?), google real estate prices in the area as well as professional occupation concentrations for my spouse... and then I just feel like throwing up my hands.
for those of you creating proposed syllabi, are you doing them as though you were teaching them at your home institution, the one where you are sending the application, or with no institutional affiliation?
I know most institutions prefer to get EVERYTHING in one packet. That means that the applicant really should also send in the three confidential letters of reference with his/her application packet. The problem is, sometimes it is not possible. I had one prof out of the area and so cannot write a reference letter until AFTER the date the institution begins viewing applications. Another prof accidentally mailed out his letters of reference to the institutions himself, even though I mentioned to my letter writers that I will pick up the letters from my department.
Finally, it is true that the search committees will not review applications if there are missing reference letters? Do they not realize that sometimes the reference letters are beyond the applicant's control?
7:14 - My department sends out all of my letters. My understanding was that this is standard; I hadn't heard of applicants sending them with the other materials.
7:14, my letter-writers send out the letters themselves (I give them addressed envelopes to help with the process, and to act as a check-list of sorts - if the envelope is still stitting on their desk, they didn't send it) I did this last year as well and it seemed to work just fine - most schools even contacted me to let me know if they were missing a letter. My committee seemed to indicate it was pretty normal for the letters to arrive separate from your materials, so I wouldn't worry about it. Although if there is a school you're really interested in and you want to make sure they've gotten everything before the deadline you could probably email the contact person or department secretary to inquire if all your letters came in.
I have a question that I'm hoping the blog might be helpful answering. As discussions/helpful articles cited here have noted, upward mobility is rather rare in our field, so coming from say, a school ranked in the mid to upper 30's one shouldn't pin their hopes on a job in a top ten school. That said, does anyone know about mobility for post-docs and fellowships? I've seen some pretty interesting post-docs in my area, but most of them are at schools that are pretty high up in the rankings and I'm not sure how to judge my chances. Any thoughts?
Post-docs in highly rated programs are much easier than landing tenure track jobs in the same programs. So, go for it. The only hitch: you gotta know someone.
I'm just grumbling, but maybe this will make some of you feel better.
Here's my situation: I'm from a bottom-of-the-barrel department. No one has heard of my advisor or committee members. I have no peer-reviewed publications, just a book review and a couple of articles under review. I've never won an award or been invited to give a talk. I don't do criminology, globalization, or quantitative research.
I'm on the market this year. I'm looking for a job at a SLAC. I just spent some time perusing the cvs of the "competition."
I feel your pain, Grumbling. There are a lot of us in your situation.
Here's my grumble: I'm not sure I'm ambitious enough for this career!! You know, to have a 2-3 or 3-3 teaching load, carry out an active research agenda and seek grants/funding, perform service to the institution, then come home and be a sane, focused parent/spouse who is "there" for my family in the evenings, and somehow manage to squeak in a workout or nap here and there.
This may be job market jitters, but I just don't see how academics do it. The job is day/evening, at least 5 day a week if you're serious about tenure. In my ASA interviews I keep hearing about the "tenure clock." I really hate the analogy of gauging one's worklife against a ticking clock. Do I really want this?
I'm pretty sure I've hit the job application nadir, so forgive me if this sounds self-pitying. I'm exhausted by all this.
I hear you too. I am in the exact same spot, except that I'm at a top-ish institution.
No publications, nothing promising under review, no collaborative projects, no grants, no awards, no invited talks, and I don't work with anyone who can help me get a job.
I can operate a deep-fryer so I have a back-up plan.
Dear 5:09, You sound very sure of the post-doc procedure. Why would you *have* to know someone to get a good post-doc? I've clearly been left out of the insider's loop if this is a no-brainer.
Ahhhhh!?! (That's a scream.) Are there no places left for sociologists that are based on merit or promise? :-|
Every year, 2 or 3 people in our department accept post-doc positions. I do not know any of them who got the positions by knowing someone on the inside.
We all know that network connections matter, but I don't have any reason to believe they matter any more for post-docs than for assistant professors. For some of the highly competitive, well-known post-docs, connections probably matter less even.
With all effort not to be a jerk, I really, really do not want to wade through posts like 7:41 is suggesting. I'm not sure of the purpose... maybe to find out how many people have your top job as their top, too? I am pretty sure the answer is "lots."
To me, "miscellaneous discussion," does not include games to pass time without discussing anything. If people want to play around, maybe a "fun and games" or "unrelated" section could be added to the blog. alba?
Oops. I'm sorry, I hadn't thought of that (I'm 7:41). I thought a little tension-release would be welcome, and no, I don't think the "point" is to find out other people's top jobs. It's exactly what I said it was: a little bit of indulgence in visualizing positive outcomes together. Perhaps it's just me who could use that sort of thing..there's no sense putting any more work on Alba, though. I'm cool with dropping it.
Hi, I created a separate posting called "things to do to pass the time..." You are welcome to post, rants/raves, games, fun things that are only peripherally related to job market stuff. I think a separate section for this is a great idea! Let's just keep it separate from the other postings which should be reserved for topics immediately related to job market issues.
I am not at a Top 20 and my department is probably considered bottom of the "Top 40".
I have done ok with publications in grad school netting four (3 solo author) thus far. (You can take me out of the working class but you can't take the working class out of me).
Some of the pieces are now being cited (no not by me) and sometimes outside the disipline (by economists, polsci, statisticians). Is there a classy way of including such info in the application or is this completely off limits?
I would say you should definitely include it. You have to give them a reason to want to interview you even though you arent at a top 10. Having 4 publications is quite an accomplishment given that you arent at an institution that just puts grad students on papers to give them publications. Definitely mention that your papers have been cited in a widespread manner and that this has been interdisciplinary in nature. Search committees like to know that your research is going to have a broad impact in academia.
One of my professors said he came out of Wisc-Madison with a couple good articles, but he was last with five other co-authors and so he did a Post-Doc which allowed him to get some good stuff out and put him in a much better job market position.
I cannot bank on my articles alone and I am in a department that is ranked low (actually the near bottom of U.S. News Top 60 a few years past).
I have just started the on the market process so I do not know how the whole thing will go.
My wife got a personalized email from a senior faculty at a R1, but who knows what it means if anything... but one faculty member at our school said it was a pretty promising sign.
Need some cultural capital advice (assuming some kind of interview is ever achieved): Suit and tie for guys? Pinstripes ok or too much?
I was told comfortable shoes for walking around a big campus.
Does anyone extensively read up on the faculty's work before going to a particular dept. for an interview?
My take on the suit - a simple dark suit works well for men and women. I wouldn't go for pinstripes myself, but if that's what you've got, I don't think it's a problem.
I read about the faculty as much as I can, and try to have at least a vague familiarity with what they do. I have a really hard time retaining all that info, so I make index cards and take a quick look during a bathroom break before you meet with a specific person.
At teaching colleges, it may be hard to figure out what the faculty research areas are (since they may not be publishing). But don't stress, because they're usually not all hung up about being recognized for their contributions.
I repectfully disagree about attire. You should dress a notch, maybe two, above what you'd normally wear as a professor. No academic I know wears a suit, junior or senior. Several with tenure (male of course) wear jeans and shorts! Not that you have those options, but it REALLY stands out at all but the most conservative departments to give a job talk in a suit. And I disagree that women need to wear dark clothes. One should dress like the person you are (conservative, free-spirit, etc.) but step it up one notch or so. We are sociologists after all -- there's more allowance than in other disciplines to dress to your personality. It's worked for me before.
I bought two suits for the job market. During a job talk on my campus, I had to walk the new hire across campus and he suggested wearing comfortable shoes because he had to walk all over our giant campus (a large R1 land-grant).
When fielding questions during the job talk, I am guessing that it is very important to not seem defensive, but instead act as if all questions are constructive criticisms (many of course truly are) even when some turkey asks one of those questions designed to "spoil your identity".
5:46 - I have to disagree. In my grad department (a highly desirable job, in a R1 dept that was not at all conservative), I've seen at least six searches. I can't remember a candidate (male or female) who DIDN'T wear a suit.
Yeah, I think suits are absolutely required. You can always remove the jacket if you feel really hot or uncomfortable after your talk, but they expect you to be dressier than they are! The point is not to match your attire to theirs.
Why the concern with what to wear? Invest that energy into preparing lectures (a solid research talk and a teaching demonstration). As for what to wear, get a nice pair of slacks, a sweater and a blazer, and you'll be fine.
I'm not sure on where this should go, so sorry if I picked wrong...
Even if everything is ethical and up front, can a junior person's CV be too long? If so, is there a guideline on what is definitely too long?
This is not a question about "CV padding." It's a question about whether or not legitimate entries should be removed (i.e., turning comprehensive presentations and honors lists into "selected" ones). What's most likely to impress (or least likely to annoy) the SCs?
I wonder if stress levels are getting high, as folks are needlessly getting attitudes. I believe the earlier point was to not sweat the small stuff like what to wear. Interviews are stressful and uncomfortable enough already, so why wear something you may find uncomfortable and stuffy?
828 comments:
1 – 200 of 828 Newer› Newest»Let's see if this blog date stamps...
Wiki shows that about 30-35 jobs have been posted by June 25. Any ideas on how many jobs (total) are posted each year?
You can count the number of postings from last year on the wiki site. That sound give you a rough estimate.
It is my sense that sociology as a discipline is growing. There was an article in the ASA website a few months ago saying that each year there are more soc profs retiring than PhD graduating to take their place, creating lots of vacancies. I hope that bodes well for us!
Best I can tell from the wiki, looks like around 250 job postings last year (although there might have been duplicates).
Do you have a link for that ASA article?
Here's the link:
http://www2.asanet.org/footnotes/nov03/indexthree.html
I don't want to discourage folks, but we should keep in mind that while there may be a large number of retiring profs in sociology, that does not mean they'll be replaced with new tt salary lines. In many cases (most? the majority? a strong minority?) they'll be replaced with adjuncts.
ASA has a vested interest in maintaining the idea that the market will get/is getting better. They publish little to no empirical evualuations, though, about the strains on the job market (i.e. # of new PhDs to # of tt postings). Until the early 1990s, the American Philosophical Association sent all new grad students a letter warning them about the grim tt employment prospects. ASA is unlikely to replicate that level of frankness with new candidates.
Well... it's an empirical question.
It's also pretty ironic. A discipline that prides itself on rigorous collection of data can't come up with a clear cut answer each year when it comes to the number of TT jobs vs incoming PhD's. I know it is hard to predict when a PhD will finish or if a TT line will fall through, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out the exact number from last year.
Has anyone heard of someone working as a VAP and then having the department run a rigged search to hire them for a TT job?
I ask because one of the SLACs posting a job just hired a VAP for 2007-08 with the same profile.
"VAP"? I plead ignorance: please define. Thanks.
VAP = Visiting Assistant Professor (i.e. not Tenure Track -> TT).
all questions welcome. This is a friendly environment.
I don't think sociology is nearly as bad as humanities departments like English or Philosophy. One good sign is that in sociology old people are actually retiring in relatively large numbers--this is not true of English, History and Philosophy. In History, there are only a handful of TT vacancies each year. Same for English and Philosophy. In sociology, there are over 200 TT opening each year, ranging from R1s (research institutions) to SLAC (=small liberal arts colleges) to CC (=community colleges). So we are lucky that we have better prospects.
Although that being said, I think there are differences across fields within sociology. Among quantitative sociologists, there are always jobs--population centers based in large R1s are growing and hiring TTs, there is a lot of grant money to support positions. I don't know about theory, culture, ethnography. But my feeling is that these fields may be more limited.
I posted the earlier comment re lack of soc. jobs.
I agree that some areas of soc are better off than others. Quantitative & criminology specialists always have many more prospects than ethnographers, theorists, and other qualitative types. And if there are in fact 200 some odd jobs listed, one must still ask how this measures up against how many new PhD's are generated in a year and, also, how many PhDs who graduate in the prior ten years but still don't have jobs are also out there on the market.
A systemic reality here seems to be that grad programs profit from having students in their pipeline yet they also almost never talk honestly with their students about job prospects. If the grad programs aren't being honest, we can only look at national groups like ASA to do so, and they clearly aren't either.
yes, I'm happy to compete against new PhD's, but not so thrilled about competing against adjuncts and VAPs who have been publishing and gaining teaching experience for 2-3 years.
At the same time, I'm sympathetic because I could be that same person next year.
I forgot to add as well that ASA could do a simple study in which they solicit from all hiring committees the number of applicants they receive for each TT line in a given year and pubilish those results along side the number of PhDs awarded in that year.
I posed this suggestion to ASA and it was more or less turned down outright (though with quasi-scientific, bureaucratic rationalizations).
11:30am,
I agree that, in general, the field should do a better job of at least providing accurate and up-to-date information about the job prospects.
I think information about field specific job prospects should be made clear to graduate students very early on. I don't want to wait until I am neck-deep into writing my dissertation to find out that the chances of getting a job in my subfield are very low. Not that I would necessarily change my research interests but at least I would be aware of the realities going in and could make an informed decision.
--(2nd) 9:35am post
one example of what may or may not be a trend in terms of retirees. we had a guy retire in my small dept and we have to justify to the dean why we should get to replace that line. its now the second year that he's gone, and there's no word, and no likelihood we'll get that line back. so, due to administrative moves, by default those classes will end up being taught by adjuncts.
Re: the VAP question above- I have seen all of the following happen:
1) VAP hired to cover a failed search for position - that person is (by choice) not a candidate for the TT search,
2) search rigged to hire VAP as TT the next year (usually done because college requires national search for TT but not VAP)
3) search rigged to hire VAP as TT the next year, but then a different candidate is hired.
So, the lesson is that you should apply anyway, and don't bank on a position that has been "guaranteed" to you before a contract is signed.
There is a discussion about this on the Chronicles of Higher Ed board reiterating what 1:27pm just said:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,39031.0.html
I know this is a bit off the subject, but what can a sociology PhD who focused on quantitative methods expect to make per hour if working on a part-time basis for a survey research center or a marketing firm? Anyone have any idea?
Is it me or are the California schools not hiring nearly as much as last year? Doesn't seem like any of the UCs have jobs listings and only 2 Cal-states are up so far. Or do they historically post their jobs in mid/late July. I didn't pay much attention to the job market last year so I don't know when those jobs posted, but the differences seem striking.
-Concerned in Cali
If my memory is correct, last year a lot of postings for R1s came out in mid-late July and August.
Do departments/search committees look at the CVs that we can post to the ASA job bank? I'm just wondering if it's worthwhile to keep uploading updated versions every few months.
My impression is that it doesn't make a huge difference. You may get a person who reaches out to you, and lets you know about a job that's available, but not a windfall of schools.
R1 schools generally post job announcements later. Mid-ranked schools and SLAC post earlier. Top-ranked schools figure that we are all sitting around waiting for them to make their announcements....
What are people's feelings about setting up meetings with faculty at the upcoming ASA meetings in an effort to network? Are you setting up meetings with faculty at places that are hiring or maybe hiring just to introduce yourself and get your name out there? Does it work?
I also wondering about meeting faculty from places that are hiring. Is it appropriate to "lobby" for a job (even if in subtle ways)?
Unless you or your advisor has an "in" at someplace that's hiring, I wouldn't contact people and try to meet at ASA. Sometimes that works--but it can also come off poorly. Ask your advisor if they know anyone at the school you could talk to. Just make sure your CV is out there--some schools are already looking on the web for people to talk to at ASA.
I was the one who asked about "lobbying" for jobs.
My advisor gave me the same advice: don't initiate contact. S/he will contact folks she knows at departments I'm looking at. But, s/he said, when it comes to expressing interest, that is the purpose of the cover letter.
Has anyone gotten different advice? Is my advisor wrong?
In my experience as observer and participant, your advisor is giving you good advice. Being known is good, but I don't personally know anyone that has reported that lobbying for a job was part of their success. It does, hoever, have the potential to backfire by putting committee members in awkward positions. Genuine recommendations from your faculty backed by a solid record are the best path to some interviews and hopefully some job talks. Once you get that far there is no need to lobby, just show them what you have to offer their department!
Hi. Great list! I'm finishing up my PhD at a top R1 in Europe and wanted to apply to R1/2's and SLAC's in the US this year. I had two questions. First, our University doesn't have teaching evaluations for TA's. Is this going to be a problem for me? Second, do you recommend going to the ASA meeting even if I am not presenting a paper so that I can be available for interviews? Thanks everyone!
Going to the ASAa is a good idea, even if you're not presenting. You never know who you'll meet and who they may know. If your advisor or a committee member (or even an established academic) is also going, you may ask to be introduced to her/his friends.
Also, go to the various section parties and smooze. You'll probably be asked who you are, what you do, etc.
Basically, just put yourself out there. Be yourself. Don't look desparate. And see what happens.
The job search is extremely stressful, so controll what you can.
On no teaching evaluations, I don't think it will hurt you that much. What you might want to do, especially if you go for SLAC, is make sure that one of the professors you've taught with writes a recommendation that attests to your teaching abilities, and also make sure to mention briefly that they don't do evaluations at your school in your own cover letter. You'll probably still want to give some evidence that you are/will be a great teacher, some specific experiences, specific things you did in the classroom that were effective, etc.
R1's in the US generally care little about teaching, over than to pay lip service to it, so you'll likely only have to pay lip service to them as well.
Thank you 4:39 and 8:32! I really appreciate the advice. I also wanted to ask what length the cover letter should be (2 pages OK?) and the CV? Lastly, does anyone have any webpages they recommend for CV templates?
Thanks!
- 2:08
If you want an R-1 job, and you're at a top tier program right now, strong/weak ties is what will network you. Dr Big Wig at R-1 will call his/her buddies at top tier PhD programs, asking if there will be any hot so-and-sos on the market in qualitative ethnographic demographic migration and evolution studies. Your advisor may be friendly with Dr Wig & would say, 'Josie Q. is a hot new qualitative demographer in migratory evolution; she'll be going to the ASAs.' You may get an email from Dr Wig asking for a meeting outside of the employment svc., or you may be instructed by your advisor to email Dr Wig to set it up. In any case, the top tier schools have their own economy of checking out the merchandise. Everybody else - and everyone without a PhD from the top 10-17 programs - will be in the more normal economy of hoping for some good introductions at the meetings, doing the employment service, and crossing their fingers. And departments/search cmtes can check CVs via job bank, if you post them, so definitely ensure they are up-to-date (especially if you earn your PhD or get a new publication).
I completely concur with 10:07. That's exactly how it works. I know because my department is doing a search and we are working our networks now for potential candidates.
I've heard a lot about this "back-channel" networking (I'm at a top 5). But for some reason, I don't really buy it. Maybe it's because I don't work in a high demand sub-field, but I don't see anyone sending me, or my advisor, an email after seeing my CV on my departmental web page.
We've got grads who publish in ASR, AJS, SF, etc. I can see this happening to them; but, as a mortal who has published only once in a "regional" journal, I'm not going to wait by the phone.
That said, I'd be happy to eat my words.
Any idea if the number of job postings is above or below the number posted this time last year? It seems like it is picking up.
Regarding 8:56's post, I graduated from a top 10 program, and I've been an assistant prof for a few years now and have served on search committees. (I'm here because I'm going on the market again.) So I have two perspectives on the job market. Coming from a top program is helpful, but it does nothing without publications. Where your Ph.D. is from really matters when committees are comparing CV's with equally strong publications. It is true that committees are biased toward favoring good programs. But publications trump Ph.D. program evertime. When candidates from top programs apply with no publications, they don't even get a second look because so many people are applying with multiple publications, both from "less prestigious" programs and top tier programs.
9:43,
When you say: "When candidates from top programs apply with no publications, they don't even get a second look..." Do you mean they don't get a look at Top R1's? Or they don't get a second look anywhere, period.
What kind of job prospects are there for new PhD's without any publications?
I guess I can only speak about R1's and R2's. Maybe other universities do not have candidate pools where there are lots of people with lots of good publications. And maybe some committees outside of the R1, R2 circuit do think differently about the need for publications. So I can't talk about all kinds of job openings. Another probable exception, when publications are not necessarily a must, is a job search at a lower-ranked department for a small sub-field (e.g., sociology of the body, etc.). In that case, the specificity of the search will narrow the pool, and if you do work in that area, your odds will be better than in more general searches.
Following on 11:43's comment, I wanted to ask what type of publications and how many one needs to have a shot at R1/R2 and relatively low teaching load SLAC's (like 2/2)? Do they have to be ASR, AJS, SF, etc. or can they be respected subfield journals (e.g. ones oriented to Body, Race, Gender, Sport, etc.)?
It totally depends. I still feel like someone with a solo-authored piece in one of the big three journals is golden. Not necessarily at their first-choice place, but last year everyone I knew with one got a good job.
If you had 2-3 in subfield journals, that's a good sign; buzz about your dissertation can't hurt, either.
But people do get jobs with no publications, certainly. They have to have a very promising dissertation and plenty of help from advisors in talking them up, though. This rarely happens for quant types, who are expected to have a pub or two (or 4) when they go on the market.
Just my two cents.
You can find lots of examples of people getting jobs at highly ranked departments without an ASR, AJS or SF on their CV. But that means they have other publications in respected subfield journals, and possibly also professional networks working for them.
In the other direction, does having a sole-authored ASR, AJS, of SF ensure a job for you? Unfortunately, it's no guarantee. I know, because it took me a second year on the job market to get a job, even after having one of these pubs. There's just so much chance involved in the job market.
Could anyone tell me what are the "top 25" schools? How do you know? I have an idea of what the "top 10" schools are (Ivy League-types and some Northeast schools), but I am not actually sure of this either.
Thanks!
Damn! It's gonna be a great year for you crim' folks by the looks of the ASA job bank. Hardly anything else out there for the rest of us.
1. University of Wisconsin-Madison
2. University of California-Berkeley
3. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
4. University of Chicago
4. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
6. Princeton University
6. Stanford University
8. Harvard University
8. University of California-Los Angeles
10. University of Pennsylvania
11. Columbia University
11. Indiana University
11. Northwestern University
14. Cornell University
14. Duke University
14. University of Texas-Austin
17. Penn State
17. University of Arizona
17. University of Washington
20. Ohio State University
20. Yale University
22. Johns Hopkins University
22. New York University
22. University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
25. SUNY-Albany
25. University of Maryland-College Park
27. Brown University
27. University of California-Irvine
29. University of California-Davis
29. University of California-Santa Barbara
31. CUNY Graduate School and University Center
31. Rutgers State University-New Brunswick
31. Vanderbilt University
34. University of California-San Diego
34. University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
34. University of Iowa
34. University of Massachusetts-Amherst
I'm the one who posted the "top 25" question. Curious: What is the source of this "top 35" list?
Oh, and does it represent the top-rated universities or top soc programs?
I didn't post the list, but like any "ranking" list it is important to consider what it actually represents. This the more-or-less the traditional pecking order of the top sociology programs in R1 Universities. By it's very criteria, however, it does not reflect many outstanding departments in smaller schools (like highly selective liberal arts schools), nor does it reflect other important features of institutional environments that may be equally important in supporting your work, like college/university consortiums or law, medical, public health, business, fine arts and other schools or programs that can be vital to those who do interdisciplinary work...
Looks like the US News Top Sociology Programs, for the most part all the different rankings have about the same order, not a lot of differences, so even if it's not US News, it's all basically the same.
It looks identical to the 2004 USN&WR sociology PhD programs.
Someone posted the top 50 on last year's version of this blog.
As usual, jobs at some of the top schools are basically open searches or very broad with respect to area of study. So how should you pitch yourself to them if you have no idea of what they are looking for? I am at a top R1, but my committee members are neither particularly well connected nor very helpful, so I have zero information about openings. Last year, I spent a lot of time looking through departmental websites and trying to figure out where the holes where, and then mentioning classes I could teach which they don't currently offer. Since my research is unconventional for sociology, that's not hard to do. However, occasionally a department had someone doing similar work, and so I was hard put to distinguish myself from them. Would I be better off just pitching the research and not worrying so much about how it fits into the department? I hear so much about how important fit is, but how do you judge fit when you have no information about what they are seeking?
A related issue -- I've been advised to apply to jobs in any fields that might be even slightly related to what I do. But if you are, say a race and ethnicity person, and the opening is for a culture person, do you try to pass yourself off as a kind of culture person?
While it is certainly good to gather as much information as possible, you will drive yourself crazy trying to think like a department. We'll simply never know exactly what any one committee will get excited about (or repulsed by).
My strategy is to present myself as I am in terms of personality and as a sociologist. This is particularly important during the campus interview: you can assume that everyone on the short-list is qualified for the position. At that point the committee (and department) is looking for someone who fits the mood of the place and will be a convivial colleague (at the least). No one wants to hire a jackass and have to sit through three years of meetings before they can kick his/her butt to the curb.
I like the idea of looking for a niche within a department that you can fill: if you can honestly fill it, you will be in good shape (I think). Last year, I had a couple of departments tell me that they already had someone in the department who did what I did, etc.
I think "we already have some who does what you do" -- which I've also heard -- is an indirect way of saying "we're not interested in you" because in my case, it clearly wasn't true except in the broadest of terms. It's seems to be a way to diffuse a situation and allow everyone to save face.
I missed the deadline to submit my CV for the employment service at the ASA mtg. I was told I can walk in on friday 8/10 and submit my CV then to join the madness. does anyone have experience with this? how badly did I screw up by missing this 7/11 deadline? thanks
I missed the deadline too, but I thought that the primary benefit was the pre-meeting communication. You can post your CV online if you're subscribed to the job bank, so my impression was that it doesn't matter all that much, for candidates.
If I'm wrong, someone please jump in!
I have some interviews arranged already, but there's been no other pre-meeting contact between us. Their interview schedules are filling up now, so waiting until Aug 10 may not get you a slot that both you and the school can both make.
Just a guess, but I wouldn't bet schools are seeking interviewees from CVs in the ASA job bank. Seems they can afford to wait for us to request interviews with them.
If you're registering 8/10 it just means that your Friday afternoon/evening will be spent combing the job ads & sending requests. Not all employers got in early either, and anyone with familiarity with the system will anticpate that many candidates won't pop up until that Friday. Just be sure you have lots of potential availability for Sat to Tues morning. (When I was interviewing, I basically just knew that everything else was relatively flexible if a good school wanted to meet me. So there were papers or panels I just didn't hear because I made myself available for an interview. But that's a personal choice.)
Are there many ads for positions that appear only through the employment service listing (i.e.not through the job bank, the Chronicle or Higher Ed jobs)? What would be the advantage (for the school) to posting only through ASA's employment service?
This is my first year doing the ASA employment service, and I've got a few interviews scheduled, but a few more schools that haven't replied to me. If I've requested an interview with a school, and haven't heard anything back, at what point do I write them off? Do any schools wait for the last minute to decide which candidates to invite?
Many schools search committees will not actually look at the interview requests until they get closer to the meetings. I would guess around August 1st. Schools posting jobs receive quite a few requests and if they respond quickly and fill their dance card early, they may not have room for candidates that are a good match for their position. Conversely, some schools are responding to requests that match their position and making requests to candidates that look interesting to them. There are several patterns. Be patient. Just because you have not heard from a school you requested an interview, doesn't mean their may not be interested.
If you did not register by the deadline, don't worry. There will be quite a number of employers who will register for the ASA Employment Service closer to the meeting dates. Additionally, many employers will keep slots open for people who register at the meetings to make sure they have an opportunity to talk to as many people as possible who match their opening. There will be plenty of opportunities to get interviewed at the meetings. You do need to be flexible. The only time that you should block off is if you are presenting, otherwise, be available.
Does anyone have any scoop on some of these open searches (UC Berkeley, Michigan)? Anyone at those schools know what the SCs are looking for?
Does anyone know about the position at Penn? There is a posting on the soc wiki about a position in demography at Penn but there is no posting on ASA or on the Penn website. Anyone have the inside scoop?
No scoops here. Those schools are out of my league.
Don't count yourself out yet. It's a uphill battle for everyone but surprises do happen. I know several people who got good jobs with zero publications and plenty who didn't get any job offers with multiple publications. There is a great deal of variability.
Does anyone know the rankings for the UK and Canada?
Re: Open searches
At UCB, an open search generally means just that: whatever piques the fancy fo the search committee. So that's both good and bad - if you do something that Prof. Z finds interesting, you might make it past the initial phase, but if you do something too much like Prof. Z, you might not. Or maybe you do something that Prof. Q would find really interesting, but sadly she's on sabbatical this year (and thus will never see your file...) Just remember, it's a random process, for better or for worse...
I can fill you in on Canada. Canadian universities are all public, and because of that the educational scene is not nearly as hierarchical as the US scene. Differences between universities at both the undergraduate and graduate levels are much smaller. But there are still differences. I think the quality of Canadian soc departments is generally strongly correlated with size (I know, I know, quantity does not equal quality), but that's just how it seems to be, and we can speculate why that is. There is no quasi-official ranking like USN&WR for Canada, so here's my ranking:
Toronto
McGill
Alberta
U of Western Ontario
U of British Columbia
McMaster
Carleton
Queen's
I don't have a good sense of the relative rankings of the rest.
re open searches: My understanding is that the top programs tend to advertise open searches because they really just want to hire "the best" person out there in any given year. A good approach for applicants? apply away and hope something in your packet catches someone's eye.
Alba,
Maybe we should be breaking up these blog sections by month? After 100 posts, they get a little hard to navigate.
Thanks for doing this!
11:20 -- Where do you see York in the Canada rankings?
Anyone have info on the Berea job?
Berea job posted on asa employment service.
OK. Thanks...I don't have access to that portal.
I'll cut and paste it into the job announcements thread
Thanks for the forum and the information, everyone. A couple of quick questions:
1)Is there an average number of schools that people apply to? Just wondering what might be considered overkill if we are open to place/school caliber ...
2)If you notifed a school of your interest in an interview at ASA, and they do not get back to you, would you recommend applying through their more formal channels - or do you think that they're sending you a message, by not inviting you, to not bother?
3)If a school doesn't ask for something in their application packet (i.e. a statement of teaching philosophy), is it smart to send it, regardless, or do you think they will find it annoying to get so much paper?
I look forward to your responses - and thanks, in advance!
1. When on the market I applied for about 30 positions to cover both the liberal arts schools and research schools hiring in my subdiscipline. I wasn't sure which I wanted, so interviews help clarify it for me.
2. Having been on hiring committees, I'd say apply anyway. My experience has been that these ASA interviews are best for weeding people out rather than really finding the perfect candidate. It allows you to meet some folks who seem like a good fit for further inspection. Most people can seem qualified on paper, but when you are face-to-face it becomes clear who is really interested in the areas in which you are hiring.
3. My experience readings loads of files tells me that you are better off sending what they request. If they say something vague like "evidence of teaching effectiveness" you have more liberty to add things. However, if they give a clear list, just send those materials. If they want more, they will ask. Not to sound too discouraging, but there's a good chance that some of the materials you send will not get a close read anyhow.
FYI
ASA survey on salaries in sociology
http://www.asanet.org/galleries/Research/SalaryRschBrief51807.pdf
Re: how many schools one should apply to. You should apply for as many as you're interested in and appropriate for. It's a good thing that you're flexible about region/caliber - it may give you more options in the end! Better to send out too many apps than too few!
as for how many applications to send out, I think it depends on what you're looking for. If you're only looking to teach at liberal arts schools within your state (which is the case for lots of people who have family or other obligations and can't move elsewhere) obviously you're not going to send out more than a handful. If you're doing a national or international search and you're interested in both research-oriented and liberal arts schools, then you're going to be sending out a lot. On the market last year I send out around 40ish. This year I've narrowed things down a bit on what I want so I may send out less, but my advisors certainly seemed to think 40-50 applications (and therefore 40-50 letters for them to send out) wasn't too much.
hope that helps answer your question!
my adviser suggested 15! but there is no way i am only sending out 15. i get the impression that she does not want me to send out more b/c it would be more work for her. for me, i'm sending out 20-25 but i still think that is too low.
Re: the demography opening at Penn. This position was posted last year and went unfilled, so it's either the old posting that wasn't removed or they've posted again with new hopes.
About last year: the post was for "open" rank, but they only interviewed at the associate level. They made an offer, but the position was declined because of failed spousal hire negotiations
Re: how many is too many...there's no magic number. If you're applying to 50 because you're stretching yourself ridiculously to fit, reconsider. If you're applying to 50 because there really are 50 openings for listings that capture your skills & interests, then it makes sense. Also, the market will fluctuate - you'll do a lot in the fall & early winter and maybe a handful more in the spring, for one-yrs and post-docs. If your referees balk, suggest having a credential file prepared & sent out by the grad secretary, or have the grad secretary keep the letter on file & do mail merge for correct addresses & titles. And when you apply, definitely send only what is requested in the ad!
I disagree with the advice of sending only what is asked for in the ad. I've had the same experience on search comittees at two different institutions. At one place, writing samples were not requested (they were going to be requested from those on the short list), and at another place letters were not requested (ditto). In both cases, people who had more information on file had a distinct advantage. Even though the committee members knew that it wasn't fair, they couldn't help but give weight to the positive letters / good articles that were in some of the files. I took away the lesson that it's better to just send everything. And even though I raised the issue that we shouldn't give weight to information that wasn't requested (since not every file had it), it just wasn't possible to "forget" the positive letters or articles that were liked. And at no point did anyone suggest penalizing files that had more information than was requested
Thanks to everyone who answered my questions about number of schools to apply to, etc. We are building a great community resource here. Best of luck to you all!
To August 3, 2007 2:08 PM,
Thanks for responding!
Do you happen to know who was chairing the search committee last year at Penn? I'd like to inquire about the current status of the search and ask if they are planning on hiring this year.
Do you think this would be inappropriate to ask?
Thanks!
Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the field that only applies to schools who actually ask for my specializations. Are there others out there, who read most ads and say "Nope, that's not me," and move on? Or are most of you stretching? My specializations are narrow and unpopular, btw, so this doesn't leave me with many options. And I'm not looking for advice to do the contrary, so much as wondering whether I have company in this practice. Anyone?
Thanks!
there's tons of open searches out there. Why don't you apply for those?
For a college where the focus is on teaching, I will stretch myself a bit. It doesn't take much expertise in a subfield to teach undergrads. But for research focused jobs or jobs involving graduate classes, I do pretty much stick to open searches or ones that ask for my specialty.
re: position at Penn. I would say you are better off having your advisor work a few connections to find out what's happening with their search. Or, just wait until they post an official announcement. I don't think you would really hurt yourself by asking, but it seems a little inappropriate to me...
Re: Penn position
Thanks for the quick response. You are right and I should hold off on sending an email. If there is an opening it should be announced in the next few weeks so I should just be patient! Thanks again!
re: specializations and applying to jobs....True, you don't have to be an expert in a subdiscipline to teach an undergraduate course. That being said, the next question is whether you want to teach that specific course over and over. If a job posting asks for a specific course, then it is likely to be built into that teaching line. The issue is not whether you can muster a course on the topic, but do you want to commit the next several years of your life to that area. I'm with poster 12:00am on this one.
I got the advice that field of specialization, especially for smaller schools, is the first thing they use to winnow down the applicant pool. So if you don't do what they want at all, I wouldn't (and am not going to) bother.
On the other hand, I have been told that search committees are often very divided about what they want, and so it may be worth sending your application if it's a school that appeals to you, as it might strike a chord with someone. I imagine this is more the case with larger schools and R1s.
another soc job market blog has started up. Great. Now we'll have to check both places...
what other blog?
I'd rather not post the URL because that will just encourage folks to start checking both blogs... a complete waste of time and energy.
for a different format, visit:
socjobs.blogspot.com.
instead of sifting through a long list of comments to find info about a specific job, this blog is organized by job opening instead. it is only just started, but it gives people an alternative way to track rumors about a specific opening. not to be a "competitive" blog to this one.
oh yeah, I just saw that in another thread. With the wiki (which IS organized by job) and this blog, we REALLY don't need another site.
uh, so don't visit another site. duh.
Personally, I would like to see the organization of this site changed. Or maybe there can be links from the wiki page? If I want to know if anyone has heard anything about the SUNY job, I really do NOT want to have to scroll through literally hundreds of comments.
By the time we got halfway through job market season, I have up on the old blog because the comments section was a nightmare.
PLEASE consider improving your format so we can actually FIND the info we are looking for. I know I have better things to be doing that reading blog comments for hours.
And I have better things to do with my time then re-formatting the blog to your liking.
I am on the job market as well. I understand that there are probably lots of ways to improve this blog but I am not paid to do this nor do I have the time to learn the intricacies of blog management.
If you are unhappy with the way in which information about jobs are disseminated, consider complaining to ASA or formal institutions that actually bear some responsibility.
You want things done your way then please by all means take time away from writing your dissertation and applying for jobs and format away…
Go Alba!
I hope people will keep using this blog, I've been enjoying it. I'm sure there's room for two!
I could really care less if there is more than one blog, but it really is too much to suggest that Alba should reorganize the blog to anyone's liking.
FYI, if you are looking to find info on a specific school, open up the comments section, and click on Edit, Find with the name of the school.
Well, Alba started this thing when the other blogs went defunct. And even if there are blog tricks that might make it easier to navigate, school specific info is really the domain of the wiki. Sure 2 blogs will be easy to navigate, but it will just take more time. I vote for one blog. But, one person can't really decide these things.
Alba, we appreciate what you've done.
No problem. I'm happy to have done it. Thank you all for posting--it is great to have a community of people out there to share this stressful time.
I understand there are may be inefficiencies with this format. I modeled it after the first blog b/c it was the easiest thing to do. Someone else mentioned that it would be helpful to archive the comments by month. I looked into that but could not find a function to archive comments (I could only find a way to archive postings). If I were to reorganize the blog, I may lose the existing comments, which I don't want. As it is, we will all have to settle with the way it is organized for now.
I realize that a long page of comments is cumbersome but, as suggested, the search function is helpful.
Anyways, in spite of the problems, I still find this site useful. I hope others do too.
i am the (anonymous) person who started the "other blog". i want to clarify that i think this blog is great and appreciate it very much! i started another blog only because i am tracking this information by position opening myself, so it made sense to make that available to others.
if i do get any information that is not here, i will cross-post. so please, no one should feel like they have to check both blogs to avoid missing anything.
anyone who makes an effort to help those of us on the market should be thanked. i personally prefer organizing information in a different manner, but that should not be taken as a criticism of this blog AT ALL!
think of the "other blog" as a quick index of job openings and (if alba is okay with this) this blog as being the place to find more in-depth information on a wider range of topics. the other blog will have more information as job activity gets going.
---cpl.
idle curiosity...
...from what i have read here it sounds like the people on the job market from the top 5-10 schools are the ones that departments want to hire. and the rest of us will get a shot at the jobs that those people don't want. which is not unexpected given the 2004 ASR article by Burris on prestige hierarchies in academic hiring. but i'm curious: what do the CVs of those top-10 candidates look like? do they really look any different from the rest of us if you take away the name of their college/university? do they publish more, present more, or have more professional service?
i'm just wondering how much of our job market possibilities were fixed the day we picked what grad school to attend...?
Re: idle curiosity,
I don't think anyone knows the answer to the question behind the question you ask, which is what is the CURRENT relative importance of institution attended in getting a job. Burris' article showing that "top 15" schools' alums soak up the top jobs covers several decades of data on who gets what jobs. I think we've moved into a new world of grad school where publications are significantly more important, and school attended & advisor prestige less important, than they used to be, but beyond that simple claim it's hard to say how much. This would obviously be great stuff to have systematic data on, so it's too bad that both our own departments and ASA have no interest in helping get to the bottom of this.
I'm at a top 5 and I know folks from last year that did not get TT jobs. If you want to know what their CV's look like, just go to their dept's home page and click on "PhD's on the Market." Most depts have a variation on this theme.
Re: idle curiosity... Yes, some of your fate is connected to the grad school you went to. So that decision is pivotal. But in a hierarchical, elitist society, some of your fate is also connected to your undergrad, your social class, and other intangibles, like charisma, charm, ability to network, ability to read people & situations, ability to move past shyness, etc. Those things help on the market and as you strategize in the yrs before the actual job search. In terms of elite's CV, the eminently hire-able ones have things like: solo authorship for an article in AJS, ASR, Social Forces; maybe got a grant or predoc fellowship of national import; have demonstrated that 'potential' has already lead to results. I know of someone from a good (but not top) PhD pgm who was hired at a top-5 R1. He had national reknown for his research - cited across the country because it was eye-catching for the avg reader/viewer. So already coming in with a reputation helped him. (He was also a down-to-earth, unarrogant person, which no doubt helped.) But one thing to ask, in a sort of existential way, is what you really want for a job. Does it help to want something you probably (structurally) cannot achieve? And are those R1 jobs really that desirable, given the pressure to publish in specific places, with certain impact factors, work with hordes of PhD students, and write successful grants? For me, answer is no, but be clear with yourself about what you really want.
I'm curious about everyone else's experiences at the ASA job meatmarket.... mine was okay - I felt like the schools were more trying to sell me on them than the other way around.
care to share?
I agree. The job service was fine. Everyone was nice; except for one school, where the chair was an ass and took a cell phone call during the session.
It would be easy to come away with the impression that you have 10 solid leads on jobs. But, I'm sure every candidate is thinking the same way; so it is hard to gauge how much weight they carry.
Nothing new from the ASA job bank in a week. Did this also happen last year in the week after ASA's?
6:34 - i had the same experience. everyone seemed to be trying to sell me on their department. my feeling is that most departments want to get applications from as many people as possible so they have more to choose from. i don't know anyone who got a bad vibe from as ASA interview.
It was interesting to me that the schools lower on the hierarchy seemed to be much more in interview mode than the R1 schools who will pretty much have their pick. I think the higher ranked schools used it as an opportunity to get as many people interested so that they would apply. The lower ranked schools seemed to be both a little less nice and more annoyed that they were interviewing so many people.
Could someone provide some insight on how to put together a strong teaching portfolio. I'm assuming it should include a 1 page letter of teaching philosophy, syllabi from past courses, evaluations from students. What else should be in there? Any tips for the amount of info to include, whether student evaluations should be individually photocopied or summarized in a single document? Etc?
Thanks!
To idel curiosity:
As a former grad student of a top 5 school, and a junior faculty member of a top 20, let me tell you something:
It might make you feel happy to see that you have an equal number of publications (or more) with the grad students at Harvard, Berkeley, Princeton and the like. But how about the quality and originality of the work? Just because you published as much as they did, or more, does it also mean that the quality of your work is on par? How about the quality of your training? How many of the great books that you have read recently were written by people with PhDs from lower ranking schools?
Let's get a little honest here. It is true that being at these top institutions make these people competitive but these people ended up at those top institutions because they were pretty darn competitive to begin with.
I'm also surprised that you think you "picked" what grad school to attend. Why didn't you just pick a top 5 school my dear? You wouldn't have to worry about any of these right now.
Or even better, why don't you just pick the school where you will teach?
I'm sorry but here's the chilling reality: when you put yourself on the market to get into a grad school, you weren't really picking, you were being selected; when you are on the market for a job, you are also being selected. There's a very high correlation between the two selection processes. What's so surprising about that?
To those of you who will find my remarks seriously offensive:
I do not mean that a person who attends a school outside top 10 cannot produce good work. I'm just saying that "you got the job/award/fellowship/etc because you are attending a top 10 school" mentality is seriously flawed.
Let's get real, ok?????
the wiki says Barnard is hiring, but the school's website does not list any soc faculty openings. does anyone know if they really are or not?
Dear "get real,"
If you can't find it in your prestigious self to be collegial, understanding, or the least bit helpful, why not simply bask in the glory of your Top 20 faculty position and stay off this blog? What a puke.
I just posted the Barnard position in the "New Positions of Interest" thread
Anonymous 2:02 p.m.:
Is it possible--just maybe possible--that you are not as awesome as you make yourself out to be?
Good luck getting tenure with that attitude. I'm sure your colleagues love you and you're an excellent fit at the illustrious institution at which you currently reside.
1:47 - Teaching portfolio - everything you mention is correct. It's also good if (with the syllabus) you include descriptions of assignments. The question about the evaluations is a hotly contested one (if you don't read the job seeking forum at the chronicle, I'd recommend it). My feeling that is that I don't want it to look like I'm selecting out good evals, but I don't want to overwhelm them with paper, so I provide them with all my quantitative summary reports, plus copies of the open-ended forms for one recent class. And if you have a written evaluation from a peer or supervisory observation, include that.
anon 2:02,
As a grad student at a top 5, bravo. Great analysis of how privilege works. My only suggestion would be to (1) learn how to spell the word "idle" and then (2) google "Merton" and "Matthew effect."
sheesh. This is a friendly blog. Let's exchange info, empathize with one another, and offer support. If you can't say something nice...
Why do some schools have such early deadlines? My advisor says her letter will be late (she's still on vacation) but this won't be a problem. Do you think it's OK? Should I insist that she sends it on time?
I am thinking we should use this blog as a space to organize a collective action: Let's all send our files to every school on October 15 :)
Um, yeah, I kind of think it's a problem if your advisor's letter will be late. I certainly wouldn't assume otherwise.
re - 2:02
the peer review process is anonymous, so we're all held to the same standards. so yes, all ASR publications are equal, whether the author is at a top-10 school or not.
and let me say, i AM at a top-5 school and many of the courses we take are with professors who stopped caring about 20 years ago when they got tenure. do not assume for a second that a department's position in the prestige hierarchy has anything whatsoever with the quality of education that students receive.
i absolutely promise you that the quality of education you receive has a lot more to do with your adviser and your personal commitment than your department's prestige.
ps: MANY of the good sociology books and articles i have read recently have been written by people not at top-20 schools. go pull your back issues of ASR and AJS.
re: later letters of rec
I actually think late letters are pretty common. Just make sure your materials (i.e. cv, cover letter, etc.) are in on time. Most schools accept late letters of rec, although they may not fully consider your application until all materials are submitted which can put you at a disadvantage. But I wouldn't worry too much about it b/c it is not uncommon.
Dear "Get Real":
Its striking to me that a "sociologist" would have so little insight into privilege. Isn't the concept of privilege one of the things we try to teach our undergraduate students? Don't we try to help them understand that one's experiences and life chances are often enhanced or diminished dependeing on factors related to race, gender, and social class and that it is not always about merit and hard work? For you to make the argument that quality of work is better at top ranked schools proves to me that your "sociological" training totally missed any components related to social inequality, power and privilege. Go back to your intro to theory class and read some Max Weber!
Here is the "chilling reality"...the reason that people from top ranked schools get jobs at top ranked school has less to do with their merit and more to do with who their dissertation chair was, who they collaborated with on a publication, and who will be able to write their letters of recommendation. We all know the top names at the top schools. We also all know that they didn't start out at those schools. In fact, for the majority of their careers, they were at lower ranked schools. They are not products of Harvard, UIC or Chapel Hill- they were recruited to those places after a 15-20 career elsewhere. Most of the "big names" did not get their PhDs from the top schools. They made names for themseleves during their first jobs.
Regardless, however, getting a letter from one of those people carries a ton of weight. Having one of those people on your dissertation committee carries a ton of weight. Additionally, since those people have a bunch of grant money, they can afford lots of grad students to do their "research" work. You get publications in top journals (as the 3rd or 4th author) because of them- not because of you!
I'm at a top 5 school and the lack of self-reflexivity in regards to status, particularly with many on the job market, is absolutely appalling. I'm sure because of the nature of sociological inquiry, people expect things to be different, but really, sociologists are just like everyone else, and many, particularly it seems at top schools, are very concerned with maintaining or increasing their status within the discipline.
The earlier poster is right about the reproduction of a certain notion of "merit" at top schools. Many people actually believe they are qualitatively better than others simply because they go to a top 5 school. Within the schools there is definitely a hierarchy of students, some schools rank their students (or so my sources tell me), though I don't think many students have a clue about that. Students definitely form cliques and avoid or give dirty looks to people who's research agenda or career goals they don't approve. It's sickening, funny and sad, when you consider that most Americans don't even know the difference between Sociology and Psychology and virtually no one (except other high status sociologists) will read the research of these status concerned sociologists.
Dear Concerned Citizens,
Of course it's fine to expend time and energy debating elitism, hierarchy, and privilege in sociology if you want... but, as for the one grumpy poster, s/he just strikes me as the first troll on this board this season. Personally, I don't care to give him/her the satisfaction of being treated as anything but that.
Yes, trolling is to be expected given the high stress we are under.
But, lumping in UIC with Chapel Hill and Harvard, that is going too far! ;)
yes let's please move on! this blog is intended as a venue for sharing ideas, tips and experiences in a constructive manner.
8:26am -
Are we at the same school? I have a funny feeling you may have an office across the hall from me ;)
I agree 100%. If we're not at the same school, things are exactly the same here too.
For the person who asked about teaching portfolio materials...try to be judicious in what to include. The portfolio should not be huge. (If you cannot imagine a busy search committee actually reading it in its entirety, then it's too large.) A school that really cares about teaching will actually be looking at your syllabi - are your objectives clear? is the tone shrill and punitive? does the syllabus/reading have coherency and present a clear path of readings, assignments, etc. With teaching evals, provide a summary of -all- qualitative comments (don't send 24 separate evals, in other words) and a clear, annotated quantitative summary (don't send 24 separate evals!).
Question about application materials:
Some postings ask for a "statement of teaching and research" and others ask for a "letter describing teaching and research" while still others specify they want separate statements of teaching, research, and a cover letter.
For schools that just say they want "a letter describing teaching and research", is it acceptable to send separate documents for both teaching and research?
From the sample cover letters I've seen, this is my current strategy.
R1 schools that just say "send a letter" I spend about 75% on my research and 25% on my teaching.
For schools that want "statements" on teaching and research I have a one page letter followed by 1.5 to 2 page "statements." (I underline "statement on X" and center it as a heading... so it can act as a stand-alone.)
For schools that want a teaching portfolio or evidence of teaching effectiveness, I've got a 3 page writeup of my teaching philosophy.
To address your question, for letters that want you to address teaching and research, but don't ask specifically for statements, I usually cut about 10% from my statements and just add them to the letter (with some added text to transition between teaching and research segments).
Does that make any sense?
Again, I'm just a candidate like you. Hopefully some experts will chime in with more guidance.
That is helpful - thanks! When you are just doing 1 letter with pasted material from your teaching & research statements, about how long is that?
Mine is 4 pages and I'm wondering if that is excessive.
For the letter, the teaching statement, and the research statement, I'm trying to keep the whole thing at 4 full pages with .75 margins.
As someone who is a candidate, but has also been on search committees (as a grad student and as tt faculty), I would say that a 4 page letter is excessive. I've rarely seen letters go onto a third page.
Is that for a letter that is supposed to describe both research and teaching, or a cover letter for a packet that also includes a teaching and research statement?
In the search committees I've been on, we haven't asked for separate statements, and the letters are usually 2 pages. (slightly small font, 11 pt .75 margins).
When I've been a candidate, that's what I've done, and if there are separate research/teaching statements, my letter goes down to one page or so.
The letter matters - we especially noticed letters that are well written and made their work sound interesting - but you don't have to capture every detail of your application in it. That's what CVs, writing samples and teaching portfolios are for.
4 pages is definitely excessive. I'd say 2 pages is perfect; slightly over is ok.
I wrote at 1:15pm
For a letter that asks for additional statements on teaching and research, the letter itself is 1.25 pages. It's only 4 pages when you include the two additional statements.
If they don't want teaching and research statements, and it is a research orientated dept, the letter is 2 full pages.
Change of subject here, from a new poster. Apparently the question of whether to include "in progress" or "in preparation" works on one's vita is both controversial and discipline-specific.
So what say we? Assuming that such works are clearly labeled as such (rather than trying to pad the publications section) - yea or nay?
As long as it is clearly defined, I say include them (but not too many). But, if you presented something at a conference and you put that under publications... I'm thinking pad
Also, book reviews aren't really peer reviewed. But, if that's all you've got. I'd call it a publication...
Thanks. (3:38 again) Does anyone do this with book manuscripts? If I'm revising my diss and have a proposal and in the process of shopping it, should I list it as a work in progress?
I'd list a book proposal under work in progress, but only if the citation makes it clear that this is a proposal. This is the type of issue you should discuss in a "research agenda" or "statement on research."
From reviewing several CVs for juniors searches, one thing that I find kinda shady is when people individually list the chapters of their dissertation as "working papers" or "articles in progress." I think people should only list then after they have done substantial revision and are very close to submitting the piece for review.
i list things as "works in progress" if they are actual papers that are complete. within that heading:
1. list papers under review and specify where. obviously list any R&Rs here too.
2. list papers as "undergoing revisions" if they have been rejected somewhere and you are revising them in light of the reviews. in your cover letter, you can say when you expect to submit them and where.
3. list papers as "working papers" if you have basically done all the analysis and are in the final stages of finishing. ditto for including dates in the cover letter.
anything beyond this seems to me like padding. if you are shopping around a book deal, that is a valid "in progress" project. if you thought of something cool on the subway today, that is not.
Related question: where do you list things that are forthcoming but not in peer-reviewed journals? A study of mine is going to be the subject of a forthcoming article in a national newspaper, but I have not yet submitted the article anywhere (the reporter got her hands on a draft version that was making the rounds). Can I call that a publication, working paper, or what?
Or are publications outside of academia considered irrelevant?
Has anyone heard about candidates being rejected because they are from top-5 schools?
I have heard from some professors that they applied to non-top-tier schools and didn't get interviews because the departments didn't think they'd accept an offer so they didn't want to waste the money bringing them in for an interview.
I am at a top-5 and wonder if that fact could make some schools not consider me?
i know that with teaching positions, it is a little different because those schools probably know you're applying there because you really would accept the position. It is (hopefully) obvious from your CV. But for people from top-5's who really want R2 jobs...are we at a disadvantage? Is there something we can say in the cover letter to convince departments that we would accept an offer because they are actually our preferred institution and not a back-up if an R1 doesn't work out?
I feel like it is pretty simple to explain that you want a teaching position for reasons X, Y, and Z. But I have very good reasons for wanting an R2 position although I could probably land an R1 slot, none of which are evident on my CV.
Perhaps I am just over-thinking this...
June H.
My partner got invited to apply at a R1 by a senior scholar through an email
what does this usually indicate?
Re: invitations to apply
It means that they are interested but this does not mean that they are not also interested in a lot of other people as well.
I've also received a few invitations to apply to schools. It feels nice for about two seconds until you realize that this email was probably sent to others. It is definitely not a guarantee of anything.
re: june h
i'm at a teaching-emphasizing (supposedly) uni. it's tough to offer someone from a top 5 place a job for the fear it's your "safety" job, or that you'll jump ship in a year or two when a better offer comes along. but you still have to apply and just charm 'em in the interview. they can be convinced and, like all people, are susceptible to the right kinds of flattery.
Re: june h and 11:53
i am also in a similar situation. for personal reasons--ie. family and spouse--I want to staying in a specific geographical location and would be happy to take a R2 or SLAC job in the area. i'm from a R1 with no teaching experience though.
i've been told that alluding to my personal circumstances for wanting to stay in the area in my cover letter would help my chances. it helps makes you seem like a more serious candidate--ie., one that will actually accept an offer and stay put for a while.
I have a question. A number of the positions posted on the ASA job listings site state that they start reviewing applications on X date. Should I consider this a firm deadline or is it okay to send an application in after they start the review process? Will this affect the consideration they give my application?
No that's not a firm deadline, so apply away.
How is everyone holding up writing all these letters? If you're tailoring 30-40 (or even 10-20) letters and teaching/research statements, you must be getting as foggy and exhausted as I am. Right? Help! I'm drowning.
My eyes are about to pop out of my head. I feel like vomiting. I am this close to just throwing my hands up and calling the whole thing off.
I am psycho-analyzing every single sentence that I write. Will anyone actually read it? Does anyone care? Will this even make a difference?
How about I send a pint of my blood and a pound of flesh with my application. Do you think that will help me get on the short list?
blood and flesh are biological hazards and therefore could cause your application to be delayed for decontamination. if you do want to send them, be sure and send them separate from your other application materials.
as for writing a personalized letter/statements for every position, i don't think it is necessary. in your latter, include a few lines that are school-specific but mostly try and focus on your qualifications in general. i think someone mentioned earlier that it works to have 3 letters: R1 research school, teaching college, lower-tier school. another approach would be to write a paragraph for each of your primary research areas and one for teaching. then you can cut and paste in the ones that are specific to the job.
your teaching statement and research statement should generally be general and not school-specific, although you may want to emphasize one thing more heavily than another depending on the school. and no, schools are not going to pick apart individual sentences. what will get you on the short list is your overall qualifications and compatibility with the position. your application materials should be strong, but not necessarily school-specific.
finally, relax. it will be okay.
What are the norms/rules/expectations for applying for two jobs at the same school in two different departments?
oh, yeah! my eyes are bugging out of my head at this point. And there's still so many more applications to go.
I find myself using weird logic at this point, too. Like... this is more of a safety school, so they get the statement that I printed right before I changed the ink cartridge...
I initially went through all the jobs, flagged the ones that I wanted to apply to - supposedly thought about them all... and now that it's time to write the letters, I find myself seriously questioning my choices. I survey the departments' online presence (how much does that reflect reality, I wonder?), google real estate prices in the area as well as professional occupation concentrations for my spouse... and then I just feel like throwing up my hands.
what goes into your teaching portfolio?
I'm thinking teaching philosophy statement, summary of evals, and sample syllabi.
Am I missing something?
Also teaching awards.
Someplace online (affiliated with Ohio State) here: http://ftad.osu.edu/portfolio/
suggests including a sample of lesson plans, assignments, and exams.
for those of you creating proposed syllabi, are you doing them as though you were teaching them at your home institution, the one where you are sending the application, or with no institutional affiliation?
Question about REFERENCE LETTERS:
I know most institutions prefer to get EVERYTHING in one packet. That means that the applicant really should also send in the three confidential letters of reference with his/her application packet. The problem is, sometimes it is not possible. I had one prof out of the area and so cannot write a reference letter until AFTER the date the institution begins viewing applications. Another prof accidentally mailed out his letters of reference to the institutions himself, even though I mentioned to my letter writers that I will pick up the letters from my department.
Finally, it is true that the search committees will not review applications if there are missing reference letters? Do they not realize that sometimes the reference letters are beyond the applicant's control?
7:14 - My department sends out all of my letters. My understanding was that this is standard; I hadn't heard of applicants sending them with the other materials.
7:14 -
Our department does the same thing. I have not heard of people sending out their own letters.
7:14, my letter-writers send out the letters themselves (I give them addressed envelopes to help with the process, and to act as a check-list of sorts - if the envelope is still stitting on their desk, they didn't send it) I did this last year as well and it seemed to work just fine - most schools even contacted me to let me know if they were missing a letter. My committee seemed to indicate it was pretty normal for the letters to arrive separate from your materials, so I wouldn't worry about it. Although if there is a school you're really interested in and you want to make sure they've gotten everything before the deadline you could probably email the contact person or department secretary to inquire if all your letters came in.
I have a question that I'm hoping the blog might be helpful answering. As discussions/helpful articles cited here have noted, upward mobility is rather rare in our field, so coming from say, a school ranked in the mid to upper 30's one shouldn't pin their hopes on a job in a top ten school. That said, does anyone know about mobility for post-docs and fellowships? I've seen some pretty interesting post-docs in my area, but most of them are at schools that are pretty high up in the rankings and I'm not sure how to judge my chances. Any thoughts?
Post-docs in highly rated programs are much easier than landing tenure track jobs in the same programs. So, go for it. The only hitch: you gotta know someone.
I'm just grumbling, but maybe this will make some of you feel better.
Here's my situation: I'm from a bottom-of-the-barrel department. No one has heard of my advisor or committee members. I have no peer-reviewed publications, just a book review and a couple of articles under review. I've never won an award or been invited to give a talk. I don't do criminology, globalization, or quantitative research.
I'm on the market this year. I'm looking for a job at a SLAC. I just spent some time perusing the cvs of the "competition."
It's laughable, really it is.
I feel your pain, Grumbling. There are a lot of us in your situation.
Here's my grumble: I'm not sure I'm ambitious enough for this career!! You know, to have a 2-3 or 3-3 teaching load, carry out an active research agenda and seek grants/funding, perform service to the institution, then come home and be a sane, focused parent/spouse who is "there" for my family in the evenings, and somehow manage to squeak in a workout or nap here and there.
This may be job market jitters, but I just don't see how academics do it. The job is day/evening, at least 5 day a week if you're serious about tenure. In my ASA interviews I keep hearing about the "tenure clock." I really hate the analogy of gauging one's worklife against a ticking clock. Do I really want this?
I'm pretty sure I've hit the job application nadir, so forgive me if this sounds self-pitying. I'm exhausted by all this.
1:51 (Grumbling) -
I hear you too. I am in the exact same spot, except that I'm at a top-ish institution.
No publications, nothing promising under review, no collaborative projects, no grants, no awards, no invited talks, and I don't work with anyone who can help me get a job.
I can operate a deep-fryer so I have a back-up plan.
Dear 5:09,
You sound very sure of the post-doc procedure. Why would you *have* to know someone to get a good post-doc? I've clearly been left out of the insider's loop if this is a no-brainer.
Ahhhhh!?! (That's a scream.) Are there no places left for sociologists that are based on merit or promise? :-|
Every year, 2 or 3 people in our department accept post-doc positions. I do not know any of them who got the positions by knowing someone on the inside.
We all know that network connections matter, but I don't have any reason to believe they matter any more for post-docs than for assistant professors. For some of the highly competitive, well-known post-docs, connections probably matter less even.
Hey, let's play a game! Just for fun. It goes like this:
1. Pretend you got whatever it is you most covet in the market this year.
2. Come post that "news."
(You can put a little asterisk at the beginning of the post if you're concerned about people mistaking it for truth.)
I'll start, in the next post (unless someone beats me to it, but the board's been so quiet lately that I think I'll make it.)
*
Dartmouth called! I GOT IT!!!!!
See? That feels lovely.
With all effort not to be a jerk, I really, really do not want to wade through posts like 7:41 is suggesting. I'm not sure of the purpose... maybe to find out how many people have your top job as their top, too? I am pretty sure the answer is "lots."
To me, "miscellaneous discussion," does not include games to pass time without discussing anything. If people want to play around, maybe a "fun and games" or "unrelated" section could be added to the blog. alba?
Oops. I'm sorry, I hadn't thought of that (I'm 7:41). I thought a little tension-release would be welcome, and no, I don't think the "point" is to find out other people's top jobs. It's exactly what I said it was: a little bit of indulgence in visualizing positive outcomes together. Perhaps it's just me who could use that sort of thing..there's no sense putting any more work on Alba, though. I'm cool with dropping it.
Hi, I created a separate posting called "things to do to pass the time..." You are welcome to post, rants/raves, games, fun things that are only peripherally related to job market stuff. I think a separate section for this is a great idea! Let's just keep it separate from the other postings which should be reserved for topics immediately related to job market issues.
I am just about to start applying.
I am not at a Top 20 and my department is probably considered bottom of the "Top 40".
I have done ok with publications in grad school netting four (3 solo author) thus far. (You can take me out of the working class but you can't take the working class out of me).
Some of the pieces are now being cited (no not by me) and sometimes outside the disipline (by economists, polsci, statisticians). Is there a classy way of including such info in the application or is this completely off limits?
I would say you should definitely include it. You have to give them a reason to want to interview you even though you arent at a top 10. Having 4 publications is quite an accomplishment given that you arent at an institution that just puts grad students on papers to give them publications. Definitely mention that your papers have been cited in a widespread manner and that this has been interdisciplinary in nature. Search committees like to know that your research is going to have a broad impact in academia.
Three sole-author pubs as a grad student?
If you don't get a job, I've got no chance whatsoever...
One of my professors said he came out of Wisc-Madison with a couple good articles, but he was last with five other co-authors and so he did a Post-Doc which allowed him to get some good stuff out and put him in a much better job market position.
I cannot bank on my articles alone and I am in a department that is ranked low (actually the near bottom of U.S. News Top 60 a few years past).
I have just started the on the market process so I do not know how the whole thing will go.
My wife got a personalized email from a senior faculty at a R1, but who knows what it means if anything... but one faculty member at our school said it was a pretty promising sign.
Need some cultural capital advice (assuming some kind of interview is ever achieved):
Suit and tie for guys? Pinstripes ok or too much?
I was told comfortable shoes for walking around a big campus.
Does anyone extensively read up on the faculty's work before going to a particular dept. for an interview?
My take on the suit - a simple dark suit works well for men and women. I wouldn't go for pinstripes myself, but if that's what you've got, I don't think it's a problem.
I read about the faculty as much as I can, and try to have at least a vague familiarity with what they do. I have a really hard time retaining all that info, so I make index cards and take a quick look during a bathroom break before you meet with a specific person.
At teaching colleges, it may be hard to figure out what the faculty research areas are (since they may not be publishing). But don't stress, because they're usually not all hung up about being recognized for their contributions.
Thanks for the index cards idea, I am going to do that.
I repectfully disagree about attire. You should dress a notch, maybe two, above what you'd normally wear as a professor. No academic I know wears a suit, junior or senior. Several with tenure (male of course) wear jeans and shorts! Not that you have those options, but it REALLY stands out at all but the most conservative departments to give a job talk in a suit. And I disagree that women need to wear dark clothes. One should dress like the person you are (conservative, free-spirit, etc.) but step it up one notch or so. We are sociologists after all -- there's more allowance than in other disciplines to dress to your personality. It's worked for me before.
I bought two suits for the job market. During a job talk on my campus, I had to walk the new hire across campus and he suggested wearing comfortable shoes because he had to walk all over our giant campus (a large R1 land-grant).
When fielding questions during the job talk, I am guessing that it is very important to not seem defensive, but instead act as if all questions are constructive criticisms (many of course truly are) even when some turkey asks one of those questions designed to "spoil your identity".
5:46 - I have to disagree. In my grad department (a highly desirable job, in a R1 dept that was not at all conservative), I've seen at least six searches. I can't remember a candidate (male or female) who DIDN'T wear a suit.
Yeah, I think suits are absolutely required. You can always remove the jacket if you feel really hot or uncomfortable after your talk, but they expect you to be dressier than they are! The point is not to match your attire to theirs.
I guess it is just signaling theory: you take this opportunity seriously and you show it by wearing a suit...I am definitely going with a decent suit
It's hard to imagine being dinged because you wore a suit. It's easy to imagine being dinged because you didn't.
Why the concern with what to wear? Invest that energy into preparing lectures (a solid research talk and a teaching demonstration). As for what to wear, get a nice pair of slacks, a sweater and a blazer, and you'll be fine.
Good. I was worried because I didn't think I had enough energy to prepare a decent talk AND decide on what to wear.
On the agenda for tomorrow: walking and chewing gum... simultaneously.
I'm not sure on where this should go, so sorry if I picked wrong...
Even if everything is ethical and up front, can a junior person's CV be too long? If so, is there a guideline on what is definitely too long?
This is not a question about "CV padding." It's a question about whether or not legitimate entries should be removed (i.e., turning comprehensive presentations and honors lists into "selected" ones). What's most likely to impress (or least likely to annoy) the SCs?
I wonder if stress levels are getting high, as folks are needlessly getting attitudes. I believe the earlier point was to not sweat the small stuff like what to wear. Interviews are stressful and uncomfortable enough already, so why wear something you may find uncomfortable and stuffy?
I was just being snarky. Sorry.
Post a Comment