not sure if this really qualifies as something to pass the time...probably more of a rant.
i feel like some of us are caught in the middle between departments wanting us to finish and get out, and advisers who want us to delay the job search until we get more publications and can be stronger candidates. my department, like many, would like to see students graduate within 4-6 years. so they do put pressure on us to go on the market as soon as we have defended a proposal. and really, i'm a little tired of being a grad student!
on the other hand, my adviser says that if i wait another year i can get some more publications and probably land a better job. which would be beneficial for both me and my adviser.
so i guess my question is...how many of you are on the job market because you feel like you have the qualifications and experience you need to get the kind of job you want, and how many are on for other reasons? if funding/department pressure/whatever was not an issue, would you stay in grad school longer?
I'm a couple years in on the tenure track (but obviously on the market this year again). I accepted a job offer ABD and worked my butt off to just barely defend in time.
Honestly, I'm really glad I did. It is so much better to be done and in the real job. It's essentially the same work, with a bit more teaching, but with a real paycheck, control over my work and loads more respect. I would not have stayed in grad school longer for anything.
Find funding outside your department. When your department head doesn't sign your paycheck, you can remove them from the equation.
I talked with my department chair the other day and told him I'd delay graduation if I didn't get the job I wanted. He gave me a look like I kicked him in the knee. But, what can he do...?
I, for one, am stressed. I try not to be. I try not to think too much about it. I tell myslef to just relax and take it easy. But there is this pervasive, underlying feeling of anxiety and tension. I don't sleep very well at night and I am grinding my teeth so much there are little ridges on the inside of my cheeks.
Ok, as I am writing this, I feel a bit embrassed for admitting it. I know it is not "cool" to admit that you are stressed, like I am suppose to pretend that I am above it all.
Sigh, it is only September--so much more stress ahead!
I've been monitoring this blog twice a day since it began.
It's a buyers market. They have the power and we don't.
They only people who aren't stressed are the folks with sole-author pubs from asr,ajs,sf [and they don't deserve any sympathy because they don't need it :)]
yes, i too am stressed... sometimes feels like the job market is consuming my life. and i too am reading the blog, the announcements, the wiki, far more often than is healthy. it feels good to have sent off most of my applications, but i still can't quite get the market out of my head. just a note of empathizing and solidarity...
Maybe this is the wrong way to approach it, but I am just assuming that I will not get a job and will do this all again next year. In some ways it is comforting to think that between Jan. and Aug. '08 I will be able to do nothing but working on getting that sole-authored pub somewhere that matters.
But in spite of my assumption of failure, I still feel the stress because I don't really want to do this again.
Incidentally, am I the only one who finds the term "job market" a little annoying? I feel like we're just commodities being bought and sold on a market. Which is probably true, but it is somewhat annoying. Someone (who isn't me) should write about alienation among Ph.D.s who market their intellectual labor as a commodity.
i'm sure you're human, sort of. but you got a lot less to worry about than those of us who don't have fancy sole authored pubs. you're probably worrying about what job you'll get and how good it will be, while we're wondering IF we'll get a job at all!
4:09 - I have no pubs anywhere, not from a strong department and I've not much of a shot at a job, even after being on the market last year.
That said, I think your post was obnoxious and - worse - evidence of lazy thinking. The perspective that underlies your comments is deeply mired in inequality and victimhood, concerns which are sometimes valid but all too often merely a worldview among sociologists - makes me ashamed to be in the same discipline. Of all people, we should know better.
I have more sympathy for those of you who worked your asses off in grad school, were smarter, better, or more competitive than I was, and *still* have to stress about getting a job. *That's* a shame.
Here are some reasons to open your heart to the plight of those alien people who have [insert amazing quality you think implies a job offer here]...
1. They might not get any job offers, either because they'll intimidate junior faculty, interview poorly, or come across as arrogant.
2. Everyone expects them to get lots of interviews and jobs. If they don't, they will face a worse reaction than the mortals. They have more to lose, emotionally.
3. If they are really not at all concerned with the process, they will have a hard time coming across as serious scholars and decent people on campus visits.
Another reason is that having one amazing quality (such as an ASR article) does not mean that all other components are there.
I'm the one who posted about still having anxiety. It was a bit tongue in cheek but the point was valid. I got one jem, yes, but I do not come from a top 20 or even top 30 program. My dissertation is not central to most concerns of the discipline, and I have not secured any prestigious fellowships.
I definitely have reason to celebrate, but it seems some on these bloggers assume that having an ASR, AJS, SF article imples that one is all set- and even more it sometimes feels that people assume that such articles were somehow handed to these people.
no, no, no! those of you with a sole-authored ASR, AJS, or SF...you were not "handed" anything! i think the point is that you are in a position of power in the whole job market thing, so those with less power are unlikely to indulge your concerns.
as someone else said, there is a big difference between worrying about getting a top job and worrying about getting any job at all.
This conversation thread is confusing me. I find it hard to believe that somebody with one SF article will necessarily get a job. Is it true? What if that's the only publication they have, they've never had any grants, and their advisors hate them? That is nuts.
One of my friends had a very well placed solo-authored publication, a few small grants, and lots of teaching experience. She completed her PhD at a top 20 R1. She got a phone interview from Nowhere College and a campus interview at Work-your-butt off State University. She blew both of them (she'd tell you the same).
Why? She looks young. She's stutters a bit. Overall, she comes across less than serious about anything.
I'm only posting this because it worries me. If it happened to her...
I have to say that the obsession with solo-authored papers annoys me. I work with large surveys that have multiple collaborators and it's hard not to have at least one co-author from the project. Are hiring committees really that obsessed with solo-authored papers? What are the relative merits of having, say, one single authored paper and multiple co-authored papers?
If you're aiming for a top-10 job, you probably will need at least one sole authored paper in a top journal, and a lot evidence that it wasn't a fluke.
If you're not after a top-10 job, having several coauthored papers can make up for a lack of sole-authored ones.
Sole-authored papers are primo because SC's sometimes suspect charity when they see a paper with a grad student first author and senior faculty second. If you're working in a research group, you should talk to the PI and ask if there is a way for you to carve out a small niche paper of your own.
From my own experience, I'd be more likely to suspect that in a co-authored paper the grad student did the majority of the work and that the senior faculty just guided the concept development.
But I would argue that the "guiding of conceptual development" is quiet a big deal. I think the formulation of the research question accounts for at least 50% of the paper. Once that has been done, the data analysis and write up of a paper is pretty straightforward.
This is coming from someone who has never had the opportunity to co-author papers with faculty. While I spent months trying to come up with a new idea, hitting dead-ends, picking myself up again, and starting over, I saw other students being "handed" research questions by senior faculty. Yes, they did the bulk of the dirty work and there is not question in my mind that they did have ownership of the paper as well. But it is a far cry from seeing a paper from beginning to end BY YOURSELF.
Then there is the issue of a paper that is coauthored with faculty being more likely to be published because the faculty is well-connected. You don't get the benefit of the doubt if you are just a grad student.
So I think solo-authored publications is a much bigger deal and should be treated so.
I don't think this is a question with a single answer. If you are applying for a top R1 job, I would say you will be at a disadvantage without a sole-authored pub in a good journal. If you want a SLAC job, you are better off with a teaching portfolio that shows your abilities there. A good pub or two won't hurt, but you're probably less competitive with a sole-authored ASR and not classroom experience.
I think the place it gets tricky is in the R2 area where a lot of candidates probably are somewhere between the sole-authored ASR and only presentations at regional conferences. I doubt if a sole-authored pub is required for those jobs, but realistically you will be less attractive on paper than someone who has one.
This is confusing... For those who are saying that sole-authored publications in top journals pull in more credit, how much more credit is that? Is it really infininte?
If candidate A has 10 co-authored (first and second position only) articles in high ranked journals within a large specialization... and candidate B has 1 sole-authored pub in a top journal... who wins?
Of course, if somebody has 10 articles and are first author on some that is better than one sole author. But, prestige of journal also matters, and we should look at more typical cases.
Sole author in a major journal counts for A LOT at top schools. I know several faculty on search committes at top 10's, and they see even candidates with several first author ASR-type articles as "risks" if they don't have any sole authored pieces because they wonder "can she do it on her own? Will she get tenure?"
Also, hate to say it, but at these R1 schools second authored papers don't count for much of anything. There may be some halo effect if it is ASR or AJS, but when they count up publications to compare their picks they often don't even count second author papers (yes, some actually count up as the basis of their comparisons).
Lets not forget that not all R1 schools are created equally. Maybe what your saying about counting up is true of the top 10 schools, but there are plenty of R1s that are not even ranked (i.e. Tufts and others). The sense I am getting from these posts is that you guys think that all R1s judge pubs the same. They don't. In fact, even some in the top 20 value pubs more or less than others. I talked with a search chair at a top 15 ranked school who said they are much more interested in what you have in the pipeline than what is already published.
this is an empirical question to some extent. pull up the CVs of assistant professor hires at the department you are wondering about, for about the past 5-10 years. look at when they were hired and then look at what publications they have listed prior to being hired. if you want to really get in to it, look at what came out within a year of getting hired and assume those were "in the pipeline".
that should give you an idea of what those departments have valued in the past and the characteristics of people they have hired. i have done this for my top five choices and there is a lot of variation between schools, but general consistency within departments. in one department, all their hires for the past 5 years had at least one sole-authored pub in one of the top 3 journals. but at another school, only one did and two of their hires had none at all in any journal.
that's my approach.
but i really hate it when people tell me things like "you'd be a stronger candidate with more publications." thanks for the newsflash. i always want to respond with, "really? huh, who knew...?"
I'm a grad student in a top 10 department and my (eminent) advisor recently tried to calm my worries by saying that sole authorship in a top journal isn't the end-all-be-all to get hired, but it is the type of thing that determines tenure. He gave me the impression that it has more to do with whether the departments can forsee you making an ASR-type contribution in the near future even if you aren't there yet.
Prior to 2000, the Carnegie Foundation categorized schools as Research 1, Research 2, Doctoral 1, etc... based on the amount of federal funding they received. People still use these terms sometimes. However, Carnegie specifically says that they old categories are not comparable to the new ones because they are calculated differently. So when people talk about an R1 school, they usually just mean a school that is pretty big and brings in a lot of research money. They are not referencing an actual classification, unless they are referencing a pre-2000 classification.
Now there are three categories for doctoral-level schools:
RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity) DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities
So when someone is talking about an R1 school, that school would now be called a RU/VH school. However, keep in mind that these categories are calculated differently so some R2 schools are now RU/VHs, especially if they bring in a lot of private foundation grants.
Because I don't feel like working on my dissertation...
If you think the discussions about what to wear to an interview and whether to use the department letterhead seem a bit nitpicky, you should join my world.
Yesterday another soc grad student and I were discussing how to chose appropriate alcoholic beverages during interviews. Do you show your cultural capital by picking wines that pair well with the meal or go for a beer? How good are you at sipping, so that you don't end up drunkenly spilling your most intimate fears and mistakes? Do you avoid alcohol altogether?
These are rhetorical, although I think the discussion is fun. More importantly, I wanted to be a reminder that we probably overthink this stuff way too much, and your reason for getting hired or not after a job interview can probably be likened to whether you get the second date.
But yea, I get your point. I think it is far more dependent on factors beyond our control than most of us would like to admit. Or more accurately, the people who don't get good jobs chalk it up to external factors while the people who get the jobs they want are more likely to credit their personal merit.
If you're a top-choice candidate, its all you. If your "average", it's more random.
Hmm. Ordering a bottle of the most expensive wine would show the committee what good taste I have. On the other hand, bringing my own six-pack of beer might persuade them that I am down-to-earth and generous (since I'll share). And if I'm taken to an ethnic restaurant, I certainly should order a drink that shows my familiarity with the culture (Sapporo at a sushi restaurant, tequila shots for Mexican cuisine, etc).
(btw, there was recently a hilarious thread on the chronicle forums about drunk candidates.)
So, a fellow grad student told me recently that Social Problems had replaced Social Forces as the third ranked journal in sociology. Anybody have a sense of the weight of a sole-author piece in Soc Prob?
yeah, i've checked, like, a dozen times in the past two hours...especially since the info about u of chicago was posted. sick, huh? the more things start to move, the more anxious i get.
I don't think Social Problems is that good yet. I have a sole authored piece there, and big shot faculty that ask me about publications seem to think it is solid but not an incredible score. Often a followup is if I have anything in ASR, AJS, or Social Forces. My adviser certainly tried to push me to still get a piece in one of those three.
I definitely seems like Social Fores is on the decline but still has an aura to it. Social Problems is certainly a top 10 journal and occasionally a top 5 but it seems other places like Admin. Science Quarterly are more impressive.
Some of these are surprising... Where's social forces?
Journals Ranked by Impact: Sociology
Rank 2004 Impact Factor
1 Amer. Sociol. Review (2.86) 2 Ann. Review Sociology (2.68) 3 Amer. J. Sociology (2.12) 4 Social Problems (1.78) 5 Sociologia Ruralis (1.62) 6 Population/Develop. Rev. (1.55) 7 Leisure Sciences (1.34) 8 Soc. Health & Illness (1.33) 9 J. Marriage/Family (1.29) 10 Politics & Society (1.28)
The above table compares the citation impact of journals in a given field. The column ranks journals based on their 2004 "impact factor," as enumerated in the current edition of the ISI Journal Citation Reports®. The 2004 impact factor is calculated by taking the number of all current citations to source items published in a journal over the previous two years and dividing by the number of articles published in the journal during the same period—in other words, a ratio between citations and recent citable items published.
I have never read, needed to read, or seen anything cited from Adm Science Quarterly, Sociologia Ruralis, Leisure Sciences, etc. I didn't even know though journals existed...how can that ranking be right.
I'm with you...what the hell is Administrative Science Quarterly, and where did it come from? I am at a top 10 and have a sole-author piece in Soc Problems. The faculty here seem to think it's a really good journal, and up and coming.
I think there are two kinds of rankings. One represents impact within the discipline of sociology, and the other the impact overall. I would assume that these rankings are the overall type. But where is JHSB? I would think it would make the list, given all of the various health-related disciplines.
I have the following, which is clearly another version of ISI sociology impact factors... 1. American Journal of Sociology (3.262) 2. American Sociological Review (2.933) 3. Annual Review of Sociology (2.521) 4. Sociology of Health and Illness (1.796) 5. Social Problems (1.796) 6. Social Forces (1.578) 7. British Journal of Sociology (1.490) 8. Law & Society Review (1.396) 9. Social Networks (1.382) 10. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1.350) 11. Sociologica Ruralis (1.340) Not sure about the exact documentation - had this saved on my desktop from a while back...
Actually, Admin Sci Qtr doesn't surprise me at all. It's one of the best places to publish an orgs and/or quant methods piece. Sociologists love it because it's the stomping ground for all the (well-paid) business school folks.
I've sludged through many a an Admin Sci Qtr piece in my grad school career.... in my opinion, it's about as boring as ASR but without the occasional awesome & interesting article.
Here's an idea that has been fun: put a hidden stat counter on your CV webpage.
It gives you the city, state, and ip address of the folks who click on your page. I wouldn't take it as an indicator of anything other than curiosity, but it passes the time.
This is a link to an article from ASA Footnotes a couple of years ago. It has a table of "Core Influence Scores of 90 Journals for 1999-2001." It's obviously a bit dated now, so take it with a grain of salt. But at least it has a list of 90 (!) different places to send your manuscripts. A good resource for those of us always trying to figure out where else to send our rejected manuscripts.
That "third" journal slot varies by field. If you ask around across all major fields in sociology, I'd say that ASR & AJS always make to the top 2. In demography/strat, I'd say Demography is a strong contender for the third slot. SF has declined and has been declining in prestige for a while. You can get away with sending medium quality quant stuff to SF and still have a shot at it being published. I don't think you can say the same for Demography.
it has been so difficult for me to concentrate since the chicago thing was announced. it is not that i expected to be short-listed at chicago but it has triggered a lot of pre-existing anxieties that have kept under control until now. oh boy, i am not looking forward to the next few months. this is just the beginning of a long long process of high hopes, let-downs, hopes, more let-downs....
i *totally* agree with 2:22. it's like your self-worth is constantly in question. i made the mistake of comparing my cv with students at other schools today...how do the top schools choose just 5 or 10 (or whatever) for a shortlist, let alone 2-3 for an interview?
Not being asked for additional materials doesn't mean you're out of the running. Why do committees ask for more materials? Maybe a candidate forgot to include something; maybe they're on the cusp of a short list and the committee is weighing them against other candidates. In any case, not being asked to send more only means that they feel they have enough to evaluate you, either in a good way or a bad way.
I am in the same boat as some of the rest of you. As schools have started to inform candidates of short lists, I find myself more and more looking to do the job market next year again. And I didn't even apply to Rice, Chicago, Berkeley, or Richmond! But the more I look, the more I realize how better-qualified other candidates are. I'm one of those top-5 school grads with no pubs; lots in the works but nothing published yet.
I'm lucky in that I have a fellowship that will support me another year, but just on an emotional level I had thought this would be the end of grad school and it is hard to come to terms with the idea that I have another 2 years. I think the emotional aspect is more difficult than the financial aspect!
WRT SF: Partly speculation, but there was a major editorial shakeup there a couple years back (I think mid-05). They overthrew the editor, and published a few somewhat dubious, ridiculously thick issues to clear the pipeline from the old editorial regime. Before that, people had been growing old waiting for editorial decisions, discouraging some folks from submitting at all. Haven't paid much attention to it myself for a couple years, but it seems that that all could add up to a major prestige drop.
This is only the beginning of the job hunting season. We're only just now getting reports of departments, potentially, making lists and asking for more materials. I'm sure you applied to a bunch of schools, many of which probably haven't even started looking at applications.
Give it a little time, it's difficult, but keep the faith...
Yes there was an editorial shake-up after the journal started to head off in the direction of "public sociology". The journal also has a reputation for showing favoritism to department alumni.
my 3 closest friends, who are all employed now (2x RU/H and 1x eSLAC*) all got their jobs in March, April, and May. Their interviews were not any earlier than February! But the deadlines had been back in October.
So it really is very very early...
(*eSLAC- elite SLAC - the distinction is, of course, Very Important to hu)
I'd hate to be irritating to an already-stressed out bunch of folks. Would you please suggest an appropriate gender-neutral pronoun? I do not prefer to write she/he, s/he, or he/she and I definitely do not want to use she or he alone.
I liked "hu" because I see it as short for "human." I suppose "pe" for person or "in" for individual or "so" for sociologist might also work.
I say use hu. I like it. Especially on identity sensitive blogs where either he or she can be too much info. For folks who don't like it: don't use it.
i have never heard the term "hu" before. it cracks me up! i thought it was okay to use "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. if nothing else, using made-up pronouns makes it hard for the 99% of people who have never heard of them to have any idea what you are saying.
better yet, go with the southern approach. we use y'all to refer to groups of people and you'un to refer to a single person. both are delightfully gender-neutral, but might not be well-received during your job talk.
...except that the correct you (sing.) and you (pl.) were already gender neutral. I also doubt it's 99%, and it worries me that people are so free with their use of statistics!
The English language unfortunately lacks a simple singular pronoun which does not specify gender. Various people have suggested new words to fill this gap, but none of them has caught on, or (frankly) is ever likely to: it is not practical to try to change such a basic element of the language by sheer will.
However, children and adults alike naturally find the obvious solution to this conundrum: rather than using the formal and awkward formula 'he or she', they simply use they, especially after words such as anyone and no one which are strictly singular but often imply a reference to more than one person.
This is not a new problem, or a new solution. 'A person can't help their birth', wrote Thackeray in Vanity Fair (1848), and even Shakespeare produced the line 'Every one to rest themselves betake' (in Lucrece), which pedants would reject as logically ungrammatical.
If you do not find this usage acceptable, there are alternatives. You could resort to the awkward 'he or she' formula, or to the practice of writing 'he' when you mean 'he or she' (which many people find objectionable), or to recasting all your sentences to avoid the problem!
IMHO, the % of people in the general population who have ever heard of "hu" is probably less than 1%, but maybe someone can land a grant to find out.
why not prepare for one of those difficult phone interview questions?
take your pick (serious and silly answers welcome) from the ones that have been stumping me tonight. Remember, though, answer in pleasing 90 second or less sound bytes:
1. What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?
2. How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
3. Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
4. Tell me anything about yourself, as if I just met you off the street.
and lastly, 5. As a teacher and a thinker, what core principle would you absolutely go to the mat for?
(disclaimer: I collected these from everywhere and everyone I know who's had a phone interview)
What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?
I'm still stumped... bla bla bla Public Sociology?
How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
Free coffee at the door? Don't hold class early in the mornings or immediately after meal times?
Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
Desperate.
Tell me anything about yourself, as if I just met you off the street.
If you met me off the street... you might notice the following: an overfull and slightly ripped backpack, an adorable baby in a stylish-yet-affordable stroller, and the classic sock-and-sandal combo.
As a teacher and a thinker, what core principle would you absolutely go to the mat for?
Are those serious questions from "real" interviews? Other than the one on addressing student apathy, they hardly focus on anything useful. I can't imagine wasting my time speaking to a candidate by asking those sorts of things. I tend to focus on one's research agenda (what's in the works and what is the next big step beyond the dissertation); questions about what courses the candidate would want to develop to build the department; and his or her interest in interdisciplinary programs, area studies, international programs, or first year programs outside of the department.
9:07 - If you're interviewing a candidate for a department of one or two, you're going to want to know more about what it's like to "live" with the candidate, beyond performance on the job.
yes, they are real questions. However, they are only about 5 of 40ish questions that I've assembled over the past 3 years - I've picked many a brain immediately after a phone interview. I've also asked various Search Committee members that I've known for some of their usual questions. And then I also pulled some from the Chronicle's forum, "Most difficult phone interview questions."
Your suggested questions and topics are certainly represented in my overall list. The ones that I posted were the just the ones that were giving me the most trouble as I'm generating my own answers.
I thought that posting them here, under the "things to do to pass the time" might be helpful for some and fun for others.
9:58, the certainly are entertaining. I can see why they'd stump you. I wouldn't know how to answer some of them. They'd probably put me off of a department if too many of those types of questions came my way.
9:43, I believe you can assess whether someone is nice or not through basic interaction and more specifically during down-time over coffee or whatever. We certainly care about finding people who are easy to live with, and for that reason, we pay very close attention to interactions between candidates and faculty, candidates and staff, and candidates and students. I guess I tend to agree with Goffman, when he says that signs given off are more telling than those we give. It is certainly interesting to see other opinions though.
My department has a faculty member who assists students on the job market to prepare their materials, prep for job talks, and know what to expect during interviews. This person has provided everyone on the market with a rather extensive list of "questions you may be asked" and none of them sound anything like the ones posted above. So while some places may ask those kinds of questions, some places probably do not.
The list of possible questions I have seen is more along the lines of "Where do you see your research going in the next 5-10 years?", or "How would you approach teaching a methods or statistics course for undergraduates?"
The most difficult question I have seen is "How do you feel you would fit in with the political climate in this department?"
But to answer one, Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
The question, "What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?," was asked during a Princeton interview a while back. I think it is a pretentious question. Still have not been able to come up with an adequate response.
What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?
'Round and 'round. Like a bad metal sing from the 80's but with less hairspray.
How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
Dear Undergraduate Student Apathy,
Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
Hungry.
Tell me anything about yourself, as if I just met you off the street.
I never did figure out what "ontological" meant so I therefore use the term frequently in my dissertation based on the assumption that you don't know what it means either.
As a teacher and a thinker, what core principle would you absolutely go to the mat for?
so i keep reading posts from people on the other threads who have been asked for more materials from this school or that school, or who have been told they are on a short list. and i'm happy for them, i really am.
but over here on the "pass the time..." thread, can i get a show of hands from people who have not heard anything from anywhere they applied?
i sent out 32 apps. and i haven't gotten anything but the postcards asking me if i'm white or not...
I sent out 22 apps. Have heard nothing. I got excited for a bit because, thanks to the trusty statcounter, I saw a lot of activity on my website during the period leading up to the frenzy of new info on the soc wiki. but alas, nothing.
I'm there with you pal. Just checking my email and phone. but all I get back is dead silence.
I have sent out 29 so far and heard nothing back (except EEO) from anybody. Interestingly, I did get two emails from schools I was not intending to apply to asking me to submit an application.
I have also heard nothing from the 24 schools i've applied to, but i keep reminding myself (and so i'll remind all of you) that there are many many many schools out there that haven't contacted *anyone* yet. only two of the places on my list are on the wiki as of now. that makes me feel better.
I've been shortlisted or asked for more materials at four schools (including Chicago), but have not gotten any interviews...always a bridesmaid, never a bride!
how many of you are on the market this year with no publications in journals that matter, or no sole publications. my adviser keeps telling me that departments will actually consider candidates without publications whom they see as having "potential", but i have my doubts.
I think it depends on what you're aiming for. It's probably no longer the case that you can get a job at a top top tier with no publications, simply as other peole have potential AND publications, but if you have other things going for you you'll get noticed elsewhere... But then again, there are variations. And it's good practice to just try.
I have a few pubs in journals that do not matter and have co-authored with my advisor (big deal, right!) I am also fortunate to have worked on several large studies and have received a lot of funding for my dissertation. However, I have no single authored pubs in the big three. Even so, I have applied to a few schools (not in the top five) that I would rather be at than spend another year in grad school just to see how it goes. You never know what can happen, especially if you are not applying to Prestigious University as one of our colleagues refers to them. I'm with 5:22--it is good practice just to try and if you do not get a job this year, you will be even more competitive next year.
7:21 - I'm in the same position. My advisors encouraged me to "try out" the market this year, when I didn't have the pressure that looks inevitable next year.
I "tried out" the market last year- at that time, I had a (not-so-great) article published in Obscure European Edited Volume. And I had two items out for review (one sole and one co- with a peer). I have some grants, a bunch of teaching, and a few odds and ends (book reviews and encyclopedia entries and such).
It was pretty low-key. I only applied to what absolutely fit (about 6 positions and few post-docs).
The results? A short list at a place where the funding disappeared and a post-doc at a Prestigious University that I couldn't actually accept. The short list place didn't know me at all - just a CV. The post-doc was a totally networked situation (though I didn't know it at the time).
This year feels vastly different. I'm glad that I did try the market last year. We'll see what happens this year.
For those of you on the market again this year, what happened to you last year?
I was on the market last year, briefly. I was ABD, no pubs at all, no awards, a bunch of teaching and a slew of presentations. I applied to about 20 schools before realizing that it was a joke and giving up.
This year I have my degree, a book review and one publication in a no-prestige journal, and I've somehow managed to convince myself that I have a shot.
I was on the market last year, "just to give it a try." I don't have publications, but I do have grant money and come from a top-15 school. I got an interview and a job offer from a small state teaching/research oriented school last year. I'm hoping the same thing happens again this year!
2:00--Thank you for your post! This is reassuring. I have a few pubs, am from a top 25 school and have a lot of grants. Just wondering why you did not take the offer? Good luck this year.
Dear 5:00pm -- Really? Wow! I know people whose research is widely funded. For example, they have NSF dissertation grants, maybe a few big ones like the Ford, and then some of the smaller regional ones. Especially in the UC system.
When I hear "grant", I think more along the lines of NIH R01 or R03 grants that support more extensive research projects rather than fellowships that are intended as support during the PhD and dissertation. I know a handful of graduate students who have been co-investigators on these grants (and I console myself that I spent my time publishing an article rather than writing the grant proposals, although I'm not sure what will matter more in the end).
I totally agree 6:17 (6:05 here). I have an NSF, but in no way does that the work that I put into that proposal compare to the time and effort required to get actual external grants. Fellowships put food on my table, but writing external grants are far more impressive.
I agree on the grant/fellowship distinction. I have landed 2 grants in grad school, one from a government agency and one from a large foundation. Grants are totally different than fellowships. For the grants, I wrote a full project proposal including budgeting hours for all project staff, detailed methodology, scope of work, and so on and so on... Then I report back to the funding agency at regular intervals and present them with progress reports. Finally, the funding is actually managed through the university's office of sponsored research and I bill research expenses to them.
I think both look good, but they are very different. At least I hope both look good - I have no publications and am relying on my track record landing grants to get me a job! It's really my only hope right now.
I went on the market a year early, just to get a sense of what to expect. In a strange turn of events, I very quickly got a request for more materials (dissertation chapters) from a top 3 dept in my specialty area. I was shocked. The downside was that I didn't have enough written to keep their interest. Honestly I didn't want to work there; I applied there because I was a very good fit (and would take it if that was my only offer)and it would put me in a good position to negotiate with my top choice school. It didn't work out. I think you can learn a lot by going on the market early, BUT it can be risky. People form an impression of you and your work from the process, so make certain you aren't risking your reputation by going on the market far too early and being unprepared.
At one point can a person call his/her top choice and beg for the job? Does anyone have tips on how to grovel in a way that still shows how professional I am? Is stalking the chair out of the question?
So this is kind of out of left field, but is anyone planning on having kids in the next few years? Any ideas about how to make that work during the tenure process? In my wildest dreams, I hope to get a job and negotiate for a year off to have the baby, but don't know how to justify it. Any advice?
Having a baby and a career can be done. Check out the ASA's guide to having a baby during particular phases of your career. It's accessible from the main page, I think.
10:14 - Get a job in Canada. Employees are entitled to one-year's leave when they have a baby (less for dads). About half of that is at full pay (depending on the employer), and the other half at about 2k a month.
Many schools will let you add a year to your tenure clock when you have a baby. At my R1, you also get a paid semester off of teaching and 'off' of research (ha).
I have heard of someone negotiating a delayed start by a semester to a job, but never a year (for a baby). I suppose, if they want you bad enough, they might do it--but I think it would be risky, for a variety of reasons.
If you are at a SLAC or R2 where tenure requirements are super difficult, you should also negotiate for time toward tenure if you come with lots of teaching experience. This means you come up for tenure early, so you need to have "evidence" you've been productive sooner...but also, you get job security and increased pay sooner too, if you make it.
That reminds me, if I could do my first job search over again, I would ask specific questions about tenure requirements at the interview. Maybe I was an idiot not to do so, but I was worried that it was too early to ask, or that I would look like I was trying to avoid work. Instead, after starting the job, I found out that I took one of those golden positions with a high teaching load AND R1 level publishing expectations.
good point about asking for tenure info. i wouldn't worry about looking like you want to avoid work by asking about tenure. from my perspective, you'd seem more savvy, which is good. perhaps you'll not need quite as much hand-holding/junior mentoring if hired.
At the ASA "interviews" two different schools volunteered tenure info. Departments know that tenure is a factor, and it would also show that you intend to puruse tenure at the department you're hired at (versus taking a position somewhere else after a couple years). Although perhaps there are better settings to ask this type of question, e.g. in a one-on-one with a junior faculty, but not with a panel of senior faculty. Thoughts?
I've had a number of discussions about the marriage/baby factor with my advisor, and the bottom line is that there is no "ideal" time to have kids in academia - you just learn how to juggle. As people have pointed out, even if the tenure clock stops, there's an implicit assumption that you'll continue to do research (especially at R1's). The advice I've gotten is to only discuss family during interviews if it will help you. E.g. if a SLAC is in a family-friendly city, then talking about kids will let them know that you're willing to move there and planning to sink some roots in. However, someone at an R1 may count it against your seriousness as a researcher, with the "if I can have kids and get tenure, then it's possible" mentality.
personal issues like kids, partners, "odd" lifestyles, etc. should be strictly off limits during interviews. in our dept, they are forbidden topics. candidates are free to bring them up, but i'd strongly encourage people to think about the consequences. you should be evaluated for your research and teaching -- not some other issue which may or may not impact your work. get the job offer, and then worry about kids, partners, etc. then they want you, and you have more leverage to negotiate details and uncover the truth about these issues.
12:53, I heartily agree with you. Personal issues should be off limits. However, that may not work for those of us who are going to be visibly pregnant during prime-time interview season.
2:45, see if you can find out (through the grapevine) if anyone at the dept in question has had a baby recently. use that person (if sources tell you he/she is nice and an OK ally) to find out about daycare, etc. use that moment to communicate to them that you have a plan, and that being pregnant will not keep you from your job. in the end, it is this type of "ally" that will take you up during faculty discussions. if this is a top R1, i don't know that these (probably junior) faculty would have too much pull though.
while i agree that personal topics should never be brought up, i think some such as an obvious pregnancy are unavoidable. however, the majority of professors do, at some point, have kids. i don't think it is a big problem. especially if you have demonstrated that you get work done and fulfill your responsibilities.
i think most people who decide to curtail their professional aspirations in order to devote more attention family or personal matters do so in grad school, not as assistant professors striving for tenure.
i have a special needs child and would like to ask about services and resources in the area, but am hesitant to do so for the reasons cited previously.
I was pregnant during my interviews, and nearly every place brought it up first (childcare, etc.). I don't think they were supposed to, but it was kind of hard to ignore, I guess. I was glad, though, to discuss all those issues.
I would wait, if a place doesn't bring it up first, until you get an offer. At that point you can ask whatever you want and frankly, it doesn't matter much what benefits/perks the school has until you get the offer.
This was my second child, and a few committee members mentioned that my rec letters had talked about my proficiency (ha) of combining work and motherhood, which they considered a great asset.
Of course I wondered if they would have made such comments about a male student...but, since it seemed to work in my favor, I didn't worry about it too much. :)
So yeah, they aren't supposed to bring it up, but be prepared in case they do.
No, don't tell. Male applicants would not be debating about whether to tell that they are about to be a father. Women already suffer tremendous consequences in the labor market because of child bearing. Why take yourself out of the running before you're even at the starting gate?
3:45pm: I think it's wise to ask around for information for your special needs child, but this can happen after a department makes an offer. You should take it into account for whether you want the position, but it shouldn't be a factor in whether they decide to offer you a job.
I just want to applaud all of you parents-on-the-market. I'm feeling stressed, and I'm a complete free spirit - no partner or child to take into consideration. It should count in your favor that you have accomplished so much in so many areas of life. Bravo.
Thanks for the advice. It makes sense that "personal/family issues" could be discussed after an offer is extended. I'm the poster with a special needs child, and I am also a single parent with 2 other kids. I am probably identifying myself since I am fairly sure I am the only person on the market from a top-5 school who is a single parent! My CV looks pretty good - some forthcoming top-journal pubs and a record of securing grant funding for my research (not fellowships for grad students but actual grants to researchers).
But I do wonder if search committees cross my name off as soon as they hear "single parent"...? I don't tell them, but I'm fairly sure it is unique enough that word gets around...
No way. The fact that you've accomplished so much despite your unique set of challenges is a testament to your abilities as a scholar and frankly, as a human being.
As someone currently sitting on a search committee, that would be a huge point in your favor for me.
5:24 do I hear you saying that parental status SHOULD be mentioned in letters, etc? I'm a mom on the market. Went through grad school with kids. I've taken relatively long to finish and was considering having my letters explain that, but decided against it, since wanted to remain "professional". I have to say that I find deeply problematic in this thread the sense that we're held to the same standards, so parenting status can help you IF you were able to get to the finish line having lived up to the norm (as in affirming that you will slave away at committee work, teaching, and still publish. Ah, we already know she can get by on 5 hours of sleep). At any rate, my hat off to the single mom with three kids.
5:24 here. No no, it doesn't belong in your cover letter. But if I were to read it in one of your rec letters, I wouldn't think that was unprofessional. We do see stuff like this in rec letters, but more frequently, we hear 'through the grapevine' about things like this. And I would definitely want to see any reasons for taking a long time to finish in your rec letters; otherwise, it leaves us wondering.
And yeah, I think you are held to the same standards. Which is hard, but there are many kinds of challenges one faces in grad school--parenthood is just one (a big one, I know--I also had kids in grad school).
If I were on a search committee, and I knew that an applicant had already had her kids, one thought I might have was that it would be a benefit to the department that we wouldn't have to now accommodate one or more pregnancy leaves for this candidate.
By the way, this whole discussion is demoralizing because it demonstrates the sad and confused priorities in academia, and in society generally, and how we are participating in their reproduction.
Just to clarify: by holding parents to same standards I don't, of course, refer to professional standards, but to time-in-program standards (some grad. programs recognized this). Depending on amount of family and financial support, having a child will slow one down, esp. if one needs to travel for fieldwork. I wish I'd had this discussion before my references were out!
My diss advisor (a big name at an R1) asked me beforehand about whether I felt comfortable with him mentioning my family situation (having kids and having a husband with a very time-intensive career that limited my geographic mobility). He thought that this showed I've been quite productive and organized DESPITE having other time demands and that this was a real plus. I also mentioned it very briefly in my cover letter to explain why I'd been in visiting positions for the last two years - I'm applying to research-oriented places now that I'm geographically mobile, and it seemed like the elephant in the room. My sense is that while it's no one's business, if you need to explain why you've been in grad school awhile or to demonstrate productivity, it would be good to have such info in your letter or a reference letter (probably the better place for it, since that way it doesn't look like you're making excuses for yourself).
My advisor and I also half-joked that maybe one of us should mention I'm done having kids as a "selling point" in terms of not needing any future maternity leaves. It of course didn't make it into any letters, but there is a sad truth to it.
all sorts of issues fall under this category of sensitive information and should be treated with care during he early stages of the search. while i agree that we shouldn't have to turn to search committees (or tenure committees) to approve our choices to have kids or whatever, i don't think we can fault departments too much for wanting people who will be around to cover their teaching loads. my advice is to give search committees just enough information to see what you are qualified and a great catch. don't give them enough information that you raise redflags or additional questions. keep in mind that screening process is really just people looking for a reason to kick you out of the keep stack. sociologists clearly are not immune to bias.
several people have mentioned the value of explaining if you take a long time to finish grad school. how would a search committee know if you have taken a long time? do they look at time between MA and PhD? length of time from first pub to graduation? i'm confused how anyone would know how long i've been in grad school.
Some grad schools do not encourage the MA, so some search committees are more likely to look at the time from your BA to your PhD. According to a recent report, the average graduate student takes 8.2 years to get the PhD. 5 Years is good, 7 is ok, 9 is too long...
6:39 and 7:24, I agree that this is so demoralizing. As a mom who wants to have another child in the near future, I hate to feel like I'm going to represent a liability to a department. It just intensifies all my fears about not being able to balance family and career...
Seems like the BA to PhD measure is absurd. A lot of people do not go straight to grad school after the BA. I can see looking at MA to PhD, but if it matters to schools they should just ask.
I don't think time to graduate matters that much. I know many people who spent 8-10 years in grad school and got very good jobs because they'd published a lot during that time.
I agree. My advisor always says that it doesn't matter if you stay in grad school past 5 years, so long as you have publications to show you've been productive.
Well, this doesn't make any sense at all. I didn't get my masters, so my vitae lists a BA and then a PhD 15 years later. Are you guys telling me that SCs will assume I took 15 years in grad school?
To be a bit uplifting (even though I'm not particularly feeling it myself): I remind myself that the people sitting on search committees used to be in the same positions we are.
Most of them have children, and they had to negotiate that factor at some point either before, during, or after the hiring process. I'm sure they vary wildly on their own grad school time frames. And they have students with differential time frames and familial concerns as well. Chin up.
They will wonder what you have been doing in those 15 years. If you have a job on your CV, that's one thing, but if it looks like you have just been a student for 15 years (without a lot of pubs) they will wonder.
I think that you're better off putting something about your time between undergrad and grad school in a cover letter. I have never seen jobs listed on a CV. In fact, I was advised to avoid anything that makes your CV look like a resume because you want to look like a professional academic.
But really, I can't imagine that any place is really going to think you've been in grad school for 15 years! There are other ways to figure out how long you have been in school such as looking at the dates of your teaching or fellowships. But what matters is publications, awards, fellowships, and grants.
Really, why on earth would anyone care what you've done between undergrad and grad school? It is totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on your promise as a professor. Can anyone who has ever been on a search committee confirm that anyone cares about that or give any reason why they would? I waited seven years between undergrad and grad school. And on paper I didn't "do" anything - I stayed at home and hung out with my kids. If any committee asked me to justify or explain that, I know I wouldn't want to work there anyway.
I agree, most people who are reviewing our applications are people who have been in our shoes. I have to believe that it is the process of applying for jobs that is harsh, not the people doing the hiring. They just want to hire a good colleague.
I am at a top 10 school. We were considering bringing in a candidate a couple of years ago who had taken more than ten years to finish grad school. A lot of people were concerned about it. We eventually did invite her for an interview, but it required some convincing of several faculty. The chair of our search committee contacted her mentor to ask for an explanation, and she had had a child in grad school. That seemed to quell the concerns a little, but we'd had several grad students have one or more kids and still not take that long. People reasoned that she must take a long time to conduct research and publish, and were worried she wouldn't be able to meet tenure requirements on time. Like I said, we eventually did bring her in, but there was much discussion about the risk involved.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the above poster. For some reason, it's a big deal at my school, too. Anything over 7 years raises big questions here.
My diss advisor, upon reviewing my CV b/f I sent it out, asked about the small gap in my timeline b/w undergrad & grad school - I hadn't listed my employment prior to grad school, and it stood out to him. I got the impression that you shouldn't have any substantial gaps in time that aren't explained, though it seemed sufficient to say something like "1997-1999: Worked in computing industry" without listing specific jobs or dates.
Re: time. Do committees consider quant and qualitative on the same timeline? Esp. qualitative work that requires extended periods of time outside the U.S.?
I took just over 10 years in graduate school (with no pubs) and was told by an SC member at an R1 that 10 years isn't long enough to prompt the question about why I took so long.
My dissertation was qualitative and took nearly 5 years from proposal to defense. And I had a baby. And I took a leave for a year.
And I'm not putting any of that in my cover letter.
This is ridiculous, really. I have to stop reading this stuff. You may all be correct about what SCs think, but I'm going to go on believing that there's another world of sociologists out there.
Re: another world of sociologists. Why not use this blog and the collective ethos that's emerging from it to try to bring about some change? Send it on to your advisors and SC members in your departments.
8 years and beyond is a VERY long time to complete a degree. many depts are now in the process of streamlining their programs. in the next few years, expect typical programs to take 5 years total for MA and PhD. i just finished up at a top ranked dept, and the change has already happened there. if students go beyond 5 to 6 years, their own faculty are starting to ask "what's wrong with you?"
I agree with 7:45. I am at a top-ranked department as well, and faculty there start to get worried about you once you have gone into your 6th year without defending your proposal. If you are not completely done and out of there within 7-8 years, they start to believe you will never finish. If you are still there after 8, you enter a black hole and tend to be written off as somebody who will always be "ABD". This is why search committees are so worried about making sure that you are really going to finish. Its relatively *easy* to defend a proposal. Getting the dissertation done is where people usually stumble.
I'm finishing "on time," but gee, this sounds awful. Is the streamlining being done in order to move even more students through the program? ...all while encouraging most of them to aim for an academic career, of course, even though there simply are not anywhere near the number of academic jobs necessary to house the glut of newly produced PhDs each year. How unethical. Ech.
Part of changing expectations for time to completion, some of those same programs are also shifting from a full book-like dissertation to a "three essay" model. The dissertation now consists of: 1) a brief introduction, 2) three independent but related essays of publishable quality, and 3) a brief conclusion. This is particularly encouraged for quantitative dissertations that are using pre-existing datasets. My top 10 dept accepts this model and I'm all for it! There's still the emphasis on creating a coherent theme, but somehow writing individual 'articles' doesn't feel as overwhelming as writing 'dissertation chapters' (even though in this case, they're one and the same). Even better, under this model, advisors encourage you to get each essay out the door for journal review as soon as it's finished. This almost guarantees that by the time you're on the market you have at least one paper accepted at a journal, one possibly revise and resubmit, and one under review or ready to submit. My department starts to look at you funny if you don't finished in 5 years, so this model really helps to keep people on track.
We've got the "three article" model dissertation too. However, for qualitative folks, getting out the door quickly is a little tough. I know cleaning up data sets can be a hassle, but decent part/obs - interview data takes at least a year to collect.
I'll admit, I'm no speedster in terms of timelines, but I've taught classes my whole way through (after 2 years of TA ships). I've got to hold out hope that schools wont think I'm a slacker... I work 50 hrs a week.
I love how the quantitative people have an air of superiority when it comes to early/on-time completion. As the previous poster indicated, the quant people are using PRE-EXISTING datasets, in which the data has already been collected! Qualitative researchers have to go out into the field--sometimes for years--and collect the data, transcribe notes and interviews, and analyze all the data. No wonder it takes qualitative researchers longer to graduate.
One time, I had a conversation with a famous sociologist. He was appalled when I told him that I was coming into my 7th (at the time) year. Of course, he was quantitative.
My advisor took 8 years to graduate. Of course, he had two kids during grad school.
I wouldn't say an "air of superiority". It is simply realism. There HUGE numbers of people who remain ABD forever, so if things take a while to complete, many will simply write you off as another MIA.
From a dept's perspective, having lots of ABDs around is a drain. They often get paid more than other TAs and for the exact same job. Or, they get external funding but still suck departmental resources in terms of office space, lab space, etc. It also isn't good for their standing in the ranking. It signals to other depts that something is wrong.
If a department has lots of ABDs around for years, sucking up department resources, doesn't that say more about the department than the ABDs? To me, it suggests there is something not right with the department, in terms of adequately preparing the students for a timely defense.
Let's not start the quant/qual debate. I have done both. Both have their merits and their weaknesses. I could lament for hours on the time consumption of both. One is not necessarily more difficult than the other, but dont assume that quantitative researchers dont put a lot of time and effort into their dissertations, even if they are using existing data. There is a lot of time and energy that goes into data cleanup, attaining the necessary statistical skills through additional trainings, reading through boring and technical books, and a lot of trial and error. Quant. dissertations are not a breeze by any means.
Regarding the 3 articles model...what a great idea! I wish my deparatment had that model. We do the standard introduction, literature review, conceptual framework, results, conclusion model. I would love to have three articles already under my belt just as a result of the dissertation.
I think that the qualitative/quantitative discussion is extremely important, and that the shift from book model to article model is very telling about where our profession is headed. As an ethnographer, the thought that you could get through a program in five or six years is laughable (if you're also expected to take courses and teach). Don’t you notice that ALL the markers of success and prestige are hugely biased towards quantitative work—many pubs, top journals, and breezing through graduate school. I’m not saying anything is wrong with those markers of success, I just think it’s sad that these continue to hold true for other models of doing sociology. That defines the kinds of work can be carried out, supported, published, and recognized. Top departments are reproducing that, with a trickle down effect.
Don't forget the downside of a three article model. At my school, quantitative people are expected to finish in four years, with the chair occasionally taking aside fifth students and pressing them for a submission date. I plan to finish in four years or less, but it also makes me worry about not having had enough time to develop other papers to have in the publication pipeline.
My top 10 department certainly encourages the three article dissertation, but only when it's the most appropriate format for the story you want to tell with your data. With qualitative research, it is often best to present it using more of a book format in the more traditional format for dissertations.
I think it's ridiculous to try to get everyone done in 5 years (or less)! I'm sure there are amazing scholars out there who can handle this, but for me, I actually needed to go through a longer process to really understand what is involved in academia and what my responsibilities will be. I happen not to come from an upper-middle class background like most of my peers at a top 10 department and grad school has also involved having to familiarize myself with the "culture" of academia and learning (to deal with and to sometimes fake) the sense of entitlement that most of my peers and professors have. I'm not sure I could take on my role as a professor without having taken the time to feel comfortable with all of these issues.
And imagine the people who go straight from undergrad to grad. They'll be 26 when they start a tenure-track position. Sadly, your appearance matters and I doubt that all students would take them seriously being so young.
If nothing else, it sounds to me that most people are pretty sure someone else has it easier. And a lot of people also think their experiences are representative. I would caution us all to remember that this is all anecdotal. For example, I am at a top-5 school and over half our recently well-placed grads were here 8+ years. They were involved with large research projects that resulted in significant publications, and they did not receive funding from the department. So see, there are many pathways to a good job.
I am somewhat bothered by the assumptions made about quantitative research by some previous posters. All research methods take considerable time to do well, and no method will allow a student to "breeze through grad school". The reason most of us stick to one method or the other is because they both take considerable time to learn and require specialized technical skills to execute.
If you want to make comparisons between qual/quant, be sure you have done them both outside of the classroom.
That's where I'm at. Straight from undergrad, in my 6th year, I'll be only 27 when I take my first job (*fingers crossed*). My dept "strongly encourages" people to get through in five through the old funding-cut-off trick. While very few people get out in 5 - and those that do usually take post-docs - it has meant that the norm is to get out in 6. Overall I think it has been good, but still creates a bit of undue stress for those of us that need to do fieldwork.
The amount of time it *should take to finish depends on several factors including whether your department funds you through the whole time you're there, whether you have teaching responsibilities, whether your university emphasizes publishing before finishing, and whether you are working on project funded by large grants. Lets think like economists for a minute. There is a cost-benefit analysis that can be done about length of time in grad school. If you are in for 8 years and have no pubs, no grants, no product to show for that time (other than the degree) that looks bad. If you're in for 8 years and have pubs, have worked on a grant, and have taught a bunch, that looks better. Its all about what you have produced in those 8 years.
I agree. It is a lot like the discussion I hear people having about the "right" time to have a child. There is no ideal length of time to spend in grad school. What matters is what you accomplish during whatever time you are there.
I don't mean to sound fatalistic, but I think that by the time we are ABD then most of the things that matter in the job market have already been set in motion. I know I tend to obsess over little details like whether it could help if someone on my dissertation committee was a former student of someone on the faculty where I'm applying when that person was at a different school. But at the end of the day, I know its the big things that matter the most.
actually 6:18, it would be interesting. there is a professional socialization process that happens when we start grad school, and a vastly different one that happens when we hit the job market. the former being very positive and optimistic, and the latter being neither.
So I let my obsession with the blogs get out of control tonight and just purused last year's. Out of curiousity... Is "Felix" around this year's blog? Or anyone else with one of the make-believe names?
in your cover letter, mention that it is important to you that you find a position in X state or X region. it will help for departments to know that you are really interested in them for that reason.
i am limiting my search only to schools in larger urban areas because my partner is unlikely to find a job outside of a large city. i have been including that information in my letters. i say something like, "i am especially interested in this position because [city] offers some exciting job prospects for my partner."
The people I know who limit their searches geographically often want to be near a particular kind of community (e.g. other African-Americans, other gay people), so they won't feel isolated. Or the partner issue.
Regarding explaining your geographic preference in your cover letter; I've heard from faculty at top schools that they find it irrelevant and offensive. They know they live & work in a place where lots of people want to live & work and they find it unprofessional to bring up the personal life reasons in the cover letter. It may be a different case if you're looking at job x in the middle of nowhere since they are more likely to have a hard time attracting candidates.
443 comments:
1 – 200 of 443 Newer› Newest»test
not sure if this really qualifies as something to pass the time...probably more of a rant.
i feel like some of us are caught in the middle between departments wanting us to finish and get out, and advisers who want us to delay the job search until we get more publications and can be stronger candidates. my department, like many, would like to see students graduate within 4-6 years. so they do put pressure on us to go on the market as soon as we have defended a proposal. and really, i'm a little tired of being a grad student!
on the other hand, my adviser says that if i wait another year i can get some more publications and probably land a better job. which would be beneficial for both me and my adviser.
so i guess my question is...how many of you are on the job market because you feel like you have the qualifications and experience you need to get the kind of job you want, and how many are on for other reasons? if funding/department pressure/whatever was not an issue, would you stay in grad school longer?
I'm a couple years in on the tenure track (but obviously on the market this year again). I accepted a job offer ABD and worked my butt off to just barely defend in time.
Honestly, I'm really glad I did. It is so much better to be done and in the real job. It's essentially the same work, with a bit more teaching, but with a real paycheck, control over my work and loads more respect. I would not have stayed in grad school longer for anything.
Find funding outside your department. When your department head doesn't sign your paycheck, you can remove them from the equation.
I talked with my department chair the other day and told him I'd delay graduation if I didn't get the job I wanted. He gave me a look like I kicked him in the knee. But, what can he do...?
I, for one, am stressed. I try not to be. I try not to think too much about it. I tell myslef to just relax and take it easy. But there is this pervasive, underlying feeling of anxiety and tension. I don't sleep very well at night and I am grinding my teeth so much there are little ridges on the inside of my cheeks.
Ok, as I am writing this, I feel a bit embrassed for admitting it. I know it is not "cool" to admit that you are stressed, like I am suppose to pretend that I am above it all.
Sigh, it is only September--so much more stress ahead!
Lot's of stress to go around.
I've been monitoring this blog twice a day since it began.
It's a buyers market. They have the power and we don't.
They only people who aren't stressed are the folks with sole-author pubs from asr,ajs,sf [and they don't deserve any sympathy because they don't need it :)]
yes, i too am stressed... sometimes feels like the job market is consuming my life. and i too am reading the blog, the announcements, the wiki, far more often than is healthy. it feels good to have sent off most of my applications, but i still can't quite get the market out of my head. just a note of empathizing and solidarity...
Maybe this is the wrong way to approach it, but I am just assuming that I will not get a job and will do this all again next year. In some ways it is comforting to think that between Jan. and Aug. '08 I will be able to do nothing but working on getting that sole-authored pub somewhere that matters.
But in spite of my assumption of failure, I still feel the stress because I don't really want to do this again.
Incidentally, am I the only one who finds the term "job market" a little annoying? I feel like we're just commodities being bought and sold on a market. Which is probably true, but it is somewhat annoying. Someone (who isn't me) should write about alienation among Ph.D.s who market their intellectual labor as a commodity.
Hey Sept 13, 6:15-
Those of us with "sole-author pubs from asr,ajs,sf" are stressed too! And we have feelings. We are mere mortals!
i'm sure you're human, sort of. but you got a lot less to worry about than those of us who don't have fancy sole authored pubs. you're probably worrying about what job you'll get and how good it will be, while we're wondering IF we'll get a job at all!
4:09 - I have no pubs anywhere, not from a strong department and I've not much of a shot at a job, even after being on the market last year.
That said, I think your post was obnoxious and - worse - evidence of lazy thinking. The perspective that underlies your comments is deeply mired in inequality and victimhood, concerns which are sometimes valid but all too often merely a worldview among sociologists - makes me ashamed to be in the same discipline. Of all people, we should know better.
I have more sympathy for those of you who worked your asses off in grad school, were smarter, better, or more competitive than I was, and *still* have to stress about getting a job. *That's* a shame.
4:09
I liked your comment.
Not all stress is created equal.
Worry about not getting a top 10 job is not the same as worry about not getting *a* job.
Once we start celebrating those who are "smarter, better, or more competitive" than we are, we buy into (and validate) inequality.
C'mon folks. We're sociologists. Can't we see through this?
(or was this just a troll I should ignore?)
Here are some reasons to open your heart to the plight of those alien people who have [insert amazing quality you think implies a job offer here]...
1. They might not get any job offers, either because they'll intimidate junior faculty, interview poorly, or come across as arrogant.
2. Everyone expects them to get lots of interviews and jobs. If they don't, they will face a worse reaction than the mortals. They have more to lose, emotionally.
3. If they are really not at all concerned with the process, they will have a hard time coming across as serious scholars and decent people on campus visits.
ahhh... the tyranny of high expectations...
there is an undergrad paper about anomie waiting to be written about this back-and-forth.
Another reason is that having one amazing quality (such as an ASR article) does not mean that all other components are there.
I'm the one who posted about still having anxiety. It was a bit tongue in cheek but the point was valid. I got one jem, yes, but I do not come from a top 20 or even top 30 program. My dissertation is not central to most concerns of the discipline, and I have not secured any prestigious fellowships.
I definitely have reason to celebrate, but it seems some on these bloggers assume that having an ASR, AJS, SF article imples that one is all set- and even more it sometimes feels that people assume that such articles were somehow handed to these people.
no, no, no! those of you with a sole-authored ASR, AJS, or SF...you were not "handed" anything! i think the point is that you are in a position of power in the whole job market thing, so those with less power are unlikely to indulge your concerns.
as someone else said, there is a big difference between worrying about getting a top job and worrying about getting any job at all.
This conversation thread is confusing me. I find it hard to believe that somebody with one SF article will necessarily get a job. Is it true? What if that's the only publication they have, they've never had any grants, and their advisors hate them? That is nuts.
One of my friends had a very well placed solo-authored publication, a few small grants, and lots of teaching experience. She completed her PhD at a top 20 R1. She got a phone interview from Nowhere College and a campus interview at Work-your-butt off State University. She blew both of them (she'd tell you the same).
Why? She looks young. She's stutters a bit. Overall, she comes across less than serious about anything.
I'm only posting this because it worries me. If it happened to her...
I have to say that the obsession with solo-authored papers annoys me. I work with large surveys that have multiple collaborators and it's hard not to have at least one co-author from the project. Are hiring committees really that obsessed with solo-authored papers? What are the relative merits of having, say, one single authored paper and multiple co-authored papers?
If you're aiming for a top-10 job, you probably will need at least one sole authored paper in a top journal, and a lot evidence that it wasn't a fluke.
If you're not after a top-10 job, having several coauthored papers can make up for a lack of sole-authored ones.
Sole-authored papers are primo because SC's sometimes suspect charity when they see a paper with a grad student first author and senior faculty second. If you're working in a research group, you should talk to the PI and ask if there is a way for you to carve out a small niche paper of your own.
From my own experience, I'd be more likely to suspect that in a co-authored paper the grad student did the majority of the work and that the senior faculty just guided the concept development.
well, I wish all search committees thought as you do.
But I would argue that the "guiding of conceptual development" is quiet a big deal. I think the formulation of the research question accounts for at least 50% of the paper. Once that has been done, the data analysis and write up of a paper is pretty straightforward.
This is coming from someone who has never had the opportunity to co-author papers with faculty. While I spent months trying to come up with a new idea, hitting dead-ends, picking myself up again, and starting over, I saw other students being "handed" research questions by senior faculty. Yes, they did the bulk of the dirty work and there is not question in my mind that they did have ownership of the paper as well. But it is a far cry from seeing a paper from beginning to end BY YOURSELF.
Then there is the issue of a paper that is coauthored with faculty being more likely to be published because the faculty is well-connected. You don't get the benefit of the doubt if you are just a grad student.
So I think solo-authored publications is a much bigger deal and should be treated so.
I don't think this is a question with a single answer. If you are applying for a top R1 job, I would say you will be at a disadvantage without a sole-authored pub in a good journal. If you want a SLAC job, you are better off with a teaching portfolio that shows your abilities there. A good pub or two won't hurt, but you're probably less competitive with a sole-authored ASR and not classroom experience.
I think the place it gets tricky is in the R2 area where a lot of candidates probably are somewhere between the sole-authored ASR and only presentations at regional conferences. I doubt if a sole-authored pub is required for those jobs, but realistically you will be less attractive on paper than someone who has one.
This is confusing... For those who are saying that sole-authored publications in top journals pull in more credit, how much more credit is that? Is it really infininte?
If candidate A has 10 co-authored (first and second position only) articles in high ranked journals within a large specialization...
and candidate B has 1 sole-authored pub in a top journal...
who wins?
Regarding last post,
Of course, if somebody has 10 articles and are first author on some that is better than one sole author. But, prestige of journal also matters, and we should look at more typical cases.
Sole author in a major journal counts for A LOT at top schools. I know several faculty on search committes at top 10's, and they see even candidates with several first author ASR-type articles as "risks" if they don't have any sole authored pieces because they wonder "can she do it on her own? Will she get tenure?"
Also, hate to say it, but at these R1 schools second authored papers don't count for much of anything. There may be some halo effect if it is ASR or AJS, but when they count up publications to compare their picks they often don't even count second author papers (yes, some actually count up as the basis of their comparisons).
Lets not forget that not all R1 schools are created equally. Maybe what your saying about counting up is true of the top 10 schools, but there are plenty of R1s that are not even ranked (i.e. Tufts and others). The sense I am getting from these posts is that you guys think that all R1s judge pubs the same. They don't. In fact, even some in the top 20 value pubs more or less than others. I talked with a search chair at a top 15 ranked school who said they are much more interested in what you have in the pipeline than what is already published.
this is an empirical question to some extent. pull up the CVs of assistant professor hires at the department you are wondering about, for about the past 5-10 years. look at when they were hired and then look at what publications they have listed prior to being hired. if you want to really get in to it, look at what came out within a year of getting hired and assume those were "in the pipeline".
that should give you an idea of what those departments have valued in the past and the characteristics of people they have hired. i have done this for my top five choices and there is a lot of variation between schools, but general consistency within departments. in one department, all their hires for the past 5 years had at least one sole-authored pub in one of the top 3 journals. but at another school, only one did and two of their hires had none at all in any journal.
that's my approach.
but i really hate it when people tell me things like "you'd be a stronger candidate with more publications." thanks for the newsflash. i always want to respond with, "really? huh, who knew...?"
I'm a grad student in a top 10 department and my (eminent) advisor recently tried to calm my worries by saying that sole authorship in a top journal isn't the end-all-be-all to get hired, but it is the type of thing that determines tenure. He gave me the impression that it has more to do with whether the departments can forsee you making an ASR-type contribution in the near future even if you aren't there yet.
What, exactly, do you mean when you say "R1," anyway? Are people just going by the Carnegie Classifications or...?
I don't even think the Carnegie folks use R1, R2 anymore...
It's just a holdover, like 1st world and 3rd world... the UN doesn't use those anymore, but outside folks still do...
R1 means that the university has been designated as a high research producing institution. That's all!
Prior to 2000, the Carnegie Foundation categorized schools as Research 1, Research 2, Doctoral 1, etc... based on the amount of federal funding they received. People still use these terms sometimes. However, Carnegie specifically says that they old categories are not comparable to the new ones because they are calculated differently. So when people talk about an R1 school, they usually just mean a school that is pretty big and brings in a lot of research money. They are not referencing an actual classification, unless they are referencing a pre-2000 classification.
Now there are three categories for doctoral-level schools:
RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity)
RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity)
DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities
So when someone is talking about an R1 school, that school would now be called a RU/VH school. However, keep in mind that these categories are calculated differently so some R2 schools are now RU/VHs, especially if they bring in a lot of private foundation grants.
Because I don't feel like working on my dissertation...
If you think the discussions about what to wear to an interview and whether to use the department letterhead seem a bit nitpicky, you should join my world.
Yesterday another soc grad student and I were discussing how to chose appropriate alcoholic beverages during interviews. Do you show your cultural capital by picking wines that pair well with the meal or go for a beer? How good are you at sipping, so that you don't end up drunkenly spilling your most intimate fears and mistakes? Do you avoid alcohol altogether?
These are rhetorical, although I think the discussion is fun. More importantly, I wanted to be a reminder that we probably overthink this stuff way too much, and your reason for getting hired or not after a job interview can probably be likened to whether you get the second date.
I was told to never drink during an interview.
But yea, I get your point. I think it is far more dependent on factors beyond our control than most of us would like to admit. Or more accurately, the people who don't get good jobs chalk it up to external factors while the people who get the jobs they want are more likely to credit their personal merit.
If you're a top-choice candidate, its all you. If your "average", it's more random.
Hmm. Ordering a bottle of the most expensive wine would show the committee what good taste I have. On the other hand, bringing my own six-pack of beer might persuade them that I am down-to-earth and generous (since I'll share). And if I'm taken to an ethnic restaurant, I certainly should order a drink that shows my familiarity with the culture (Sapporo at a sushi restaurant, tequila shots for Mexican cuisine, etc).
(btw, there was recently a hilarious thread on the chronicle forums about drunk candidates.)
Here's a really funny take on the interview process. By "really funny" I mean really dark.
www.9interviews.com
2:42 -
Thanks, that was great! I especially like the guy whose question to the interviewer was, "Uh, so do you do spousal hires?"
Please tell me I'm not the only one checking the blog compulsively...
No, you're not the only compulsive checker. I think there's quite a few of us lurking around. Welcome to the funny farm...
Yes, me too, from another compulsive checker. I'm trying to put a limit on it: twice a day seems reasonable, no?
Wow, twice a day? I'm impressed at your restraint. I won't admit to how many times I check it every day...
So, a fellow grad student told me recently that Social Problems had replaced Social Forces as the third ranked journal in sociology. Anybody have a sense of the weight of a sole-author piece in Soc Prob?
Oh, let me be clear. Twice a day is my GOAL, but that's far from reality.
- Anonymous, September 26, 2007 1:38 PM
yeah, i've checked, like, a dozen times in the past two hours...especially since the info about u of chicago was posted. sick, huh? the more things start to move, the more anxious i get.
I heard that it was Sociological Theory that had bumped Social Forces.
I check probably 5-10 times a day.
I don't think Social Problems is that good yet. I have a sole authored piece there, and big shot faculty that ask me about publications seem to think it is solid but not an incredible score. Often a followup is if I have anything in ASR, AJS, or Social Forces. My adviser certainly tried to push me to still get a piece in one of those three.
I definitely seems like Social Fores is on the decline but still has an aura to it. Social Problems is certainly a top 10 journal and occasionally a top 5 but it seems other places like Admin. Science Quarterly are more impressive.
Some of these are surprising... Where's social forces?
Journals Ranked by Impact: Sociology
Rank
2004
Impact Factor
1 Amer. Sociol. Review (2.86)
2 Ann. Review Sociology (2.68)
3 Amer. J. Sociology (2.12)
4 Social Problems (1.78)
5 Sociologia Ruralis (1.62)
6 Population/Develop. Rev. (1.55)
7 Leisure Sciences (1.34)
8 Soc. Health & Illness (1.33)
9 J. Marriage/Family (1.29)
10 Politics & Society (1.28)
The above table compares the citation impact of journals in a given field. The column ranks journals based on their 2004 "impact factor," as enumerated in the current edition of the ISI Journal Citation Reports®. The 2004 impact factor is calculated by taking the number of all current citations to source items published in a journal over the previous two years and dividing by the number of articles published in the journal during the same period—in other words, a ratio between citations and recent citable items published.
But in 2005...
SOCIOLOGY
1. American Journal of Sociology 3.26
2. American Sociological Review 2.93
3. Administrative Science Quarterly 2.72
4. Annual Review of Sociology 2.52
5. Social Problems 1.80
6. Social Forces 1.58
Huh?
I have never read, needed to read, or seen anything cited from Adm Science Quarterly, Sociologia Ruralis, Leisure Sciences, etc. I didn't even know though journals existed...how can that ranking be right.
the 2005 ranking seems more legit.
I'm with you...what the hell is Administrative Science Quarterly, and where did it come from? I am at a top 10 and have a sole-author piece in Soc Problems. The faculty here seem to think it's a really good journal, and up and coming.
I think there are two kinds of rankings. One represents impact within the discipline of sociology, and the other the impact overall. I would assume that these rankings are the overall type. But where is JHSB? I would think it would make the list, given all of the various health-related disciplines.
I have the following, which is clearly another version of ISI sociology impact factors...
1. American Journal of Sociology (3.262)
2. American Sociological Review (2.933)
3. Annual Review of Sociology (2.521)
4. Sociology of Health and Illness (1.796)
5. Social Problems (1.796)
6. Social Forces (1.578)
7. British Journal of Sociology (1.490)
8. Law & Society Review (1.396)
9. Social Networks (1.382)
10. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1.350)
11. Sociologica Ruralis (1.340)
Not sure about the exact documentation - had this saved on my desktop from a while back...
Actually, Admin Sci Qtr doesn't surprise me at all. It's one of the best places to publish an orgs and/or quant methods piece. Sociologists love it because it's the stomping ground for all the (well-paid) business school folks.
I've sludged through many a an Admin Sci Qtr piece in my grad school career.... in my opinion, it's about as boring as ASR but without the occasional awesome & interesting article.
Here's an idea that has been fun: put a hidden stat counter on your CV webpage.
It gives you the city, state, and ip address of the folks who click on your page. I wouldn't take it as an indicator of anything other than curiosity, but it passes the time.
www.statcounter.com
This is a link to an article from ASA Footnotes a couple of years ago. It has a table of "Core Influence Scores of 90 Journals for 1999-2001." It's obviously a bit dated now, so take it with a grain of salt. But at least it has a list of 90 (!) different places to send your manuscripts. A good resource for those of us always trying to figure out where else to send our rejected manuscripts.
http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/dec03/fn11.html
Any thoughts on WHY Social Forces is on the decline?
That "third" journal slot varies by field. If you ask around across all major fields in sociology, I'd say that ASR & AJS always make to the top 2. In demography/strat, I'd say Demography is a strong contender for the third slot. SF has declined and has been declining in prestige for a while. You can get away with sending medium quality quant stuff to SF and still have a shot at it being published. I don't think you can say the same for Demography.
it has been so difficult for me to concentrate since the chicago thing was announced. it is not that i expected to be short-listed at chicago but it has triggered a lot of pre-existing anxieties that have kept under control until now. oh boy, i am not looking forward to the next few months. this is just the beginning of a long long process of high hopes, let-downs, hopes, more let-downs....
i *totally* agree with 2:22. it's like your self-worth is constantly in question. i made the mistake of comparing my cv with students at other schools today...how do the top schools choose just 5 or 10 (or whatever) for a shortlist, let alone 2-3 for an interview?
Yes,
It's very depressing to find another ABD out there who does everything that you do, but only better...
Not being asked for additional materials doesn't mean you're out of the running. Why do committees ask for more materials? Maybe a candidate forgot to include something; maybe they're on the cusp of a short list and the committee is weighing them against other candidates. In any case, not being asked to send more only means that they feel they have enough to evaluate you, either in a good way or a bad way.
I am in the same boat as some of the rest of you. As schools have started to inform candidates of short lists, I find myself more and more looking to do the job market next year again. And I didn't even apply to Rice, Chicago, Berkeley, or Richmond! But the more I look, the more I realize how better-qualified other candidates are. I'm one of those top-5 school grads with no pubs; lots in the works but nothing published yet.
I'm lucky in that I have a fellowship that will support me another year, but just on an emotional level I had thought this would be the end of grad school and it is hard to come to terms with the idea that I have another 2 years. I think the emotional aspect is more difficult than the financial aspect!
WRT SF: Partly speculation, but there was a major editorial shakeup there a couple years back (I think mid-05). They overthrew the editor, and published a few somewhat dubious, ridiculously thick issues to clear the pipeline from the old editorial regime. Before that, people had been growing old waiting for editorial decisions, discouraging some folks from submitting at all. Haven't paid much attention to it myself for a couple years, but it seems that that all could add up to a major prestige drop.
7:30,
This is only the beginning of the job hunting season. We're only just now getting reports of departments, potentially, making lists and asking for more materials. I'm sure you applied to a bunch of schools, many of which probably haven't even started looking at applications.
Give it a little time, it's difficult, but keep the faith...
I concur with 8:48 re: SF. That is the same story I'd heard.
re: SF
Yes there was an editorial shake-up after the journal started to head off in the direction of "public sociology". The journal also has a reputation for showing favoritism to department alumni.
re: early in the job hunting season
my 3 closest friends, who are all employed now (2x RU/H and 1x eSLAC*) all got their jobs in March, April, and May. Their interviews were not any earlier than February! But the deadlines had been back in October.
So it really is very very early...
(*eSLAC- elite SLAC - the distinction is, of course, Very Important to hu)
9:36 - Would you please refrain from using "hu" as a gender-neutral pronoun? It's irritating on the Chronicle Forum, and it's irritating here.
I don't see why 9:36 should have to refrain from something because it irritates 10:02, lol. Let's everyone just settle down, shall we?
The "hu" wars. Begun they have.
10:02,
I'd hate to be irritating to an already-stressed out bunch of folks. Would you please suggest an appropriate gender-neutral pronoun? I do not prefer to write she/he, s/he, or he/she and I definitely do not want to use she or he alone.
I liked "hu" because I see it as short for "human." I suppose "pe" for person or "in" for individual or "so" for sociologist might also work.
I say use hu. I like it. Especially on identity sensitive blogs where either he or she can be too much info. For folks who don't like it: don't use it.
http://www.hupronoun.org/
hahahaha!!
i have never heard the term "hu" before. it cracks me up! i thought it was okay to use "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. if nothing else, using made-up pronouns makes it hard for the 99% of people who have never heard of them to have any idea what you are saying.
better yet, go with the southern approach. we use y'all to refer to groups of people and you'un to refer to a single person. both are delightfully gender-neutral, but might not be well-received during your job talk.
...except that the correct you (sing.) and you (pl.) were already gender neutral. I also doubt it's 99%, and it worries me that people are so free with their use of statistics!
(and I'm smiling, not snarking, fyi)
it's third person gender neutral pronouns that are tricky, not second person. Stylistically, "they" can be a little clunky at times.
Who knew that talking about gender neutral pronouns was a good thing "to pass the time..."
"They" is also simply incorrect in these instances. It is not "okay" to use it in the singular.
Oxford Dictionaries:
The English language unfortunately lacks a simple singular pronoun which does not specify gender. Various people have suggested new words to fill this gap, but none of them has caught on, or (frankly) is ever likely to: it is not practical to try to change such a basic element of the language by sheer will.
However, children and adults alike naturally find the obvious solution to this conundrum: rather than using the formal and awkward formula 'he or she', they simply use they, especially after words such as anyone and no one which are strictly singular but often imply a reference to more than one person.
This is not a new problem, or a new solution. 'A person can't help their birth', wrote Thackeray in Vanity Fair (1848), and even Shakespeare produced the line 'Every one to rest themselves betake' (in Lucrece), which pedants would reject as logically ungrammatical.
If you do not find this usage acceptable, there are alternatives. You could resort to the awkward 'he or she' formula, or to the practice of writing 'he' when you mean 'he or she' (which many people find objectionable), or to recasting all your sentences to avoid the problem!
IMHO, the % of people in the general population who have ever heard of "hu" is probably less than 1%, but maybe someone can land a grant to find out.
why not prepare for one of those difficult phone interview questions?
take your pick (serious and silly answers welcome) from the ones that have been stumping me tonight. Remember, though, answer in pleasing 90 second or less sound bytes:
1. What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?
2. How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
3. Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
4. Tell me anything about yourself, as if I just met you off the street.
and lastly,
5. As a teacher and a thinker, what core principle would you absolutely go to the mat for?
(disclaimer: I collected these from everywhere and everyone I know who's had a phone interview)
I will happily go first:
What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?
I'm still stumped... bla bla bla Public Sociology?
How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
Free coffee at the door? Don't hold class early in the mornings or immediately after meal times?
Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
Desperate.
Tell me anything about yourself, as if I just met you off the street.
If you met me off the street... you might notice the following: an overfull and slightly ripped backpack, an adorable baby in a stylish-yet-affordable stroller, and the classic sock-and-sandal combo.
As a teacher and a thinker, what core principle would you absolutely go to the mat for?
er... Summer holidays?
Are those serious questions from "real" interviews? Other than the one on addressing student apathy, they hardly focus on anything useful. I can't imagine wasting my time speaking to a candidate by asking those sorts of things. I tend to focus on one's research agenda (what's in the works and what is the next big step beyond the dissertation); questions about what courses the candidate would want to develop to build the department; and his or her interest in interdisciplinary programs, area studies, international programs, or first year programs outside of the department.
9:07 - If you're interviewing a candidate for a department of one or two, you're going to want to know more about what it's like to "live" with the candidate, beyond performance on the job.
9:07,
yes, they are real questions. However, they are only about 5 of 40ish questions that I've assembled over the past 3 years - I've picked many a brain immediately after a phone interview. I've also asked various Search Committee members that I've known for some of their usual questions. And then I also pulled some from the Chronicle's forum, "Most difficult phone interview questions."
Your suggested questions and topics are certainly represented in my overall list. The ones that I posted were the just the ones that were giving me the most trouble as I'm generating my own answers.
I thought that posting them here, under the "things to do to pass the time" might be helpful for some and fun for others.
9:58, the certainly are entertaining. I can see why they'd stump you. I wouldn't know how to answer some of them. They'd probably put me off of a department if too many of those types of questions came my way.
9:43, I believe you can assess whether someone is nice or not through basic interaction and more specifically during down-time over coffee or whatever. We certainly care about finding people who are easy to live with, and for that reason, we pay very close attention to interactions between candidates and faculty, candidates and staff, and candidates and students. I guess I tend to agree with Goffman, when he says that signs given off are more telling than those we give. It is certainly interesting to see other opinions though.
can you please post the link to the chronicle forum on the phone interview questions? Thanks.
My department has a faculty member who assists students on the job market to prepare their materials, prep for job talks, and know what to expect during interviews. This person has provided everyone on the market with a rather extensive list of "questions you may be asked" and none of them sound anything like the ones posted above. So while some places may ask those kinds of questions, some places probably do not.
The list of possible questions I have seen is more along the lines of "Where do you see your research going in the next 5-10 years?", or "How would you approach teaching a methods or statistics course for undergraduates?"
The most difficult question I have seen is "How do you feel you would fit in with the political climate in this department?"
But to answer one, Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
Spousal Hire. Damn, that was two words.
The question, "What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?," was asked during a Princeton interview a while back. I think it is a pretentious question. Still have not been able to come up with an adequate response.
most difficult interview questions:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,32156.0.html
and "how to survive a phone interview":
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,42008.0.html
the "why do you want to work here?" question:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,42104.0.html
Dear Indiana University;
How did you make short list on the morning of your due date?
Dear Wiki;
Are you telling the truth?
Haha, good point. Let's not take any of these "rumors" too seriously until we have enough info....
Every time someone posts about being asked for materials or getting a short-list notification, I cringe a little bit. I got nothing here.
thanks for posting the links--very helpful.
7:13 I wouldn't even begin to worry yet. It is still so early in the game, and this is only the first round.
Exactly. It is really really early. Many folks don't get anything until the early spring. And then they land TT jobs as late as April and May.
I'm going second, with the help of my trusty snarky colleague.
What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?
South of the border. The grad student labor is cheaper there.
How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
Hire a bassist to strum in the background during lectures. I also found that International Talk Like a Pirate Day raised the morale of the crew.
Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
Cute-as-a-button. (hyphenation makes everything a single word)
Tell me anything about yourself, as if I just met you off the street.
I use research as an excuse to travel to exotic locales that I can't afford on my own. I'm also up-to-date on my shots, and no, that smell isn't me.
As a teacher and a thinker, what core principle would you absolutely go to the mat for?
High quality coffee and beer.
What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?
'Round and 'round. Like a bad metal sing from the 80's but with less hairspray.
How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
Dear Undergraduate Student Apathy,
Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
Hungry.
Tell me anything about yourself, as if I just met you off the street.
I never did figure out what "ontological" meant so I therefore use the term frequently in my dissertation based on the assumption that you don't know what it means either.
As a teacher and a thinker, what core principle would you absolutely go to the mat for?
LONG LIVE ROCK-AND-ROLL!!!!!
What direction do you see the field of sociology moving into in the next decade?
A critical multilevel analysis of high budget sports teams and their fall from grace.
How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
Free beer and adderall when they walk through the door.
Give us one word, and one word only, to describe yourself.
Alcoholic
Tell me anything about yourself, as if I just met you off the street.
i date a bipolar snob who you're going to have to find a job for.
As a teacher and a thinker, what core principle would you absolutely go to the mat for?
Rum for grades
How would you address undergraduate student apathy in a large lecture course?
Dear Undergraduate Student Apathy,
thank you, 10:25. I needed that laugh. Badly.
so i keep reading posts from people on the other threads who have been asked for more materials from this school or that school, or who have been told they are on a short list. and i'm happy for them, i really am.
but over here on the "pass the time..." thread, can i get a show of hands from people who have not heard anything from anywhere they applied?
i sent out 32 apps. and i haven't gotten anything but the postcards asking me if i'm white or not...
I sent out 22 apps. Have heard nothing. I got excited for a bit because, thanks to the trusty statcounter, I saw a lot of activity on my website during the period leading up to the frenzy of new info on the soc wiki. but alas, nothing.
I'm there with you pal. Just checking my email and phone. but all I get back is dead silence.
jack for me.
and i have decided that the activity on my website is actually grad students at other schools checking out people on the market.
I've sent out ten applications and haven't heard anything beyond EO/AA forms either.
I have sent out 29 so far and heard nothing back (except EEO) from anybody. Interestingly, I did get two emails from schools I was not intending to apply to asking me to submit an application.
statcounter
Most of the hits on my web/cv page are just folks trolling the dept web site for folks "on the market"
It is only when someone hits my site directly, without a preceding link, that I know they typed in my web address from my materials.
I have also heard nothing from the 24 schools i've applied to, but i keep reminding myself (and so i'll remind all of you) that there are many many many schools out there that haven't contacted *anyone* yet. only two of the places on my list are on the wiki as of now. that makes me feel better.
I've been shortlisted or asked for more materials at four schools (including Chicago), but have not gotten any interviews...always a bridesmaid, never a bride!
how many of you are on the market this year with no publications in journals that matter, or no sole publications. my adviser keeps telling me that departments will actually consider candidates without publications whom they see as having "potential", but i have my doubts.
I think it depends on what you're aiming for. It's probably no longer the case that you can get a job at a top top tier with no publications, simply as other peole have potential AND publications, but if you have other things going for you you'll get noticed elsewhere... But then again, there are variations. And it's good practice to just try.
I have a few pubs in journals that do not matter and have co-authored with my advisor (big deal, right!) I am also fortunate to have worked on several large studies and have received a lot of funding for my dissertation. However, I have no single authored pubs in the big three. Even so, I have applied to a few schools (not in the top five) that I would rather be at than spend another year in grad school just to see how it goes. You never know what can happen, especially if you are not applying to Prestigious University as one of our colleagues refers to them.
I'm with 5:22--it is good practice just to try and if you do not get a job this year, you will be even more competitive next year.
7:21 - I'm in the same position. My advisors encouraged me to "try out" the market this year, when I didn't have the pressure that looks inevitable next year.
I "tried out" the market last year- at that time, I had a (not-so-great) article published in Obscure European Edited Volume. And I had two items out for review (one sole and one co- with a peer). I have some grants, a bunch of teaching, and a few odds and ends (book reviews and encyclopedia entries and such).
It was pretty low-key. I only applied to what absolutely fit (about 6 positions and few post-docs).
The results? A short list at a place where the funding disappeared and a post-doc at a Prestigious University that I couldn't actually accept. The short list place didn't know me at all - just a CV. The post-doc was a totally networked situation (though I didn't know it at the time).
This year feels vastly different. I'm glad that I did try the market last year. We'll see what happens this year.
For those of you on the market again this year, what happened to you last year?
I was on the market last year, briefly. I was ABD, no pubs at all, no awards, a bunch of teaching and a slew of presentations. I applied to about 20 schools before realizing that it was a joke and giving up.
This year I have my degree, a book review and one publication in a no-prestige journal, and I've somehow managed to convince myself that I have a shot.
I've applied to 45-ish, with nothing back yet except the EEOO cards.
I have a sole-pub in an ok journal. Currently at a "top-15".
I like these kind of questions - makes me feel less isolated.
I was on the market last year, "just to give it a try." I don't have publications, but I do have grant money and come from a top-15 school. I got an interview and a job offer from a small state teaching/research oriented school last year. I'm hoping the same thing happens again this year!
2:00--Thank you for your post! This is reassuring. I have a few pubs, am from a top 25 school and have a lot of grants. Just wondering why you did not take the offer? Good luck this year.
What do people mean when they say they have grants?
I only know two or three graduate students who I would think could say that... and no one with more than two grants each, maximum.
Dear 5:00pm -- Really? Wow! I know people whose research is widely funded. For example, they have NSF dissertation grants, maybe a few big ones like the Ford, and then some of the smaller regional ones. Especially in the UC system.
When I hear "grant", I think more along the lines of NIH R01 or R03 grants that support more extensive research projects rather than fellowships that are intended as support during the PhD and dissertation. I know a handful of graduate students who have been co-investigators on these grants (and I console myself that I spent my time publishing an article rather than writing the grant proposals, although I'm not sure what will matter more in the end).
6:05, I share your interpretation of "grant." I have the stuff 5pm was talking about, but it would seem dishonest to me to say I have lots of grants.
I totally agree 6:17 (6:05 here). I have an NSF, but in no way does that the work that I put into that proposal compare to the time and effort required to get actual external grants. Fellowships put food on my table, but writing external grants are far more impressive.
I agree on the grant/fellowship distinction. I have landed 2 grants in grad school, one from a government agency and one from a large foundation. Grants are totally different than fellowships. For the grants, I wrote a full project proposal including budgeting hours for all project staff, detailed methodology, scope of work, and so on and so on... Then I report back to the funding agency at regular intervals and present them with progress reports. Finally, the funding is actually managed through the university's office of sponsored research and I bill research expenses to them.
I think both look good, but they are very different. At least I hope both look good - I have no publications and am relying on my track record landing grants to get me a job! It's really my only hope right now.
Does anyone know of similar blogs like this for other related disciplines? I'm looking for American Studies or Ethnic Studies.
RE: trying the market early
I went on the market a year early, just to get a sense of what to expect. In a strange turn of events, I very quickly got a request for more materials (dissertation chapters) from a top 3 dept in my specialty area. I was shocked. The downside was that I didn't have enough written to keep their interest. Honestly I didn't want to work there; I applied there because I was a very good fit (and would take it if that was my only offer)and it would put me in a good position to negotiate with my top choice school. It didn't work out. I think you can learn a lot by going on the market early, BUT it can be risky. People form an impression of you and your work from the process, so make certain you aren't risking your reputation by going on the market far too early and being unprepared.
At one point can a person call his/her top choice and beg for the job? Does anyone have tips on how to grovel in a way that still shows how professional I am? Is stalking the chair out of the question?
Note: just kidding. kinda.
5:47 There are a bunch of wikis for other disciplines (some of which have blogs listed) at:
http://wikihost.org/wikis/academe/wiki/start
12:58 - Two words: gift basket.
1:18
You must be a fan of The Office.
1:18 here - yes, it's one of the few things that keeps me from checking the wiki obsessively. :)
You call it "stalking", I call it "demonstrating my genuine interest".
So this is kind of out of left field, but is anyone planning on having kids in the next few years? Any ideas about how to make that work during the tenure process? In my wildest dreams, I hope to get a job and negotiate for a year off to have the baby, but don't know how to justify it. Any advice?
Having a baby and a career can be done. Check out the ASA's guide to having a baby during particular phases of your career. It's accessible from the main page, I think.
10:14 - Get a job in Canada. Employees are entitled to one-year's leave when they have a baby (less for dads). About half of that is at full pay (depending on the employer), and the other half at about 2k a month.
Many schools will let you add a year to your tenure clock when you have a baby. At my R1, you also get a paid semester off of teaching and 'off' of research (ha).
I have heard of someone negotiating a delayed start by a semester to a job, but never a year (for a baby). I suppose, if they want you bad enough, they might do it--but I think it would be risky, for a variety of reasons.
If you are at a SLAC or R2 where tenure requirements are super difficult, you should also negotiate for time toward tenure if you come with lots of teaching experience. This means you come up for tenure early, so you need to have "evidence" you've been productive sooner...but also, you get job security and increased pay sooner too, if you make it.
opps..meant to say "aren't" not "are"...
That reminds me, if I could do my first job search over again, I would ask specific questions about tenure requirements at the interview. Maybe I was an idiot not to do so, but I was worried that it was too early to ask, or that I would look like I was trying to avoid work. Instead, after starting the job, I found out that I took one of those golden positions with a high teaching load AND R1 level publishing expectations.
good point about asking for tenure info. i wouldn't worry about looking like you want to avoid work by asking about tenure. from my perspective, you'd seem more savvy, which is good. perhaps you'll not need quite as much hand-holding/junior mentoring if hired.
At the ASA "interviews" two different schools volunteered tenure info. Departments know that tenure is a factor, and it would also show that you intend to puruse tenure at the department you're hired at (versus taking a position somewhere else after a couple years). Although perhaps there are better settings to ask this type of question, e.g. in a one-on-one with a junior faculty, but not with a panel of senior faculty. Thoughts?
I've had a number of discussions about the marriage/baby factor with my advisor, and the bottom line is that there is no "ideal" time to have kids in academia - you just learn how to juggle. As people have pointed out, even if the tenure clock stops, there's an implicit assumption that you'll continue to do research (especially at R1's). The advice I've gotten is to only discuss family during interviews if it will help you. E.g. if a SLAC is in a family-friendly city, then talking about kids will let them know that you're willing to move there and planning to sink some roots in. However, someone at an R1 may count it against your seriousness as a researcher, with the "if I can have kids and get tenure, then it's possible" mentality.
personal issues like kids, partners, "odd" lifestyles, etc. should be strictly off limits during interviews. in our dept, they are forbidden topics. candidates are free to bring them up, but i'd strongly encourage people to think about the consequences. you should be evaluated for your research and teaching -- not some other issue which may or may not impact your work. get the job offer, and then worry about kids, partners, etc. then they want you, and you have more leverage to negotiate details and uncover the truth about these issues.
12:53, I heartily agree with you. Personal issues should be off limits. However, that may not work for those of us who are going to be visibly pregnant during prime-time interview season.
Any thoughts about this from anyone?
2:45, see if you can find out (through the grapevine) if anyone at the dept in question has had a baby recently. use that person (if sources tell you he/she is nice and an OK ally) to find out about daycare, etc. use that moment to communicate to them that you have a plan, and that being pregnant will not keep you from your job. in the end, it is this type of "ally" that will take you up during faculty discussions. if this is a top R1, i don't know that these (probably junior) faculty would have too much pull though.
while i agree that personal topics should never be brought up, i think some such as an obvious pregnancy are unavoidable. however, the majority of professors do, at some point, have kids. i don't think it is a big problem. especially if you have demonstrated that you get work done and fulfill your responsibilities.
i think most people who decide to curtail their professional aspirations in order to devote more attention family or personal matters do so in grad school, not as assistant professors striving for tenure.
i have a special needs child and would like to ask about services and resources in the area, but am hesitant to do so for the reasons cited previously.
I was pregnant during my interviews, and nearly every place brought it up first (childcare, etc.). I don't think they were supposed to, but it was kind of hard to ignore, I guess. I was glad, though, to discuss all those issues.
I would wait, if a place doesn't bring it up first, until you get an offer. At that point you can ask whatever you want and frankly, it doesn't matter much what benefits/perks the school has until you get the offer.
This was my second child, and a few committee members mentioned that my rec letters had talked about my proficiency (ha) of combining work and motherhood, which they considered a great asset.
Of course I wondered if they would have made such comments about a male student...but, since it seemed to work in my favor, I didn't worry about it too much. :)
So yeah, they aren't supposed to bring it up, but be prepared in case they do.
2:45, you're not alone. I'll likely be showing by the time interviews roll around. My dilemma though is, if I'm not showing, do I tell?
No, don't tell. Male applicants would not be debating about whether to tell that they are about to be a father. Women already suffer tremendous consequences in the labor market because of child bearing. Why take yourself out of the running before you're even at the starting gate?
3:45pm: I think it's wise to ask around for information for your special needs child, but this can happen after a department makes an offer. You should take it into account for whether you want the position, but it shouldn't be a factor in whether they decide to offer you a job.
I just want to applaud all of you parents-on-the-market. I'm feeling stressed, and I'm a complete free spirit - no partner or child to take into consideration. It should count in your favor that you have accomplished so much in so many areas of life. Bravo.
8:12 (and others...)
Thanks for the advice. It makes sense that "personal/family issues" could be discussed after an offer is extended. I'm the poster with a special needs child, and I am also a single parent with 2 other kids. I am probably identifying myself since I am fairly sure I am the only person on the market from a top-5 school who is a single parent! My CV looks pretty good - some forthcoming top-journal pubs and a record of securing grant funding for my research (not fellowships for grad students but actual grants to researchers).
But I do wonder if search committees cross my name off as soon as they hear "single parent"...? I don't tell them, but I'm fairly sure it is unique enough that word gets around...
No way. The fact that you've accomplished so much despite your unique set of challenges is a testament to your abilities as a scholar and frankly, as a human being.
As someone currently sitting on a search committee, that would be a huge point in your favor for me.
Kudos to you!
5:24 do I hear you saying that parental status SHOULD be mentioned in letters, etc? I'm a mom on the market. Went through grad school with kids. I've taken relatively long to finish and was considering having my letters explain that, but decided against it, since wanted to remain "professional".
I have to say that I find deeply problematic in this thread the sense that we're held to the same standards, so parenting status can help you IF you were able to get to the finish line having lived up to the norm (as in affirming that you will slave away at committee work, teaching, and still publish. Ah, we already know she can get by on 5 hours of sleep).
At any rate, my hat off to the single mom with three kids.
5:24 here. No no, it doesn't belong in your cover letter. But if I were to read it in one of your rec letters, I wouldn't think that was unprofessional. We do see stuff like this in rec letters, but more frequently, we hear 'through the grapevine' about things like this. And I would definitely want to see any reasons for taking a long time to finish in your rec letters; otherwise, it leaves us wondering.
And yeah, I think you are held to the same standards. Which is hard, but there are many kinds of challenges one faces in grad school--parenthood is just one (a big one, I know--I also had kids in grad school).
If I were on a search committee, and I knew that an applicant had already had her kids, one thought I might have was that it would be a benefit to the department that we wouldn't have to now accommodate one or more pregnancy leaves for this candidate.
By the way, this whole discussion is demoralizing because it demonstrates the sad and confused priorities in academia, and in society generally, and how we are participating in their reproduction.
Just to clarify: by holding parents to same standards I don't, of course, refer to professional standards, but to time-in-program standards (some grad. programs recognized this). Depending on amount of family and financial support, having a child will slow one down, esp. if one needs to travel for fieldwork. I wish I'd had this discussion before my references were out!
6:49, I totally agree that it's demoralizing. And it sucks that committees might consider potential maternity leaves in making hiring decisions!
and 7:08, you never know--my opinion is just that--my opinion! Others might chime in and say they'd be turned off by such talk in rec letters...
5:24
My diss advisor (a big name at an R1) asked me beforehand about whether I felt comfortable with him mentioning my family situation (having kids and having a husband with a very time-intensive career that limited my geographic mobility). He thought that this showed I've been quite productive and organized DESPITE having other time demands and that this was a real plus. I also mentioned it very briefly in my cover letter to explain why I'd been in visiting positions for the last two years - I'm applying to research-oriented places now that I'm geographically mobile, and it seemed like the elephant in the room. My sense is that while it's no one's business, if you need to explain why you've been in grad school awhile or to demonstrate productivity, it would be good to have such info in your letter or a reference letter (probably the better place for it, since that way it doesn't look like you're making excuses for yourself).
My advisor and I also half-joked that maybe one of us should mention I'm done having kids as a "selling point" in terms of not needing any future maternity leaves. It of course didn't make it into any letters, but there is a sad truth to it.
all sorts of issues fall under this category of sensitive information and should be treated with care during he early stages of the search. while i agree that we shouldn't have to turn to search committees (or tenure committees) to approve our choices to have kids or whatever, i don't think we can fault departments too much for wanting people who will be around to cover their teaching loads. my advice is to give search committees just enough information to see what you are qualified and a great catch. don't give them enough information that you raise redflags or additional questions. keep in mind that screening process is really just people looking for a reason to kick you out of the keep stack. sociologists clearly are not immune to bias.
several people have mentioned the value of explaining if you take a long time to finish grad school. how would a search committee know if you have taken a long time? do they look at time between MA and PhD? length of time from first pub to graduation? i'm confused how anyone would know how long i've been in grad school.
and what is a "long time" anyway?
They look at the timeframe between the M.A. and Ph.D.
Some grad schools do not encourage the MA, so some search committees are more likely to look at the time from your BA to your PhD. According to a recent report, the average graduate student takes 8.2 years to get the PhD. 5 Years is good, 7 is ok, 9 is too long...
6:39 and 7:24, I agree that this is so demoralizing. As a mom who wants to have another child in the near future, I hate to feel like I'm going to represent a liability to a department. It just intensifies all my fears about not being able to balance family and career...
Sorry, not to demoralize you even more, but have you seen this article?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html?referrer=emailarticle
It's about the gender gap in salaries and the different outcomes of negotiating.
What if you've changed fields and done a bunch of other stuff since your B.A.? Are you still held to the 8 year norm?
We look at time from the MA to PhD; never time from BA (since that is so variable and most people work before grad school).
Seems like the BA to PhD measure is absurd. A lot of people do not go straight to grad school after the BA. I can see looking at MA to PhD, but if it matters to schools they should just ask.
I don't think time to graduate matters that much. I know many people who spent 8-10 years in grad school and got very good jobs because they'd published a lot during that time.
I agree. My advisor always says that it doesn't matter if you stay in grad school past 5 years, so long as you have publications to show you've been productive.
I think what you just said is the key. If you are going to be in grad school for awhile, you have to show that you have been productive.
Well, this doesn't make any sense at all. I didn't get my masters, so my vitae lists a BA and then a PhD 15 years later. Are you guys telling me that SCs will assume I took 15 years in grad school?
To be a bit uplifting (even though I'm not particularly feeling it myself): I remind myself that the people sitting on search committees used to be in the same positions we are.
Most of them have children, and they had to negotiate that factor at some point either before, during, or after the hiring process. I'm sure they vary wildly on their own grad school time frames. And they have students with differential time frames and familial concerns as well. Chin up.
They will wonder what you have been doing in those 15 years. If you have a job on your CV, that's one thing, but if it looks like you have just been a student for 15 years (without a lot of pubs) they will wonder.
I think that you're better off putting something about your time between undergrad and grad school in a cover letter. I have never seen jobs listed on a CV. In fact, I was advised to avoid anything that makes your CV look like a resume because you want to look like a professional academic.
But really, I can't imagine that any place is really going to think you've been in grad school for 15 years! There are other ways to figure out how long you have been in school such as looking at the dates of your teaching or fellowships. But what matters is publications, awards, fellowships, and grants.
Really, why on earth would anyone care what you've done between undergrad and grad school? It is totally irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on your promise as a professor. Can anyone who has ever been on a search committee confirm that anyone cares about that or give any reason why they would? I waited seven years between undergrad and grad school. And on paper I didn't "do" anything - I stayed at home and hung out with my kids. If any committee asked me to justify or explain that, I know I wouldn't want to work there anyway.
I agree, most people who are reviewing our applications are people who have been in our shoes. I have to believe that it is the process of applying for jobs that is harsh, not the people doing the hiring. They just want to hire a good colleague.
I am at a top 10 school. We were considering bringing in a candidate a couple of years ago who had taken more than ten years to finish grad school. A lot of people were concerned about it. We eventually did invite her for an interview, but it required some convincing of several faculty. The chair of our search committee contacted her mentor to ask for an explanation, and she had had a child in grad school. That seemed to quell the concerns a little, but we'd had several grad students have one or more kids and still not take that long. People reasoned that she must take a long time to conduct research and publish, and were worried she wouldn't be able to meet tenure requirements on time. Like I said, we eventually did bring her in, but there was much discussion about the risk involved.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the above poster. For some reason, it's a big deal at my school, too. Anything over 7 years raises big questions here.
My diss advisor, upon reviewing my CV b/f I sent it out, asked about the small gap in my timeline b/w undergrad & grad school - I hadn't listed my employment prior to grad school, and it stood out to him. I got the impression that you shouldn't have any substantial gaps in time that aren't explained, though it seemed sufficient to say something like "1997-1999: Worked in computing industry" without listing specific jobs or dates.
Re: time. Do committees consider quant and qualitative on the same timeline? Esp. qualitative work that requires extended periods of time outside the U.S.?
I took just over 10 years in graduate school (with no pubs) and was told by an SC member at an R1 that 10 years isn't long enough to prompt the question about why I took so long.
My dissertation was qualitative and took nearly 5 years from proposal to defense. And I had a baby. And I took a leave for a year.
And I'm not putting any of that in my cover letter.
This is ridiculous, really. I have to stop reading this stuff. You may all be correct about what SCs think, but I'm going to go on believing that there's another world of sociologists out there.
Re: another world of sociologists. Why not use this blog and the collective ethos that's emerging from it to try to bring about some change? Send it on to your advisors and SC members in your departments.
8 years and beyond is a VERY long time to complete a degree. many depts are now in the process of streamlining their programs. in the next few years, expect typical programs to take 5 years total for MA and PhD. i just finished up at a top ranked dept, and the change has already happened there. if students go beyond 5 to 6 years, their own faculty are starting to ask "what's wrong with you?"
I agree with 7:45. I am at a top-ranked department as well, and faculty there start to get worried about you once you have gone into your 6th year without defending your proposal. If you are not completely done and out of there within 7-8 years, they start to believe you will never finish. If you are still there after 8, you enter a black hole and tend to be written off as somebody who will always be "ABD". This is why search committees are so worried about making sure that you are really going to finish. Its relatively *easy* to defend a proposal. Getting the dissertation done is where people usually stumble.
I'm finishing "on time," but gee, this sounds awful. Is the streamlining being done in order to move even more students through the program? ...all while encouraging most of them to aim for an academic career, of course, even though there simply are not anywhere near the number of academic jobs necessary to house the glut of newly produced PhDs each year. How unethical. Ech.
Part of changing expectations for time to completion, some of those same programs are also shifting from a full book-like dissertation to a "three essay" model. The dissertation now consists of: 1) a brief introduction, 2) three independent but related essays of publishable quality, and 3) a brief conclusion. This is particularly encouraged for quantitative dissertations that are using pre-existing datasets. My top 10 dept accepts this model and I'm all for it! There's still the emphasis on creating a coherent theme, but somehow writing individual 'articles' doesn't feel as overwhelming as writing 'dissertation chapters' (even though in this case, they're one and the same). Even better, under this model, advisors encourage you to get each essay out the door for journal review as soon as it's finished. This almost guarantees that by the time you're on the market you have at least one paper accepted at a journal, one possibly revise and resubmit, and one under review or ready to submit. My department starts to look at you funny if you don't finished in 5 years, so this model really helps to keep people on track.
We've got the "three article" model dissertation too. However, for qualitative folks, getting out the door quickly is a little tough. I know cleaning up data sets can be a hassle, but decent part/obs - interview data takes at least a year to collect.
I'll admit, I'm no speedster in terms of timelines, but I've taught classes my whole way through (after 2 years of TA ships). I've got to hold out hope that schools wont think I'm a slacker... I work 50 hrs a week.
I love how the quantitative people have an air of superiority when it comes to early/on-time completion. As the previous poster indicated, the quant people are using PRE-EXISTING datasets, in which the data has already been collected! Qualitative researchers have to go out into the field--sometimes for years--and collect the data, transcribe notes and interviews, and analyze all the data. No wonder it takes qualitative researchers longer to graduate.
One time, I had a conversation with a famous sociologist. He was appalled when I told him that I was coming into my 7th (at the time) year. Of course, he was quantitative.
My advisor took 8 years to graduate. Of course, he had two kids during grad school.
I wouldn't say an "air of superiority". It is simply realism. There HUGE numbers of people who remain ABD forever, so if things take a while to complete, many will simply write you off as another MIA.
From a dept's perspective, having lots of ABDs around is a drain. They often get paid more than other TAs and for the exact same job. Or, they get external funding but still suck departmental resources in terms of office space, lab space, etc. It also isn't good for their standing in the ranking. It signals to other depts that something is wrong.
If a department has lots of ABDs around for years, sucking up department resources, doesn't that say more about the department than the ABDs? To me, it suggests there is something not right with the department, in terms of adequately preparing the students for a timely defense.
9:16...
Let's not start the quant/qual debate. I have done both. Both have their merits and their weaknesses. I could lament for hours on the time consumption of both. One is not necessarily more difficult than the other, but dont assume that quantitative researchers dont put a lot of time and effort into their dissertations, even if they are using existing data. There is a lot of time and energy that goes into data cleanup, attaining the necessary statistical skills through additional trainings, reading through boring and technical books, and a lot of trial and error. Quant. dissertations are not a breeze by any means.
Regarding the 3 articles model...what a great idea! I wish my deparatment had that model. We do the standard introduction, literature review, conceptual framework, results, conclusion model. I would love to have three articles already under my belt just as a result of the dissertation.
9:45, very true. But we mustn't forget attribution errors.
I think that the qualitative/quantitative discussion is extremely important, and that the shift from book model to article model is very telling about where our profession is headed. As an ethnographer, the thought that you could get through a program in five or six years is laughable (if you're also expected to take courses and teach). Don’t you notice that ALL the markers of success and prestige are hugely biased towards quantitative work—many pubs, top journals, and breezing through graduate school. I’m not saying anything is wrong with those markers of success, I just think it’s sad that these continue to hold true for other models of doing sociology. That defines the kinds of work can be carried out, supported, published, and recognized. Top departments are reproducing that, with a trickle down effect.
Don't forget the downside of a three article model. At my school, quantitative people are expected to finish in four years, with the chair occasionally taking aside fifth students and pressing them for a submission date. I plan to finish in four years or less, but it also makes me worry about not having had enough time to develop other papers to have in the publication pipeline.
My top 10 department certainly encourages the three article dissertation, but only when it's the most appropriate format for the story you want to tell with your data. With qualitative research, it is often best to present it using more of a book format in the more traditional format for dissertations.
I think it's ridiculous to try to get everyone done in 5 years (or less)! I'm sure there are amazing scholars out there who can handle this, but for me, I actually needed to go through a longer process to really understand what is involved in academia and what my responsibilities will be. I happen not to come from an upper-middle class background like most of my peers at a top 10 department and grad school has also involved having to familiarize myself with the "culture" of academia and learning (to deal with and to sometimes fake) the sense of entitlement that most of my peers and professors have. I'm not sure I could take on my role as a professor without having taken the time to feel comfortable with all of these issues.
And imagine the people who go straight from undergrad to grad. They'll be 26 when they start a tenure-track position. Sadly, your appearance matters and I doubt that all students would take them seriously being so young.
If nothing else, it sounds to me that most people are pretty sure someone else has it easier. And a lot of people also think their experiences are representative. I would caution us all to remember that this is all anecdotal. For example, I am at a top-5 school and over half our recently well-placed grads were here 8+ years. They were involved with large research projects that resulted in significant publications, and they did not receive funding from the department. So see, there are many pathways to a good job.
I am somewhat bothered by the assumptions made about quantitative research by some previous posters. All research methods take considerable time to do well, and no method will allow a student to "breeze through grad school". The reason most of us stick to one method or the other is because they both take considerable time to learn and require specialized technical skills to execute.
If you want to make comparisons between qual/quant, be sure you have done them both outside of the classroom.
That's where I'm at. Straight from undergrad, in my 6th year, I'll be only 27 when I take my first job (*fingers crossed*). My dept "strongly encourages" people to get through in five through the old funding-cut-off trick. While very few people get out in 5 - and those that do usually take post-docs - it has meant that the norm is to get out in 6. Overall I think it has been good, but still creates a bit of undue stress for those of us that need to do fieldwork.
The amount of time it *should take to finish depends on several factors including whether your department funds you through the whole time you're there, whether you have teaching responsibilities, whether your university emphasizes publishing before finishing, and whether you are working on project funded by large grants. Lets think like economists for a minute. There is a cost-benefit analysis that can be done about length of time in grad school. If you are in for 8 years and have no pubs, no grants, no product to show for that time (other than the degree) that looks bad. If you're in for 8 years and have pubs, have worked on a grant, and have taught a bunch, that looks better. Its all about what you have produced in those 8 years.
1:39 -
I agree. It is a lot like the discussion I hear people having about the "right" time to have a child. There is no ideal length of time to spend in grad school. What matters is what you accomplish during whatever time you are there.
I don't mean to sound fatalistic, but I think that by the time we are ABD then most of the things that matter in the job market have already been set in motion. I know I tend to obsess over little details like whether it could help if someone on my dissertation committee was a former student of someone on the faculty where I'm applying when that person was at a different school. But at the end of the day, I know its the big things that matter the most.
Any health researchers want to co-author a paper on the progression despondency among sociologists on the market for the first time? :(
actually 6:18, it would be interesting. there is a professional socialization process that happens when we start grad school, and a vastly different one that happens when we hit the job market. the former being very positive and optimistic, and the latter being neither.
So I let my obsession with the blogs get out of control tonight and just purused last year's. Out of curiousity... Is "Felix" around this year's blog? Or anyone else with one of the make-believe names?
Is anyone limiting their job search geographically? I'm wondering if there are specific strategies worth pursuing for this objective.
in your cover letter, mention that it is important to you that you find a position in X state or X region. it will help for departments to know that you are really interested in them for that reason.
i am limiting my search only to schools in larger urban areas because my partner is unlikely to find a job outside of a large city. i have been including that information in my letters. i say something like, "i am especially interested in this position because [city] offers some exciting job prospects for my partner."
-cpl
The people I know who limit their searches geographically often want to be near a particular kind of community (e.g. other African-Americans, other gay people), so they won't feel isolated. Or the partner issue.
7:44 - Jesse is here. :) Not usually on this thread, but here. Perhaps the rest got jobs!
Hi Jesse! I've named myself Benny. I like the fake-name idea.
Regarding explaining your geographic preference in your cover letter; I've heard from faculty at top schools that they find it irrelevant and offensive. They know they live & work in a place where lots of people want to live & work and they find it unprofessional to bring up the personal life reasons in the cover letter. It may be a different case if you're looking at job x in the middle of nowhere since they are more likely to have a hard time attracting candidates.
Post a Comment