|
Post by Ano on Oct 2, 2009 16:25:44 GMT -5
Speaking to the "betwixt and between" issue that was brought up previously, when I was on the market last year I was disheartened to find that I had applied for jobs at several community colleges and did not even get an interview. My advisors told me that with my publications and degree from a Top-15 school, I was probably deemed "overqualified" and would not even be considered for such a job. Was this bullnutz and were they just fluffing my ego? Or is there some truth to this and, if so, is there any way to indicate on my letter of interest that I am genuinely interested in a job like this?
|
|
|
Post by Anony on Oct 2, 2009 18:03:53 GMT -5
Speaking to the "betwixt and between" issue that was brought up previously, when I was on the market last year I was disheartened to find that I had applied for jobs at several community colleges and did not even get an interview. My advisors told me that with my publications and degree from a Top-15 school, I was probably deemed "overqualified" and would not even be considered for such a job. Was this bullnutz and were they just fluffing my ego? Or is there some truth to this and, if so, is there any way to indicate on my letter of interest that I am genuinely interested in a job like this? I'm from a top-10 school and have worked in a CC. There are definitely some suspicion about someone coming in to work fulltime. I think it arises from the differential in the status hierarchy & the fact that an Masters is standard qualification for teaching [why would, say, a rational Harvard Ph.D. teach at Point Desolation CC?]. In my opinion, showing sincerity about your desire is important to overcome these obstacles. I would probably gain some experience teaching at a CC to demonstrate interest, focus on publishing about teaching practices [publishing in Teaching Sociology vs. ASR or Nature], & get to know the faculty so they take you seriously. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by takeout on Oct 2, 2009 20:36:15 GMT -5
Truthfully, I think many of us need to think very carefully about what our R1 advisors who have not looked for a job since probably before we were born say about jobs at teaching colleges. My experience, perhaps like that of others on this board who were told they were "overqualified," was that I was given lots of bad advice. First, I was told not to apply. When I got my first interview at one, the question was raised as to whether I should actually go or "wait for something better to come along." (To give this context, I should note that this school, while a teaching school, was a nationally known master's university in a major city in the Northeast, where I'm sure many people on this board would love to live.) Then, when I said I wanted to go, they gave me all kinds of bad advice, like telling me to ask questions about how to get a reduction in the teaching load or a research sabbatical before tenure. Great. Show that you're looking for ways to get out of teaching right off the bat! They may think they have your best interests at heart, but they may be out of touch with the realities of the market.
The irony is that while these colleges are looking for a strong commitment to teaching, because the market is hyper competitive, I suspect research is also becoming an important factor in hiring decisons. A consistent story that I heard on all of these interviews (usually from older faculty) is that the department was "changing" and the criteria for tenure was going up and up as a result of the fact the newer faculty were more productive in terms of publications. I know faculty at schools with 3/3 teaching loads who publish in AJS, Social Forces, and other top journals and get grants. So, I suspect that one needs to be able not only to say all the right things about teaching philosophies, pedagogies, etc. that will resonate with the faculty at such a school, but one also needs to balance that with a fairly active research agenda and history of scholarly work.
|
|
|
Post by eeyore on Oct 3, 2009 4:30:56 GMT -5
the last assistant professor my school (well ranked, 2 specialties in top 10 ) hired was ABD, with one publication, coauthored, in a middle of the pack journal. And we are not talking terminal ABD. This person took 2 years while on the tenure track to defend and graduate.
That was 5 years ago.
Our two main "competing" universities, based on geographical proximity and similar position on the rankings, have similar cases. One of the professors at one of them was just given tenure. He got the job in 2003 with 0 publications. The other place hired an assistant professor in 2007 who had one publication at a middle of the pack journal.
Point being, things changed ultra fast and anyone not on the market the last couple of years will really have no idea of how things have changed. As such, the "betwixt and between" situation will probably be unfamiliar to many on the job market, so it's important to work really hard on those cover letters to convey your interest.
|
|
|
Post by eeyore on Oct 3, 2009 4:43:14 GMT -5
sorry, no edit. Meant to say that: "As such, the "betwixt and between" situation will probably be unfamiliar to many NOT on the job market, so it's important to work really hard on those cover letters to convey your interest"
|
|
|
Post by k on Oct 15, 2009 14:53:21 GMT -5
I'm trying to think of how to put this so it sounds helpful, not like so much not a very nice personry. If you are not getting jobs at places for which you are "overqualified," the problem might be that you think you are overqualified. If you visualize the world of soc depts as a hierarchy with R1s at the top and SLACs--no matter how highly ranked--as beneath them, then this is going to come through loud & clear when you are applying for jobs. It's not enough to tack on the message that you are ok with teaching to your application--many SLACs actually want people who, when they visualize the world of soc depts, place them at the top as the most desirable jobs, and when they visualize the perfect job, think teaching should be a large component of it.
|
|
|
Post by k on Oct 15, 2009 14:58:26 GMT -5
How funny! The board changed my impolite term in the above post to "not a very nice person"-ery. It's not really a synonym.
|
|
|
Post by harbringer of doom on Oct 15, 2009 15:29:11 GMT -5
I'm trying to think of how to put this so it sounds helpful, not like so much not a very nice personry. If you are not getting jobs at places for which you are "overqualified," the problem might be that you think you are overqualified. If you visualize the world of soc depts as a hierarchy with R1s at the top and SLACs--no matter how highly ranked--as beneath them, then this is going to come through loud & clear when you are applying for jobs. It's not enough to tack on the message that you are ok with teaching to your application--many SLACs actually want people who, when they visualize the world of soc depts, place them at the top as the most desirable jobs, and when they visualize the perfect job, think teaching should be a large component of it. It doesn't matter if I think that teaching is better, or research is better, the status of each activity is not determined at the micro level, but at the level of the entire profession, and there it is undeniable that places that do more research have higher status and pay better than those which don't. And that is beside the point, as you are making a false distinction. Top SLACs have research and publication standards that are as strict if not more than most R1s. And I don't see anything in your post that contradicts the basic idea many are sharing here, that as you go from applying to top universities to applying to lower ranked universities the selection criteria differs. Finally, it is magical thinking to imagine that "sounding more enthusiastic" will make up for the lack of certain credentials.
|
|
experienced job seeker
Guest
|
Post by experienced job seeker on Oct 15, 2009 16:24:49 GMT -5
To answer the OP's original question. This is my third year on the market. I've been a VP for the past 2 years so I realize I'm in a better situation than colleagues of mine that did not get a job. I've pretty much had the same strategy all three years on the market for the kinds of places I apply to. I don't limit myself to geography (except for a couple of places), but I do limit myself to types of universities and colleges. I don't apply to the top ranked R1s (as they usually are not looking for someone in my areas anyway) and I rarely apply to a college that has a 4/4 load or higher (only if the school has other characteristics I find appealing). With that said, I have had several interviews over the past 2 years but was offered only 1 job, which I currently hold. While I am no means a "star," I have 7 publications where I am first or sole author. They are published in good, well respected journals, but none in the top 3. I have also landed external grant money and awards at conferences. Overall, I think I'm a good candidate and have been told the same by others who wanted to hire me but were outvoted. Basically, from my experience on the market, I've realized that there are a LOT of qualified "good" candidates out there and it really just comes down to fit. Some things, you just can't control. I think publications, teaching experience, grant writing definately helps, but one can have all of that and still not get his/her dream job (or any job). Just my 2 cents worth. Looking forward to reading about others experiences.
|
|
|
Post by RealEconomist on Oct 15, 2009 16:31:36 GMT -5
In the current economy, the federal government FORCES departments to hire minorities and non-heterosexuals. Good luck finding a job. Perhaps you should switch fields to economics, where you will be hired based on your effort and abilities, not the way government bureaucrats classify you.
|
|
roxanne no red light
Guest
|
Post by roxanne no red light on Oct 15, 2009 21:21:55 GMT -5
it has been really good to hear people's stories the second (or more) times around. did any of you consider something completely outside of sociology when you realized there wouldn't be any major bites after the first year?
|
|
|
Post by k on Oct 19, 2009 16:20:23 GMT -5
I'm trying to think of how to put this so it sounds helpful, not like so much not a very nice personry. If you are not getting jobs at places for which you are "overqualified," the problem might be that you think you are overqualified. If you visualize the world of soc depts as a hierarchy with R1s at the top and SLACs--no matter how highly ranked--as beneath them, then this is going to come through loud & clear when you are applying for jobs. It's not enough to tack on the message that you are ok with teaching to your application--many SLACs actually want people who, when they visualize the world of soc depts, place them at the top as the most desirable jobs, and when they visualize the perfect job, think teaching should be a large component of it. It doesn't matter if I think that teaching is better, or research is better, the status of each activity is not determined at the micro level, but at the level of the entire profession, and there it is undeniable that places that do more research have higher status and pay better than those which don't. And that is beside the point, as you are making a false distinction. Top SLACs have research and publication standards that are as strict if not more than most R1s. And I don't see anything in your post that contradicts the basic idea many are sharing here, that as you go from applying to top universities to applying to lower ranked universities the selection criteria differs. Finally, it is magical thinking to imagine that "sounding more enthusiastic" will make up for the lack of certain credentials. Mmmmm. You aren't actually replying to me, are you? Because nowhere in my answer did I suggest that I was contradicting the idea that the criteria differ as you move up & down in status, nor did I suggest that SLACs have slack research standards. I've taught at 2; I know better. And nowhere did I say that sounding enthusiastic will get you a job. (That's so far off my point it borders on the offensive, and I hope you aren't lurching around the job market misreading people that egregiously.) What I said was that I suspect some of the posters above are not getting jobs at SLACs because they don't have vitas that read like the vitas of faculty who really want to teach at SLACs. As someone has suggested above, it is useful to have taught your own classes, to have spent serious time TAing, to have written something for Teaching Sociology, to have taken classes on pedagogy, to have some experience teaching at a SLAC, to have a serious teaching statement and so on. I'll say it again--the folk above are not necessarily "overqualified" for these SLAC jobs. They could also apply for jobs bartending and get rejected, and it wouldn't be because their PhDs made them overqualified, and it wouldn't be because being a professor is more prestigious and pays better than bartending. They would get rejected because they didn't know how to make drinks.
|
|
|
Post by Harbringer of Doom on Oct 19, 2009 16:35:24 GMT -5
Mmmmm. You aren't actually replying to me, are you? Because nowhere in my answer did I suggest that I was contradicting the idea that the criteria differ as you move up & down in status, nor did I suggest that SLACs have slack research standards. I've taught at 2; I know better. And nowhere did I say that sounding enthusiastic will get you a job. (That's so far off my point it borders on the offensive, and I hope you aren't lurching around the job market misreading people that egregiously.) What I said was that I suspect some of the posters above are not getting jobs at SLACs because they don't have vitas that read like the vitas of faculty who really want to teach at SLACs. As someone has suggested above, it is useful to have taught your own classes, to have spent serious time TAing, to have written something for Teaching Sociology, to have taken classes on pedagogy, to have some experience teaching at a SLAC, to have a serious teaching statement and so on. I'll say it again--the folk above are not necessarily "overqualified" for these SLAC jobs. They could also apply for jobs bartending and get rejected, and it wouldn't be because their PhDs made them overqualified, and it wouldn't be because being a professor is more prestigious and pays better than bartending. They would get rejected because they didn't know how to make drinks. Im sorry I misunderstood your post then. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were referring to the broad theme discussed here, as opposed to the specific point raised by the one person who mentioned anything about being overqualified. Because, you see, that person was talking about being overqualified for community colleges. So your post about feeling overqualified for SLACs made no sense. In fact, at no point anyone said anything about R1s at the top or SLACs at the bottom And yes, a person from a top 15 department, with significant teaching experience and having published in teaching soc. would still probably be seen as overqualified in most CCs. So, again, I'm sorry I thought you were actually trying to respond to people in this thread, as opposed to responding to completely imaginary posts like it seems you were doing. I won't make that mistake in the future.
|
|
|
Post by John Stewart Mill on Oct 19, 2009 18:09:15 GMT -5
So, again, I'm sorry I thought you were actually trying to respond to people in this thread, as opposed to responding to completely imaginary posts like it seems you were doing. I won't make that mistake in the future. This is the problem when women and minorities enter a discipline. As occupations become increasingly filled by these groups, the coherence and reality-based conversations proportionately drops to zero. A 'feminized' or 'ethnic' occupation is a niche where reason ceases to exist, and the logic of the illogical dominates. The rational and reality-based societies contrast starkly. Attend a meeting of the American Economic Association to see great white thinkers in action.
|
|
|
Post by thepolice on Oct 20, 2009 9:05:06 GMT -5
Roxanne--I was on the job market last year while ABD (I have since finished). Although I scored three campus interviews, I think I realized by January or February that I wasn't getting an academic job, and I considered a whole list of options, not all of them "outside" of sociology.
The first thing I considered were postdocs, which didn't pan out. Then I started to think about adjuncting, which I dismissed rather quickly after I faced the reality that it would be too difficult financially. Finally, I started to think about research jobs, a few of these were in academic settings but did not carry tenure or having teaching responsibilities (i.e., Research Scientist, Research Assistant Professor), but most were outside of academia--non-profits/thank tanks, government agencies, and private corporations. I guess you could say that the latter are "outside" of sociology.
After many months of searching, I took an offer with a survey research company. There are many positives: doing work that is used to make decisions by policymakers, picking up skills to manage big research projects, and considerably more $$$ than is available in academia. The downside is that the work in not intectually stimulating, it's not sociology, and it's (usually) not of your own choosing.
I should note that many months ago when I started to look for adjunct opportunities as a possibility, I didn't get any bites. I still look for adjunct opportunities now as a side job to satisfy my desire to teach, but haven't gotten any bites in a year of applying! It seems more difficult to get an interview for an adjunct position that a tt one!
|
|