Generality

[nowhereman]

This is my second go-around on the academic job market. I'm beginning to wonder whether being trained as a "generalist" makes it more difficult to get a job. My department trains people to be broadly interested in social stratification and inequality. True, everyone, including me, has their subfields. But the general emphasis is placed on social strat, analyze the big data sets sociologists have access to using the latest quantitative methods, and publishing in ASR, AJS, and Social Forces pieces that tap into broad themes of status attainment. I always felt as if my department was trying to instill the "ideal" of what sociology should be in their minds. Sure, sociology is all about inequality its core, and the ability to teach stats is always marketable (so I've been told for many years). But I wonder whether being broad is detrimental. It seems like broad quantitative social strat is what jobs at the top programs hire in, and, of course, getting thos jobs is impossible for most of us. At schools where most of us would have realistic chance, it seems like something more specific is usually being looked for. Any thoughts?

[damastes]

It depends some on the department. Among national programs, I think lot of top-20 schools try to get the best scholars they can, while other programs try to develop niches [family, religion, criminology, etc.].

At teaching colleges and most state schools, I think the skill sets change. They hire faculty to teach specific courses [basic courses, plus a couple of junior and senior level classes]. Those are much more specific, as teaching a course on police tactics, Asian societies, or the sociology of religion requires a more narrow set of expertise. There is a fairly close relationship between courses demand and the faculty who are hired.

From ads I've seen this year, being a 'generalist' might be both positive and negative. In small departments, someone who can teach theory, methods, strat, race, and religion might be highly desirable. In larger departments, the need for specialists to teach Z1, Z2, and Z3 [where Z is a specific field] would lead to someone with this ability.

If you are a generalist, smaller colleges where you can teach a number of courses might be more fruitful than state schools looking to hire someone outside of strat. I've not seen a lot of strat positions this year, so I don't think its particularly in high demand. That may change in short order, as things like race, environment, & LBGQT studies seem in higher demand relative to 2006.

[Da General]

A good thing about being a generalist is that you can teach a wide range of topics. A bad thing about being a generalist is that many others can teach those areas too. It's true about quant and stats... older faculty members often get tired of teaching these courses and look for people to share the load or even take over (so that they can focus on substantive courses). From what I've noticed recently, having a unique area of specialization (e.g., medical sociology) paired with a broader area (e.g., stratification) makes you an ideal candidate at many institutions regardless if it's R1 or teaching. You just have to "package" yourself appropriately for these institutions.

[generalist]

I agree both that its good to pair broadly marketable areas with something more unusual and that it is largely how you sell yourself to the particular school. If you are a generalist and that is what the school is looking for, you're set. If they are looking for something more specific that aligns with a significant subset of your interests, you just have to frame out how your interests match what they want.

Generalists can be particularly attractive for small departments since it maximizes, for example, what courses they can offer (and/or from the point of view of self interest is more likely to let more senior members of the dept teach classes they'd prefer to teach).

[anoniiiier]

People, people....

a) This is the worst job market year pretty much ever.

b) It is still early in the job market season.

2 good reasons not to use your own job market experience thus far as a reason to re-evaluate the benefits of the education you have received...

[anonomouse]

honestly I think in the end we will find out that last years' job market was worse than this years...this is my second go around as well (last year I applied selectively) and there are much more jobs that are hiring in my subfields this year than were last year. Not sure about other subfields, but I'm even not in one of the popular ones this year (by popular I mean race, environment or crim).

But it seems to be a later job market than last year as well, as a lot of good jobs that have been posted in my subfields have been posted pretty recently, and have December/January deadlines, and very few schools seem to be interviewing now compared to a similar time last year (last year around this week was when I received a call about an interview, and it was one of the last of the schools I applied to that had not already scheduled interviews...this year it seems much fewer schools have begun interviewing already).

So my point is... don't freak out yet.

[General Issue Joe]

Blaming being a generalist would be a mis-diagnosis I think. Consider how much worse off you'd be if you'd focused on something really specific and obscure. It's possible that there would be zero, one, or two job descriptions you fit, chances are at least one of the one or two would be located somewhere awful, and you'd probably have several competitors with just as good a shot as you. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether you'd rather be on the market as a strat/crim/race/methods person, or as an animals & society person (random example there). Way better to be a generalist and do work that is of interest to many people. Sure you need some way to stand out, but that can be pubs, teaching success, a unique angle on your research, community involvement, etc.

[generalist]

"ask yourself whether you'd rather be on the market as a strat/crim/race/methods person, or as an animals & society person..."

...unless you are the pigeon guy--remember him?

[thingy]

I know people are going to bash my response but from MY experience on search committees at a teaching institution, too many (more than 3) publications can be a bad thing for an assistant professor position. If you have 3 or more publications from decent journals like AJS, ASR, SF, Social Problems, Criminology, etc., a department like mine will likely think that that YOUR needs/wants will not be fulfilled in their department. There were several candidates last year that did not make our long list because we knew that THEIR needs/wants would be better met at an R1 (even though they tried to sell us on their teaching interests). Unless your publications are in journals like Teaching Sociology, more publications is not necessarily better at a teaching institution. When you are hired, departments like mine want to keep their profs happy to avoid a turnover. If we think that you will be unhappy at our institution, we won't consider you.

[sk]

Sooo... any suggestions for folks with more/"bigger" pubs applying to more teaching-oriented departments who think they'd really like to be there? Any way to signal that effectively to a search committee?

[somebody somewhere]

SK- you should look through your materials (cover letter, statements on research/teaching, cv) and think about how to highlight your interest in teaching in all of these materials. If you have "big" pubs, committees are likely to be more suspicious (and unaware how challenging it is to get a TT R1 job these days!), making this all the more important.

Also talk about how your research agenda might benefit from being at a more teaching-centric university. Teaching oriented departments are going to be interested in how your teaching enhances your research, and vice-versa (and if you can talk convincingly about that), how likely is it that undergrads would benefit from your research activities (could you involve some undergraduates in some of your research--coding or entering data if quant, doing observations if qual... even better if you have already done so). You just have to make the case!

Also, if there are a few jobs at such places that you would particularly LOVE, I think it is appropriate (as someone who has been on both sides of this process) to send an email to a search chair to express your keen interest in the position (as in, "I am particularly excited about this position because..."). You could do this at the same time as you inquire about your application or the status of their search, that way it seems like you aren't just kissing up (or merely desperate!). But I do think that some places are wary that someone with top pubs is likely to take the first R1 job they can get after coming to Teaching U. and anything you can do to convince them that, truly, that is your calling, is likely to help.

Good luck!