|
|
Post by mover on Feb 8, 2010 15:24:15 GMT -5
Is there an informal "standard" for how many years you should stay at one tenure-track Assistant Professor job before potentially moving to another (in a more desirable location, for instance)? I realize that both the candidate and school would prefer that faculty members stay until they're up for tenure, but what if you are miserable and/or your partner can't find a job in the area? Do you still have to stay indefinitely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Heres a guess on Feb 8, 2010 15:31:04 GMT -5
I don't know, but my impression is that putting in less than 3 years (in other words, going back on the market earlier than during your 3rd year) at a place would be seen as kind of strange. Certainly only putting in one year - which would mean deciding to go back on the market after working at a place for about one month - would be seen as odd. Of course, if you managed to rack up an ASR or something like that during the 1-2 years of your stay, that would probably more than neutralize the issue. My impression is that if you put 3 years or more in, then nobody is concerned that you're the fickle type. This is my highly subjective impression with close to zero actual data behind it.
|
|
|
|
Post by anny on Feb 8, 2010 16:12:01 GMT -5
I'm not 100% on this, but I think the standard is 2 years, not 3. You can't go right back on the market for sure. Most places would see this as an insult (and rightly so). I think going back on the market in your second yeah is considered okay (esp. if the place you are at has a history of not granting tenure).
|
|
|
|
Post by el durerino on Feb 8, 2010 16:13:09 GMT -5
I would say that if a move is a clear step up, it doesn't need to be explained and won't raise any issues regadless of how long you've stayed at a certain place.
That is, if you are at a smaller, regional place and the job you are applying for is an R1, even if it is your first year in the regional place most people wouldn't find it strange at all that you are applying for a better position.
If, on the other hand, you are applying to a similar institution or worse, then anything other than the usual time to go on the market will be seen as strange. Not necessarily something that will eliminate you, but something that either you or your references should try to explain.
People expect you to be on the market just before tenure since that is what a lot of people do to be on the safe side. But if you are early on the tenure clock and applying to anything that will not be clearly a step up, people will wonder what is up with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by el durerino on Feb 8, 2010 16:16:28 GMT -5
PS: of course, I am talking about this from the perspective of the place you are applying to. From the perspective of the place you are leaving, they'd probably be pissed if they had to run another search less than 3 years after hiring you, and they would potentially be pissed regardless of when you leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by the dude abides on Feb 8, 2010 16:19:28 GMT -5
Duder is right. At the top10 place I'm at two recent hires moved here from lower ranked places they had been at for only one year.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley103 on Apr 25, 2012 3:40:03 GMT -5
I'm not 100% on this, but I think the standard is 2 years, not 3. You can't go right back on the market for sure. Most places would see this as an insult (and rightly so). I think going back on the market in your second yeah is considered okay (esp. if the place you are at has a history of not granting tenure). I also think so. |
|
