|
Post by postdoc sweatshop2 on Jan 25, 2012 10:32:14 GMT -5
Postdoc sweatshop - you read my mind! I am in an almost exactly similar situation. 2 post-docs, several years on the market, a bunch of interviews, no offers. I can't help but be frustrated. I thought getting a prestigious post-doc was my ticket to a great job but instead I'm getting passed over. I've started applied to industry/think tank jobs. At least I can be a research slave for a decent salary and only 40 hours a week.
|
|
|
Post by also ABDer on Jan 25, 2012 10:35:24 GMT -5
That completely sucks and I would be frustrated, too. But is there really a disadvantage to being a postdoc on the market? Loads of postdoc folks got R1 jobs this round, and loads of ABDs will be unemployed when all is said and done.
|
|
|
Post by some points on Jan 25, 2012 10:38:51 GMT -5
A couple of things.
R1 / R2 vs. SLAC are different tracks. One prioritizes teaching, generally, and the other prioritizes research, and increasingly grants. We don't always talk about grants because this is a newish thing, but state universities in particular are increasingly interested in people who can bring in outside money to supplement stingy state legislatures. This means that grantsmanship (or potential) can be another criterion. However, writing grants takes time and effort, and although generally compatible with publishing research, that is time taken away from teaching or providing attention to students. This is an aside, but worth mentioning.
Different programs may train PhD students in a way that would allow them to do one or the other, but if you specialize in teaching or research, whether by preference or happenstance, you will find it difficult to credibly present yourself as the other type.
What this also means is that someone who wants to work their way up the food chain as a researcher should try for a postdoc, or starting at a smaller research and funding focused department, such as a branch of a state university. There you would crank out the articles, try to get funding, establish networks, and teach at the good enough level. If you want to work your way up in the teaching focused mode, you would do VAPs, teach well, publish the dissertation as a book. You can move up the food chain here if you take initial placements with high teaching loads, especially if you get some research done, because then more elite slacs and private schools that also want good teachers see that you can get research done while spending a lot of time on teaching. But that doesn't necessarily help you for research.
What I suspect as a problem is that these distinctions are not clear to students and new job market applicants until it is too late to change, and not entirely clear to faculty who got jobs under different conditions. The field and job market have been changing over time, and we should all note the varying demand among different subfields. So you can get advice that steers you wrong early in a program, and has a large impact on your initial job outcomes if you don't realize until you hit the market.
There is also a confounding factor of methods and subfield, as the research trajectory is probably easier to implement with quantitative work, or at least if you do the 3 papers model dissertation.
Now, as to the point about sociology vs. non-sociology postdocs. I would hazard that this only matters if you are the teaching or teacher-scholar type, since you want to be working on your book and teaching relevant courses. The research stream people above, depending on subfield, should have no problem moving around to related social science fields, so your postdoc opportunity set is much larger.
As for the person above who has had 2 postdocs, you have a different problem. I wonder if you need to show something more concrete about your own research now that you have been out for a while? Maybe you need to win a research grant or elaborate more clearly what your research program and trajectory are now, and what they would be in a tenure track position. I suspect you are being judged against advanced assistant professors who want to move up, rather than ABDs, and so the question is how to display the things they have while coming out of your postdoc. Can you ask your PI or some senior professors to review your application materials and see if you are missing something?
So, this is a long post, and coming from only one perspective, but this research / teaching inclination vs. indicators was something that I struggled with when I was on the market.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2012 10:40:05 GMT -5
Everyone's experience is different. I went on the market 3 times. First very selectively as an ABD, from a top program but with a weak CV compared to other applicants from similar programs. No luck that year, but I did get an excellent one year postdoc. Went on the market more seriously that fall with an R&R at a great journal and degree in hand, got one interview and made some shortlists, but no offers. Got another one year postdoc. Third time was the charm. This time I had a couple articles published and other stuff in the pipeline. Applied to about 25 departments, got 3 interviews, 1 offer (R1). Because my research is unusual, I needed the postdocs in order to show that other academic institutions are interested in my work, and also the time to get some publications, do follow-up research, and work on my book manuscript. I felt that my postdocs were seen as an asset by the departments that expressed interest in me. But don't kid yourself, postdocs are also very competitive, and you must make sure to use them wisely (i.e. take advantage of the time to work on articles and book manuscripts). I've seen too many people in postdocs spend a lot of time and energy organizing conferences, teaching complicated classes, coordinating edited volumes, etc., and these things will not help you get a TT job an R1. Also, one more thing -- my advice for other book people is to work on articles first. Articles get you the interviews, you can work on the book once you've gotten the job.
|
|
|
Post by hermannewticist on Jan 25, 2012 11:44:51 GMT -5
I may be reading between the lines here. But I'll take a crack anyway. The original poster (who started this thread on the "Name Names" thread) only appeared to be focusing on the distinction (overblown maybe?) between ABD job candidates and candidates with PhD in hand. But just beneath the surface he/she really seemed to be ridiculing the careerism that reigns supreme among all job candidates. Of course the candidates don't make the rules, and they have to abide by the reigning standards of "publish, publish, publish" (no matter the value of the actual publications) or they're not competitive for jobs. But it's funny how no one picked up on this aspect of the original post. Too busy being careerists (by necessity) I guess.
|
|
ok
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by ok on Jan 25, 2012 12:34:58 GMT -5
^ So you think some people are coming into the market expecting a sort of gentleman scholar type of life, and then find themselves disenchanted by the actual pressures of a competitive job search?
If that was what you meant, I'd agree.
But then again, from talking to non-academics, the pressures of the job search on that side are pretty high as well, and the options a bit bleak. This is of course what happens in an economic downturn.
|
|
|
Post by confused on Jan 25, 2012 15:59:55 GMT -5
We can try to analyze this process all we want. I understand people's frustration at the job market, because the process is largely irrational. I know of a candidate with 11 publications, 1 sole-authored ASR, a National Science Foundation grant, and a postdoc who cannot even get interviews. How is this possible?
I think search committees are irrational, especially in this climate, but maybe for the foreseeable future. Being a sociologist makes it much worse, because we all have strong opinions about what counts as good work, but little respect or understanding of objective measures of good scholarship. This is why we have no sociologists as advisers in the Obama administration and why we are irrelevant in the public discourse. We, sociologists, think we can just talk to ourselves and our students. We are unable to excite the culture in any significant way because we ask questions only we care about. We are top heavy, bloated, and old. Worse, we think we know better than everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by correction on Jan 25, 2012 16:06:46 GMT -5
We know we know better than everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by unclekarl on Jan 25, 2012 16:36:54 GMT -5
I do think its all random process. There's a lot of random error. But, I've also heard a SC chair say they were looking for someone ABD. As I understand unemployment law, its perfectly legal to do this [much like not hiring someone unemployed or with a criminal record]. It can also benefit postdocs and ABDs if this is a trend. After postdoc #1 , it might be good to take what one can get vs. a second postdoc.
Some of us may also want to gripe =)
|
|
ok
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by ok on Jan 25, 2012 16:51:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by disheartened on Jan 25, 2012 17:16:22 GMT -5
Oh Job Market Forum, you never cease to induce even more anxiety in the most anxiety-inducing experience of my life!
This is not a meritocracy. It is idiosyncratic. And, it sucks!
Having a post-doc could be beneficial or detrimental depending on the person or the search committee. I'm currently in a post-doc and the mantra is: "double or nothing."
I just try to keep my head down and focus on the things I have control over like publications and fostering collaborations (read: networking).
I think post-docs are great, but as someone mentioned earlier, there are factors that shape post-docs (i.e., area of study). Also, it appears to me that many of the post-docs getting "good" positions are coming from prestigious post-docs AND prestigious programs.
|
|
|
Post by hermannewticist on Jan 25, 2012 17:30:21 GMT -5
It's not just an "economic downturn." Entire sectors of the economy, in the midst of the long recession (which of course is officially "over"), are being turned into deskilled digital assembly lines (or diploma mills). Journalism is one of them, higher education another. There is not going to be any major swinging back of the pendulum, even though the academic job market may be better this year than the depths of 2008-2011.
As for posing working for/consulting a Democratic Party-leaning think tank as an example of "relevance" and an alternative to narrow-publication focused "careerism" -- ha! Do you think your efforts toward hashing out "progressive" policy proposals will see the light of day? Absent a mass mobilization of popular forces (and OWS doesn't count, sorry, as much as I wish it did), political outcomes are determined by campaign cash, by lobbyists, by focus group-testing PR agents, by demagogues, etc. The best work you can do is your own independent intellectual work, according to your own rhythms and your own priorities. Who cares if it's "relevant," when what is "relevant" isn't relevant. Figure out a way to do it and still get your bread buttered simultaneously. If this means marrying or partnering with someone who is earning some coin, do it.
Of course there will always be a few exceptions who prove the rule, but it will probably not be you.
I am sorry, I don't think I belong here. I will take leave of you now.
|
|
|
Post by amused on Jan 25, 2012 19:54:56 GMT -5
We can try to analyze this process all we want. I understand people's frustration at the job market, because the process is largely irrational. I know of a candidate with 11 publications, 1 sole-authored ASR, a National Science Foundation grant, and a postdoc who cannot even get interviews. How is this possible? I think search committees are irrational, especially in this climate, but maybe for the foreseeable future. It seems that many of the posts seem to imply that there is a logical formula, and that some candidates are head and shoulders above the others. The reality is that this is a buyer's market, with many excellent qualified candidates. We are all the worst judges of our relative value to a department in this market. That is what leads to making assessments that search committees are irrational. Do you really think departments are not looking for the best talent? It may be that they could feel that some candidates with over-inflated assessments of their worth based on PhD pedigree are a bad long-term investments.
|
|
|
Post by All is NOT Random on Jan 25, 2012 23:35:01 GMT -5
The process is NOT entirely random. There is a general correlation between publishing, teaching, and getting a job. I have equally times swallowing an idea that the labor market is fair and meritorious AND a system where people are selected at random from a system without replacement. To claim either is true is reductionist!
|
|
|
Post by not random on Jan 26, 2012 9:35:00 GMT -5
Of course, the selection of a candidate is not random. Yes, there are some odd factors in the process because there must be, but departments don't just pluck names out of a hat and make huge investments in them.
Ultimately, departments hire based on fit, and what constitutes this varies because of both institutional and interpersonal factors. The dean might be willing to sign off on any candidate, or he or she might have some standard that needs to be accounted for. (In some places, this is the totally bogus insistence on hiring only from places ranked in the Top X of a discipline.) There also is the matter of department focus, since resources are not infinite and the ability to build within areas of strength and support new hires in order to make tenure possible is meaningful in places that had to fight to get those tenure lines. Interpersonal relationships between advisors and faculty that make for less guess work in learning who a candidate is beyond the CV is helpful, and it is also positive to have networked with someone in the department at a conference somewhere. At the end of the day, departments want to know two things when hiring junior faculty: a) He or she will be a colleague that the majority of people in the department want to be around; and b) He or she is likely to make tenure (although this concern is not as meaningful at, say, Harvard, where junior faculty almost never are tenured).
I know that people recognize what the appropriate markers of academic success are, but have no way to gauge how much they mean for a given hiring process. This is frustrating, but do not default to assuming that decisions are made using dartboards rather than logic. Departments generally get whom they want, but that doesn't mean that others were unworthy.
|
|