|
|
Post by yes on Mar 1, 2012 12:20:41 GMT -5
Okay, but here's the thing: mobility happens ALL THE TIME -- it is exceptionally rare for someone to spend his or her entire career in one department nowadays. This doesn't mean that everybody will be able to move up, nor should everyone reasonably expect this. What it DOES mean is that if you are good enough, there is no reason to give up on the possibility of mobility if academic life is what you want. You are correct in noting that some people would just be happy to land any tenure track job, but I've known many people who have turned down TT offers because they weren't desirable locations and instead went down other paths, then they re-emerged on the market later on and placed well; others have accepted positions that are beneath what they might have expected in healthier markets, and we are now seeing some of those people relocate after making a name for themselves. Settling is not a matter of circumstance, but a matter of choice, even when the market is struggling. Some people will get no calls, while others have gone on several interviews already and may even have received competing offers; your supposition is that people in the latter position should behave as though they were in the former, but there is no good reason for this. If you don't like the offer, don't take it unless you see good prospects for mobility. In this economy, you run a high possibility of having to worry about money regardless, so first choose something that makes you happy and then worry about how best to be compensated while doing that. If you go the non-academic route and the only thing that excites you about it is getting your paycheck on time, then that is not a recipe for success regardless of what you are offered. While there is mobility, it is exceedingly rare for people to move UP. Especially significantly so. Someone at an r2 might move up to an r1, or someone at an unranked r1 might move to a ranked one. But you just don't see huge leaps upward. And I think that is one basic hard fact people aren't willing to face: one's odds of moving up in academia, especially by a significant amount, are incredibly small. As for market dude's post: I think we are largely in agreement. I don't think academics need some sort of intervention to protect themselves from the market. But I do think that market participants would be well served if they had a more accurate idea of just how likely they are to move up and get the positions they want. I think grad schools and mentors do a piss poor job of preparing students for the reality of the market. And the reason that I sit here, offer in hand, and still contemplating going outside academia, is because I decided to think long and hard about my actual chances in this market. I think that the offer I have in hand is clearly inadequate long term, which means that if I took it it would be solely with the idea of trying to move up a few years from now. I don't want to give away too much about the position so as not to out myself, but it is a fairly reputable place (not in terms of r1 top rankings, but certainly tier 1 among masters level institutions), masters level (though no masters in sociology specifically), but also a state institution in a state where it is unlikely that money would start flowing soon. It is a position to make the department minimally capable of dealing with the student demands, but one that likely will not grow any time soon, given how the admin at his point has learned that they can do with just the skeleton crew. How likely would it be that I would be able to move up? Maybe a masters institution elsewhere, though for the most part these all have low salaries, and are in either undesirable locations or in very expensive places. With some luck, a lower ranked SLAC. But I have never heard of anyone being able to move up, as an assistant professor, from a regional masters level university to a national R1. And again, this isn't to demand some bail out from the state or anything like that. But to say that, being realistic about my career, I don't know and I probably don't think I will take this job, and will instead try for something else (because I am in the lucky position to have a very good friend as a higher up in a pretty big, international non profit). Not because I don't love teaching and research, but because I think realistically I don't want to put my wife's and mine lives on hold for another 3 or 4 years (after the 6 of grad school) to wait out for an increasingly unlikely dream job. And that I think we all would be better served if people had a more accurate idea of just where they stand on the academic world: that it is incredibly rare for those who have adjuncted for years, or worked in subpar conditions for years, to land that dream job. These links are mostly about grad school and about the humanities, and the numbers for the social sciences are better than the ones he uses for the humanities. But despite the over the top cynicism, it is something that more people should read: chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846chronicle.com/article/The-Big-Lie-About-the-Life-of/63937/and this: chronicle.com/article/Deprogramming-From-the-Acad/45598/ |
|
|
|
Post by yes on Mar 1, 2012 12:29:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by advice again on Mar 1, 2012 14:56:52 GMT -5
Okay, but here's the thing: mobility happens ALL THE TIME -- it is exceptionally rare for someone to spend his or her entire career in one department nowadays. This doesn't mean that everybody will be able to move up, nor should everyone reasonably expect this. What it DOES mean is that if you are good enough, there is no reason to give up on the possibility of mobility if academic life is what you want. You are correct in noting that some people would just be happy to land any tenure track job, but I've known many people who have turned down TT offers because they weren't desirable locations and instead went down other paths, then they re-emerged on the market later on and placed well; others have accepted positions that are beneath what they might have expected in healthier markets, and we are now seeing some of those people relocate after making a name for themselves. Settling is not a matter of circumstance, but a matter of choice, even when the market is struggling. Some people will get no calls, while others have gone on several interviews already and may even have received competing offers; your supposition is that people in the latter position should behave as though they were in the former, but there is no good reason for this. If you don't like the offer, don't take it unless you see good prospects for mobility. In this economy, you run a high possibility of having to worry about money regardless, so first choose something that makes you happy and then worry about how best to be compensated while doing that. If you go the non-academic route and the only thing that excites you about it is getting your paycheck on time, then that is not a recipe for success regardless of what you are offered. While there is mobility, it is exceedingly rare for people to move UP. Especially significantly so. Someone at an r2 might move up to an r1, or someone at an unranked r1 might move to a ranked one. But you just don't see huge leaps upward. And I think that is one basic hard fact people aren't willing to face: one's odds of moving up in academia, especially by a significant amount, are incredibly small. As for market dude's post: I think we are largely in agreement. I don't think academics need some sort of intervention to protect themselves from the market. But I do think that market participants would be well served if they had a more accurate idea of just how likely they are to move up and get the positions they want. I think grad schools and mentors do a piss poor job of preparing students for the reality of the market. And the reason that I sit here, offer in hand, and still contemplating going outside academia, is because I decided to think long and hard about my actual chances in this market. I think that the offer I have in hand is clearly inadequate long term, which means that if I took it it would be solely with the idea of trying to move up a few years from now. I don't want to give away too much about the position so as not to out myself, but it is a fairly reputable place (not in terms of r1 top rankings, but certainly tier 1 among masters level institutions), masters level (though no masters in sociology specifically), but also a state institution in a state where it is unlikely that money would start flowing soon. It is a position to make the department minimally capable of dealing with the student demands, but one that likely will not grow any time soon, given how the admin at his point has learned that they can do with just the skeleton crew. How likely would it be that I would be able to move up? Maybe a masters institution elsewhere, though for the most part these all have low salaries, and are in either undesirable locations or in very expensive places. With some luck, a lower ranked SLAC. But I have never heard of anyone being able to move up, as an assistant professor, from a regional masters level university to a national R1. And again, this isn't to demand some bail out from the state or anything like that. But to say that, being realistic about my career, I don't know and I probably don't think I will take this job, and will instead try for something else (because I am in the lucky position to have a very good friend as a higher up in a pretty big, international non profit). Not because I don't love teaching and research, but because I think realistically I don't want to put my wife's and mine lives on hold for another 3 or 4 years (after the 6 of grad school) to wait out for an increasingly unlikely dream job. And that I think we all would be better served if people had a more accurate idea of just where they stand on the academic world: that it is incredibly rare for those who have adjuncted for years, or worked in subpar conditions for years, to land that dream job. These links are mostly about grad school and about the humanities, and the numbers for the social sciences are better than the ones he uses for the humanities. But despite the over the top cynicism, it is something that more people should read: chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846chronicle.com/article/The-Big-Lie-About-the-Life-of/63937/and this: chronicle.com/article/Deprogramming-From-the-Acad/45598/Why do you suppose that the leap must be made to a top-level R1 immediately? I am at a lower-tier R1 and I don't think life is really that much better above me, at least not such that I would instantly jump at an offer from elsewhere just because of ranking. I am paid well and the money goes far in the market that I am in, I have what I need to do the research that I want to do, my colleagues are great and my teaching load is exemplary, so what would be so bad about moving up to such a place rather than immediately going from some municipal school to an Ivy? It might even be preferable to find a comfortable place as an assistant and work on exceeding tenure requirements there rather than going to a place like Harvard that rarely ever grants tenure. Don't pay so much attention to rankings; there isn't much to gain from them other than people saying "Wow, I'm impressed," as the pay and the perks aren't necessarily better (my lower-tier R1 starting salary is comparable to -- and in some cases, better than -- what is offered at some of the departments that people break their necks trying to get to) and the stress level is higher. If one is invested in the idea of a career in academia, then it is a marathon, not a sprint, and it is not abnormal for people to relocate more than once before settling in. |
|
|
|
Post by yes on Mar 1, 2012 15:18:52 GMT -5
Why do you suppose that the leap must be made to a top-level R1 immediately? I am at a lower-tier R1 and I don't think life is really that much better above me, at least not such that I would instantly jump at an offer from elsewhere just because of ranking. I am paid well and the money goes far in the market that I am in, I have what I need to do the research that I want to do, my colleagues are great and my teaching load is exemplary, so what would be so bad about moving up to such a place rather than immediately going from some municipal school to an Ivy? It might even be preferable to find a comfortable place as an assistant and work on exceeding tenure requirements there rather than going to a place like Harvard that rarely ever grants tenure. Don't pay so much attention to rankings; there isn't much to gain from them other than people saying "Wow, I'm impressed," as the pay and the perks aren't necessarily better (my lower-tier R1 starting salary is comparable to -- and in some cases, better than -- what is offered at some of the departments that people break their necks trying to get to) and the stress level is higher. If one is invested in the idea of a career in academia, then it is a marathon, not a sprint, and it is not abnormal for people to relocate more than once before settling in. I don't think you got my point at all. I am not talking about the need to be at a top r1. My point is that upward mobility, in the few cases it happens, happens in pretty narrow increments. So the point isn't whether I would be happy at a lower ranked r1 or or if the mindset should be top r1 or bust. People in r2s might move to lower ranked r1s, or from research oriented SLACs. But it is incredibly hard and rare for people who start out at regional, teaching intensive universities to do so, even if we are talking about moving to an unranked r1. And sure, it is a marathon. But the odds of someone moving up across institutional types (4 year college to masters to SLAC to r2 to r1 to top r1) are incredibly, incredibly low. Much lower than most of the people who stick with it in hopes of moving up often acknowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by advice once more on Mar 1, 2012 16:30:20 GMT -5
Why do you suppose that the leap must be made to a top-level R1 immediately? I am at a lower-tier R1 and I don't think life is really that much better above me, at least not such that I would instantly jump at an offer from elsewhere just because of ranking. I am paid well and the money goes far in the market that I am in, I have what I need to do the research that I want to do, my colleagues are great and my teaching load is exemplary, so what would be so bad about moving up to such a place rather than immediately going from some municipal school to an Ivy? It might even be preferable to find a comfortable place as an assistant and work on exceeding tenure requirements there rather than going to a place like Harvard that rarely ever grants tenure. Don't pay so much attention to rankings; there isn't much to gain from them other than people saying "Wow, I'm impressed," as the pay and the perks aren't necessarily better (my lower-tier R1 starting salary is comparable to -- and in some cases, better than -- what is offered at some of the departments that people break their necks trying to get to) and the stress level is higher. If one is invested in the idea of a career in academia, then it is a marathon, not a sprint, and it is not abnormal for people to relocate more than once before settling in. I don't think you got my point at all. I am not talking about the need to be at a top r1. My point is that upward mobility, in the few cases it happens, happens in pretty narrow increments. So the point isn't whether I would be happy at a lower ranked r1 or or if the mindset should be top r1 or bust. People in r2s might move to lower ranked r1s, or from research oriented SLACs. But it is incredibly hard and rare for people who start out at regional, teaching intensive universities to do so, even if we are talking about moving to an unranked r1. And sure, it is a marathon. But the odds of someone moving up across institutional types (4 year college to masters to SLAC to r2 to r1 to top r1) are incredibly, incredibly low. Much lower than most of the people who stick with it in hopes of moving up often acknowledge. So, what is it about academia that is off-putting? Is it the fact that there are a few highly-valued positions and several tiers of lesser-valued ones? If so, this exists by definition in any occupation one can think of. Is it the cost of living and the inability to enjoy a comfortable standard? If so, we have already established that one need not be at an elite R1 in order to do so; as I said, I am at a low-ranked R1 and quite enjoy my standard of living. Is the problem that you don't want to do the work of an academic? I doubt this to be the case, or you wouldn't be lamenting the idea that you may have to look outside of academia to find what you desire. Do you desire the realistic possibility, even if you later choose not to take advantage of it? If this is the matter, then you must also know how difficult social mobility is in general, and that upward mobility outside of academia is often less clear-cut than within the academy. I guess I am just having trouble nailing down exactly what your beef is, which necessarily makes offering any solution difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by yes on Mar 1, 2012 16:52:25 GMT -5
I don't think you got my point at all. I am not talking about the need to be at a top r1. My point is that upward mobility, in the few cases it happens, happens in pretty narrow increments. So the point isn't whether I would be happy at a lower ranked r1 or or if the mindset should be top r1 or bust. People in r2s might move to lower ranked r1s, or from research oriented SLACs. But it is incredibly hard and rare for people who start out at regional, teaching intensive universities to do so, even if we are talking about moving to an unranked r1. And sure, it is a marathon. But the odds of someone moving up across institutional types (4 year college to masters to SLAC to r2 to r1 to top r1) are incredibly, incredibly low. Much lower than most of the people who stick with it in hopes of moving up often acknowledge. So, what is it about academia that is off-putting? Is it the fact that there are a few highly-valued positions and several tiers of lesser-valued ones? If so, this exists by definition in any occupation one can think of. Is it the cost of living and the inability to enjoy a comfortable standard? If so, we have already established that one need not be at an elite R1 in order to do so; as I said, I am at a low-ranked R1 and quite enjoy my standard of living. Is the problem that you don't want to do the work of an academic? I doubt this to be the case, or you wouldn't be lamenting the idea that you may have to look outside of academia to find what you desire. Do you desire the realistic possibility, even if you later choose not to take advantage of it? If this is the matter, then you must also know how difficult social mobility is in general, and that upward mobility outside of academia is often less clear-cut than within the academy. I guess I am just having trouble nailing down exactly what your beef is, which necessarily makes offering any solution difficult. I don't think it is any particular beef, just a discussion about trying for life outside academia. The links above present a good idea of what I am referring to, but since you've asked: If the comparison is to the life outside academia, there are a couple of things that make academia more like the arts, like acting or painting, than the professions. First is that more than in other professions, academia exists within a strong "track" system. Second is that people have unrealistic expectations of one's chances of landing the ideal job in academia. And so while every segment of society is marked by a great degree of inequality, few invoke "love" and the possibility of upward mobility like academia. Which, again, makes it a lot more like the arts than other professions. Accountants, doctors, veterinarians, etc. don't toil away for years for less than minimum wage out of "love" and the hope to land a permanent position like adjuncts do. In very few fields there is the same stigma attached to leaving it as there is in academia. Now, the point isn't just to say "boo, academia." But to talk about leaving it, without the stigma often attached to such discussions. Something that many should consider doing more seriously. |
|
