Australian National University, Demography

[AU]

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer in Demography, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian National University
Further details
Application deadline:
31 October 2013

The Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute at the Australian National University invites applications for a continuing academic position. The Institute has the largest concentration of demographers in Australia actively engaged in a broad range of demographic research areas, including fertility, family, ageing, mortality and migration, as well as the interdisciplinary research areas of social networks, gender, modelling, forecasting and the environment.

The appointee will have demonstrated potential for innovative and cross-cutting research, as well as teaching and supervision, in quantitative demography and social change. The appointee will normally spend 60% of their time on research.
jobs.anu.edu.au/PositionDetail.aspx?p=3532

[Yanks?]

Given that most who hang around this site are Americans can anyone speak to the chances of ANU hiring and American for this or similar positions?

[American in Australia]

Look, the Australians are trying to compete in the international rankings game, meaning publications, so if you're productive or have potential, then you probably have a shot. Then as with everywhere, it comes down to issues of fit. So it helps if you can ID some factors that mean you have taken a good look at the department and can provide good motivations for why you would be interested in going there. (Possibly contact someone in the department in a very gentle way. I don't think they have as strong of issues about that, but could be wrong.) From personal experience, I can say that your chances are probably a lot better in Australia vs. jobs in the UK. (Visa issues, sheer numbers.) As with everything, if you don't apply, you definitely won't be in the running.

If you look at University of Melbourne, you will see that they just hired an American in the sociology department, and that job was posted here. So as with anywhere, ANU may or may not have an inside person, they may or may not consider Americans. As you see many times on the Chronicle forums, sometimes that inside person who would seem to be a lock is totally out of the running once you get down to interviews. Or they got a better offer and won't take that position, etc. etc. And I have heard that the sheer number of applications is somewhat lower than in the US, so on average, you might have a better shot. But as with grants, we can't say what the odds are before the pool of submissions is assembled. All you can do is decide if you have an hour to put together an application, and if so, roll the dice and apply.

[Frank]

Out of interest, what is the emphasis regarding publication in Australia: are the target journals similar to those in North America? Is there more of a quality of quantity emphasis? How does the Australian situation compare to the UK? For APs who might head to Australia but would hope to return to N. America, there may be concerns about how and what they are encouraged to publish.





My impression is that very few British sociologists aim to publish in the AJS or ASR, but they publish prolifically in journals N. Americans consider a tier lower. I suspect that patience in the UK would be very limited for an AP who took two years to get their AJS/ASR article under review. Of course for many N.American APs this is the main goal. So how does Australia compare to the UK (and given my experience in a limited slice of the discipline, are my other views more or less accurate?). Thanks to anyone who takes this on!

[Freddy]

So, what is Australian academia like? What is the ANU like? What is Canberra like?

[in Australia]

I can't speak to ANU but here are a few things from my experience.

Publication quality: depends upon the department / university. Some departments want high counts, quality doesn't matter: I met someone who has to have 4 publications a year, yes, in sociology. Other places have lower quantity requirements than the US, but with a similar quality focus. Overall seems less prolific than the UK, with higher quality goals, depending on the school. (Or not - journal rankings being a political process, some of the A journals on the list make me wonder.) Note that other factors may also count, e.g. good enough pubs, awesome grants. Check CVs of younger academics in the department if you are interested, but note that publication requirements are tightening up overall as time goes on. You would probably have larger class sizes and slightly lower teaching support than you are used to.

Note: 5 years to tenure ("confirmed") is normal, so adjust your expectations accordingly, but year by year productivity seems moderately lower than in the US in a comparable institution. But that gap might not last too long.

ANU vies with Melbourne for top university. Canberra - I haven't been, but it is apparently great if you want to do anything government or policy-related. Access to data, people, etc. Smaller city than Sydney/Melbourne, but people seem to like it. 1 hour flight from Sydney / Melbourne?

Working conditions are good. People are nice, unions are strong, salaries are slightly higher (but so is COL). 9 month appointments aren't really a thing, but annual leave is generous and expected to be used. Retirement (superannuation) contribution is high for university employees. Govt funding for universities took a bit of a hit last year, but nothing like the madness at NSF lately. However national early career funding is a bit tighter, and they like applications from carefully assembled research teams, rather than sole researchers for some reason. Perhaps a bit more collectively minded than in the US? Higher respect from students, or at least the appearance of respect, which is good enough for me. Fewer grade complaints too. Travel budgets that allow international conference presentations.

Other benefits: cockatoos and parrots as an everyday bird! Kangaroos, yes, they are around. Weather. Foodies. Way better health benefits - even with visa-required private insurance, it's so affordable that I might not want to go back to the US, as one gets older and sicker over time, not younger and healthier. Public transit that is comparatively well-funded, frequent and clean. Not quite Switzerland clean and efficient, but feels that way compared to NY subway. Downsides include many stores with hours that would require a housewife/husband to run errands, opening at 9:30 and closing at 5 except Thursday or Friday for "late opening". (Why not 11-7? I don't get it.) Culture shock, with differences that are not immediately obvious, and some negative stereotypes about Americans. Women's labor force participation is lower than the US, and while maternity benefits are better, there are still some discrimination issues. Scandinavia, it is not. Higher RA costs, no equivalent to federal workstudy to subsidize. Lower geographic mobility vs. the US, with locals moving less often for college, and expecting to stay in the same city, with implications for graduate student pools. More travel time and money is required to visit the US, and the tax office makes it harder to add on days to an existing trip. Not impossible, but you have to pay part of the flight costs out of your own pocket (not research accounts) past a certain number of days.

[Considering the ex-pat gig]

Hi "in Australia"...I've been thinking about applying overseas for sometime (currently an Asst. Prof in the U.S.). I've heard that if you move overseas and then move back to the States, most American universities "don't count" your years spent at a non-American university when making an offer. Can you speak to that at all? I'm guessing that varies greatly by country, but maybe you could speak on the Australian experience?

[my $0.02]

Let me preface this by saying, this is totally anecdotal and about Canada, so a bucketful of salt may be needed. For what it's worth, I know someone who came from a top U in Canada to a top program in the U.S. He was already tenured in Canada, but the department in the U.S. would not immediately accept it because the tenure system there was not as 'rigorous' as the U.S. institution. They put him on a 1 or 2 year (not sure of the details) fast track to tenure. Essentially, he came in as a very advanced assistant and had to prove he could 'keep up' with their expectations. It's not that the time didn't count, but that it was adjusted to meet the expectations the program that hired him.

[canuck]

Nov 21, 2013 12:57:29 GMT -5 my $0.02 said:

Let me preface this by saying, this is totally anecdotal and about Canada, so a bucketful of salt may be needed. For what it's worth, I know someone who came from a top U in Canada to a top program in the U.S. He was already tenured in Canada, but the department in the U.S. would not immediately accept it because the tenure system there was not as 'rigorous' as the U.S. institution. They put him on a 1 or 2 year (not sure of the details) fast track to tenure. Essentially, he came in as a very advanced assistant and had to prove he could 'keep up' with their expectations. It's not that the time didn't count, but that it was adjusted to meet the expectations the program that hired him.

Which is nothing more than American arrogance.  I work in Canada (and worked in the U.S. before that) and can assure you the tenure/promotion systems set up at Canadian universities are equally as rigorous as those in the States.  Although there's no Harvard in Canada (i.e., a place that denies tenure to 80% who apply), places like Toronto, UBC, McGill, or Alberta would be on-par with many top-20 departments in the U.S. (places like UCLA or Duke, for instance) in terms of their tenure expectations.

I don't find this surprising, though.  American academics have a long history of discounting work done outside of U.S. borders.  But, as a Canadian, it's frustrating to see your neighbour looking down their nose at you. 

[in Australia]

Sure, even if you were confirmed here, you would probably have to go in as advanced assistant or associate without tenure on a shorter clock. Some might make the rigor argument, but it's also risky to take someone in with tenure. A new hire could be a holy terror and then they wouldn't be able to get rid of him or her.