Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Moving: before or after tenure?

Brian Leiter

An untenured philosopher writes:

Common wisdom has it that chances of moving up in the profession after tenure reduce dramatically: first, there are far fewer senior positions advertised each year than visiting or tenure-track positions; second, few are willing to give up tenure only to move to a more prestigious school and start the tenure clock again; and third, an awful lot of good research by faculty at unranked schools often receives less attention than it deserves. So, one is generally advised to keep applying for jobs at the top ranked schools while still untenured (that is, while on post-docs, visiting positions, or tenure-track positions at unranked schools). It is not uncommon, then, that one could end up spending a substantive amount of time (sometimes up to ten years) moving from one institution to the next (but always presumably a better one), only to come short in the end. I've heard senior colleagues at some top schools say that one is better off getting tenure at a school one is sure of getting it, build an impressive CV, and then move with tenure. Is that a widely shared view? Although most senior appointments at ranked schools are made to those already at similar or slightly lower ranked schools, quite a few come from without (from unranked programs or liberal arts colleges). I guess all I'm asking is, given that tenure is the ultimate hurdle into the profession, should one opt for a fast track to tenure? That is, should one seek tenure first (even at a less prestigious/unranked school) and a prestigious tenured appointment second, or keep chasing that prestigious (but often elusive) tenure-track job at top ranked school X?

Thoughts from readers?  Obviously one has to decide whether one really wants to be at a "higher ranked" or research department, rather than at an institution with primarily a teaching mission.  But certainly this individual's question is shared by others.

Leave a Reply to Kathryn Norlock Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

11 responses to “Moving: before or after tenure?”

  1. Roberta Millstein

    I am surprised that no one has responded to this. I'll take a stab and perhaps that will inspire others to comment.

    For me, the choice was an easy one. I did not want to spend many years wandering from place to place, from temporary position to temporary position (although in retrospect, a year or two of postdocing without any teaching requirements would have been helpful).

    So, when I was lucky enough to find a tenure-track job in at a non-"Leiter ranked" teaching university in a part of the country where I wanted to live (indeed, I was lucky enough to get a job offer in the area where I was living) I took it. I had nice colleagues, interesting students, and a good variety of classes to teach (albeit too many of them), and if I hadn't found another position elsewhere, I think I would have been fine staying. But I kept publishing, and I did get an offer for a "Leiter ranked" position elsewhere, about two years after I had earned tenure. I moved to the new position with tenure; I don't think I would have given up tenure.

    I don't know the statistics; I don't know how probable my scenario is. I only know that it worked for me.

    Reply
  2. Fritz Warfield

    No one who is trying to move from an unranked program to a ranked one is in any way forced to choose between pursuing tenure at one's home institution and pursuing jobs at ranked programs. One can do both. And if one doesn't get such a job before getting tenure, one can continue to apply after tenure (though one should realize that most senior appointments at leading programs arise out of targetted searches and not in response to files submitted in reply to job advertisements). To put it mildly, if one wants to get a job at a ranked department one really should focus on getting high quality work published, preferably in high quality venues. Happily, succeedings at this is usually something that will help someone with a tenure bid almost anywhere (there are some potential negatives too obvious to explain).

    I don't at all see how the questioner ends up worrying about "spending a substantive amount of time (sometimes up to ten years) moving from one institution to the next (but always presumably a better one), only to come short in the end". If the aim is to move from a unranked place to a ranked place this isn't a move that requires any intermediate steps, and I don't see any reason to think that intermediate steps are helpful.

    It's also odd to focus on the fact that "there are far fewer senior positions advertised each year than visiting or tenure-track positions". What matters more, presumably, is how much senior and junior hiring is typical at the kinds of places to which the candidate is hoping to move. The remark also shows that the questioner doesn't know how senior hiring works at most leading departments – as mentioned above, advertisements play a much smaller role in senior hiring.

    Lastly, with only one or two prominent exceptions that I know about, almost no leading programs are open to hiring someone who has tenure elsewhere into a tenure track position that "start[s] the tenure clock again". This used to be more common than it is now. It's not at all common now.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous Junior Faculty

    I would appreciate more comments from those in a position to know. My current tenure-track position is great, but for various reasons, I would prefer to end up in a different location. It might be nice to move to a better school, too.

    My more or less groundless impression had been that once you get a tenure-track job that you like well enough, it's a good strategy to stay there through tenure, even if you hope to move elsewhere in the future (for a better university, a different location, a more prestigious department, etc.). Is this false? Ceteris paribus, is it harder to move after tenure than before?

    Reply
  4. Sherri Irvin

    There are some useful remarks here, in an article Cheshire Calhoun wrote for the APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy: http://www.apaonline.org/publications/newsletters/v09n2_Feminism_07.aspx

    Reply
  5. mark lance

    A couple comments:
    I think Fritz's view about targeted searches vs applications is over-stated. At the very top places, at least the ones I know anything about, this is the case. But at many mid-level places, there are jobs that are sort of a mix. There may be some targeted folks, but there is an openness to applications. (We just had such a search at GU recently, and I know of many others from being a candidate for them, or from my students being one.) This is true for many reasons, not least of which is that a place ranked, say, 20th is not going to be confident that they can hire the person they most want.

    It also seems to me that the questioner is obviously right that there are many fewer jobs for someone with tenure than without. This is surely true. And for a great many "mid-majors" there are frequently jobs in which a department is authorized to hire with tenure, but told that substantial extra scrutiny will be given to tenured over untenured candidates by the administration. So I have no doubt that the chances of moving post-tenure are lower than pre, other things being anywhere near equal.

    That doesn't amount to any sort of advise on what this person should do. My own inclinations, in the current dismal market, would be to get tenure as quickly as possible assuming I wasn't in a situation I absolutely hated. WIth or without tenure, the chance of "moving up" substantially is objectively low. But I'm a bit risk-averse, and there are many variables that go into any such decision.

    Also, on the issue of starting tenure over, it is worth noting – insofar as anyone still cares – that this violates AAUP rules.

    Reply
  6. Kathryn Norlock

    Like the few commenters so far, I have some puzzlement when I read the original query, which is why I hesitated to comment at first. The query seems a bit unreflective of the choices available to most job candidates. The profession produces far more Ph.D.s than it provides tenure-track openings every year, so for most the debate as to whether or not to take an offered (!) TT job at a "non-ranked" institution (which is true, of course, of the majority of higher education institutions) is moot for most; the odds of even being offered such a job are not high, especially at a time when some schools are in the news and mentioned on this blog for reducing or eliminating philosophy programs.

    It is true that common wisdom holds it is uncommon to move 'up' in the profession after tenure. It is also true that I did, and advise others to, keep applying for jobs at ranked schools while on the tenure track. But it is not nearly as obvious that "It is not uncommon, then, that one could end up spending a substantive amount of time … moving from one institution to the next (but always presumably a better one)." This does not follow. Applications do not commonly generate job offers.

    I say this as politely as possible: Non-ranked schools are not necessarily fast tracks to tenure. That is a strange perception. My experience as a successful earner of tenure at a SLAC included vast amounts of work, with somewhat less publishing and a great deal of teaching and service compared to colleagues at other sorts of institutions. I conclude that the questioner is laboring under some misapprehensions as to what is involved in most TT jobs.

    Perhaps it is safest to simply answer: One should seek tenure, yes. Good luck.

    Reply
  7. doris

    It's likely that here we have another case where (if you can believe it!) the facts matter. In particular, what do actual hiring practices look like?

    Here's how things have gone in recent years at my current program, a PhD granting department:

    Senior hires of tenured people: 8

    Junior hires of people in TT jobs: 2

    Junior hires into first TT job: 5

    This would seem to confirm two of my a priori suspicions:

    1. Claims to the effect that "it is harder to move after tenure" are likely exaggerated.

    2. There may be some reluctance on the part of departments to hire untenured people well into a TT job, because of uncertainties about whether they should be hired tenured, on a "short clock" etc. (I've been on numerous searches where such concerns were raised.)

    Of course, other departments may look different; my previous department (which might be described as attempting to develop a PhD program) almost exclusively hired new PhDs into their first job. How do the programs you are familiar with hire?

    jmd

    Reply
  8. mark lance

    Facts do indeed matter. And one can get facts on supply by reading back issues of JFP, and counting the number of junior jobs, vs senior jobs. A quick survey of the most recent sept JFP shows 150 total jobs, of which 132 were for junior, untenured candidates only – tenure track, one year, post-docs, etc – 9 were rank open, and 9 senior. So that's 141 jobs open to the untenured, and 18 to the tenured. I'm not going to go count other issues, but I am confident this is not far outside the norm. (In fact, having followed this for some time, I strongly suspect that this year had a higher percentage of senior jobs as so many junior positions were cut.) Now there may be more candidates for junior positions than senior, but I strongly doubt that the ratio is 8-1. I would welcome a more detailed analysis of all the data, but I don't think numbers from one department in "recent years" confirm anything.

    Reply
  9. Fritz Warfield

    Mark,
    I thought the question we were asked was about moving to a high ranked department. Why does the total number of junior and senior ads at all schools matter? Perhaps what matters more is the mix of hiring that high ranked departments do?

    I also don't quite understand how to think about whether there are more candidates for junior or senior positions. If by "candidates" one simply means "applicants" then one isn't really speaking to the issue of the chances of getting a junior or senior job.

    Doris likely doesn't think that information from his one department shows anything. But information like his about the 50 or so departments the questioner is asking about seems relevant to the original question.

    Am I missing something?

    Reply
  10. Steven Hales

    Mark– do you think that most senior jobs are advertised in JFP, or advertised at all?

    Reply
  11. mark lance

    Well, I don't really know what either person means. The question speaks of "moving up" "more prestigious" and "ranked". All different. Doris says nothing about any other 50 schools and that the data from his/her own "seems to confirm … that claims to the effect that "it is harder to move after tenure" are exaggerated." That's what I was reacting to.

    It may be that there are different ratios of senior and junior jobs at the schools the questioner is interested in. Again, it would be a matter of counting out of past JFPs to get info.

    I agree that it is hard to know how many real candidates there are for a given senior job. But I still think the general claim that it is easier pre-tenure must be right. This realistically comes up when one is nearing tenure. Many people have put off going up for a couple years to see if they could move to a job at a higher ranked place. So let's consider a person in 5th or 6th year out, fixed record, but with or without tenure. I find it hard to imagine having tenure being a positive consideration anywhere. But it is clearly negative in many cases. Administrations are frequently much more likely to want to hire without the full commitment of tenure up front. Tenure can hurt you, and it is hard to see any scenario in which it helps. Again, I'm not advising anyone not to get tenure.

    Steven, since it is, or so we are told by GU legal counsel, illegal to hire without advertising – violates EEOC rules – yes, I think they are advertised. Even when a school knows who they want to hire, they put an ad in somewhere for appearances.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress