In response to our latest "How can we help you?" post, a reader by the name of 'Eric' writes:

Another issue that may be worth discussing is how much teaching should an applicant have to be competitive at R1s, SLACs or large state schools provided that one has at least one decent publication. By decent publication I mean a third tier journal or better.

Some people think that (1) one or two classes will suffice to make one competitive but I've noticed some people think that (2) more than two classes can make help make one more competitive at either SLACs or large state schools.

There seems to be some consensus that to be competitive across all kinds of schools, one should have some teaching and at least one publication. But, beyond this, it seems that there is less consensus.

Good question! I'm not sure how much teaching experience matters for R1s, as they are plausibly interested most in one's promise as a researcher. When it comes to 'selective'/elite liberal arts colleges, the optimal amount of teaching seems less clear to me. Given that such colleges are highly ranked, they too are presumably looking for distinguished researchers–but, as liberal arts schools they also presumably prioritize teaching as well. So, can anyone from a selective liberal arts school chime in to provide Eric and others like him some guidance here? And what about large state schools that are not R1s?

For my part, I have worked at a small-to-mid-sized liberal arts college for 7 years now, and my experience here is that for schools like mine, provided one is publishing effectively and one's teaching reviews are strong, the more breadth of teaching experience one has the better. The reasons for this are simple. At many schools like mine, philosophy departments are small–but teaching is very much valued, and there may be very specific courses the search committee doing the hire needs the new TT hire to be able to teach. So, for instance, one school doing a hire may need/desire their hire to teach epistemology; a second school might need/desire their hire to teach ancient philosophy; a third may need/desire the hire to teach modern philosophy; a fourth biomedical ethics; and so on. The more of these courses a candidate has experience teaching, the larger the proportion of jobs at these schools they are likely to be competitive for–which is just another way of saying that, on the "teaching jobs" market, the more courses one has experience teaching, the more competitive one is likely to be (all things being equal of course). And my sense is that the same is probably true for community colleges as well.

Anyway, these are some of my quick thoughts. What do you all think?

Posted in

3 responses to “Reader query on teaching experience and the job market”

  1. Michel X.

    FWIW, a few places where I applied to teach a single course as a sessional (adjunct) last year wrote back to say that I didn’t have enough teaching experience (1 course solo, and around 15 as a TA).
    My impression, as a result, is that one or two no longer cuts it.

  2. Anonymously

    Let me sound a different note. I am not from a prestigious program and consequently have a ton of teaching experience. It has done me zero good on the market over the last half-decade. I have taught more than 40 courses as a sole instructor. While doing so I’ve kept a pretty active publication schedule too–including a few papers in top 20 places. However, last year when I applied for a VAP that carried a 4/4 teaching load, I didn’t even get an interview. They did, however, give an interview to a friend of mine who had taught exactly 1 course in his life (a course I also have taught), but had a fancy pedigree. (he had a few more publications than me, but not in better places). In the PFO letter, the school told me that I wasn’t chosen for an interview, because they only wanted to interview people who had a lot of teaching experience, because it was a teaching heavy position.
    Best part of the story is that my friend decided he didn’t want to the gig and so didn’t even do the interview.
    I took two morals from this:
    * Search committee members can be radically mistaken about which criteria they are actually using when they make hiring decisions.
    * Prestige trumps everything else, even for teaching positions.

  3. Amanda

    If you look at who got TT teaching positions last hiring season (and I looked at this closely), almost every hire at a non-elite teaching school went to someone with a PhD from an unranked institution (outside of Leiter top 50). Most of those hired had a few publications in third-tier journals, and very few had top 20 publications.
    Sorry about your bad luck anonymous. The job market is often random and inexplicable. Your story is not representative though.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading