The Philosophers' Cocoon

In my fifth post in this series, I wrote about how to stand out as a researcher in a crowded field of applicants. Generally speaking, when it comes to research jobs and elite liberal-arts colleges, we all know what this involves: coming from a top-ranked program and publishing in top-ranked journals. However, as I explained, my experience on both sides of the market is that originality can matter too. Because a lot of candidates may work on slight variations of the same "hot topic", working on something totally different can potentially set a particular candidate apart from the field.

One thing we have not explored, however–either in this series or in our earlier Job-Market Boot Camp–is specifically how to stand out as a candidate for jobs at teaching schools (i.e. non-elite liberal arts colleges, community colleges, etc.). My own admittedly anecdotal experience is that many candidates–and unfortunately, the graduate programs, advisors, and placement officers that prepare candidates for the job-market–appear to be fairly unaware of just how different teaching institutions are than research institutions. This is not a put-down, and indeed, in some ways it is probably unavoidable. For better or worse, the faculty who work at PhD granting graduate programs have likely spent their entire careers in research-focused institutions. Given their experience, how could they be well aware of what life and institutional priorities are like at teaching institutions? For my part, it took several years of actually working at such an institution to learn these things!

Consequently, I thought it might be helpful to outline some of the things that I think–as someone who has worked at a teaching institution for a number of years now–may serve to set job-candidates apart when applying for jobs at institutions like mine. Please bear in mind that these are only my own impressions. As someone who has only worked at one teaching institution (but who also knows people well who work at others!), my impressions should be taken with a grain of salt. Not all teaching institutions may be similar–and for that reason I would like to invite readers who work at such institutions to share their impressions in the comments section as well. With these caveats in mind, here goes!

Here, I think, are a few ways to stand out as a candidate for jobs at teaching institutions:

Teaching philosophy: My experience working at a teaching-focused institution is that these institutions can have a very strong culture that cares a great deal about teaching. It can therefore be very helpful to show in your teaching statement that you have thought a great deal about teaching, and have a sophisticated teaching philosophy–not just one that "shows you care" about students, but one that clearly and concretely tells the committee exactly what you do as a teacher, both inside and outside of the classroom, as well as why you do it. As I explained once before, many teaching statements don't do that–instead "waxing philosophical", at a very general level, how the candidates cares about students, is "passionate" about teaching, and so on. The more precise your statement is–demonstrating precisely how your teaching philosophy inspires specific pedagogical practices–the more likely you are to stand out.

Teaching innovation: Some people who work at teaching institutions are "old-school" teachers who stand in front of a class and just talk/engage in Socratic dialogue. You can get a job at a teaching institution if you do this (though I suspect you must be truly exemplary at it). That being said, in my experience, the culture at teaching institutions–among faculty and administrators alike–nevertheless tends to favor innovation. Make no mistake about it: people at institutions want to hire excellent teachers–people who put a ton of work into their teaching, take risks, experiment in the classroom, etc. As I explained here, I worked very hard over a number of years to transition from a traditional "chalk and talk" pedagogy to a much more elaborate set of teaching practices. Although one's practices need not be anywhere as elaborate as mine to stand out for teaching jobs, I do think, once again, that the more original (though thoughtful and pedagogically justifiable) one's teaching strategies are, the more likely one is to stand out.

Teaching evaluations: We all know how problematic student-evaluations are. Alas, for all that, in prevailing conditions they still matter at teaching institutions. Here is one big reason I think they matter (and perhaps, legitimately so). As many recent cases amply illustrate, humanities departments (philosophy among them) are increasingly on the chopping block, being downsized or eliminated for "financial reasons." Teaching-centered institutions often do not have large endowments, but instead rely on student tuition to fund everyday operations and faculty salaries (and yes, administrators). Consequently, there may be very strong "butts in seats" incentives within departments and colleges–i.e. a focus on course enrollments and majors/minors. Because few students enroll in liberal arts colleges intending to be philosophy majors–indeed, philosophy majors are declining–it can be very important at teaching institutions to hire and retain faculty who are likely to draw majors and non-majors to the classroom. And, like it or not, that's where student perceptions matter.

Teaching breadth: Of all of the things I mention in this post, I think this one may be the "biggest deal." Philosophy departments are teaching institutions are often small, with too few full-time tenure-stream faculty and too many courses in need of teaching. Consequently, the broader your teaching experience–including experience teaching courses outside of your AOS, as well as online teaching–the more likely you are to stand out. If you want a job at a teaching institution, teach a wide variety of courses. Search committees may well reason as follows, "Candidate X is really good…but Candidate Y has experience teaching courses A, B, C, and D, and we really need someone to teach those courses!"

Service: This is, I think, one of the "unsung" areas that can set a candidate apart, but which few candidates appear to prioritize. Make no mistake about it: you won't get hired because you have ample administrative experience–but various forms of service (heading student clubs, doing departmental assessment, serving on a grad student committee) can set a good candidate apart from other similarly-good candidates. Departmental and university service, as many people noted here, is a much bigger deal at teaching institutions than many people realize. At many teaching institutions, you will have a lot of service obligations–serving on committees, on faculty senate, etc. Further, departments and administrators look very favorable (viz. tenure) on faculty who engage with students (viz. student clubs, etc.). Having a past record of service not only shows that you have the willingness, interest, and initiative to do these important things–but also, very importantly, that you can do all of these things while also succeeding as a researcher and teacher. I say this is important, because one thing that can (and does) happen from time to time is someone is hired who cannot keep up with all of their obligations (they either let their research slide, their teaching slide, or don't do enough service). Being able to show that you can balance good service with success in other areas is thus a very good–and fairly uncommon–thing to see in a candidate: something that can really make a candidate stand out from the field.

Past publishing success: As this Daily Nous thread indicates (and I will come back to it in a subsequent post), teaching-focused institutions can have very different research requirements for tenure. Some institutions require a number of publications in good peer-reviewed journals, whereas tenure at other institutions may be achieved with only one or two publications. In any case, research matters at teaching institutions–but not, in my experience, in the same way as at research institutions. While "elite" liberal arts institutions may expect publications in top-ranked journals, my experience on both sides of the market is that this is not at all true at many "non-elite" teaching institutions. As a job-candidate, I interviewed at many "non-elite" institutions, and very few (if any) of their faculty had publications in elite journals–and they often complimented my research output despite my not having any either. As I have noted before, I suspect this may be in part because publications in top-ranked journals may in some cases scare a search committee away from a candidate as a potential flight-risk. Whatever the case, my experience is that if you want to stand out as a researcher for teaching schools, three things are probably helpful: (1) a good previous publication record (roughly, the more publications the better), (2) indications of likely continued publishing success in more than one research program, and (3) an interesting and original research program that is likely to engage undergraduate students. By a "good" previous publication record, I mean several publications in legitimate (though not necessarily top-ranked) peer-review journals. This alone will not set you apart from the crowd, as you are likely competing against dozens or more other candidates with similar publication records. Thus, the more decent publications you have, the more competitive you may be.

Promise of continual publication: A good publication record (as opposed to no publications) is important for teaching jobs, as hiring committees want to know you will be publish enough to get tenure. However, to truly stand out, it's important not just to have a past record of publishing success. In my experience, one of the things hiring committees care most about is whether a hire is likely to get tenure. Hiring someone who does not get tenure is, in essence, a failed search–one that takes about six years to turn out to a failed search (if/when tenure is denied). It can thus be important to hiring committees to demonstrate that your research will have "legs", leading to publications beyond two or three papers emerging from your dissertation. Indeed, at some schools it is a tenure requirement to have at least one publication on research not from your dissertation. So, the more developed of a long-term (but realistic) research program you have, the more you are likely to stand out.

Accessibility of research: Finally, my sense is that "accessible" research programs–programs that students and the university community may have interest in and be able to understand–may fare better for teaching schools. Remember, teaching schools are not research schools. They are schools that, by and large, focus on students and the classroom. They also often prioritize community engagement. Accordingly, while more esoteric research programs may appeal to high-ranking research departments, my own sense is that they might be something of a hindrance when it comes to teaching jobs. But this is just a vague sense, and may be wrong.

Anyway, these are just some things that I think candidates can do to set themselves apart for teaching jobs. Once again, please take them with a grain of salt, as they are only my impressions — but, for all that, I hope you find them helpful and would be very interested to hear what other faculty at teaching institutions think? (If I'm wrong about things, please do correct me – I'm always happy to learn and revise my thoughts!).