The Philosophers' Cocoon

UPDATED: comments now open!

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, two readers wrote in with slightly different questions about heading on the job-market when one already has a TT job. First, Tenure a-comin' wrote:

I go up for tenure this year, and am going on the job market because I'm pretty scared about the future of my current state university. I've heard some people say that you should make clear in your cover letter when applying to any TT job that you're willing to start over from scratch – but I'm not. I want my current pubs counted, and I want to cut at least several years off the tenure clock. Given that I'm not willing to start from scratch, should I address this in cover letters at all? What about when/if people ask about it in interviews?

Similarly, Anonymous TT prof wrote:

I too will be going on the market from a TT job. It would be great to have a thread with advice about how to carefully do this. As Tenure a-comin' asked, should I provide some sort of explanation in my cover letter as to why I am applying out? When (if at all) should I tell my colleagues? Have others had to manage being on the job market and a search committee at the same time?

Notice there's a difference between these two queries. The first reader is going on the market while coming up for tenure, whereas Anonymous TT prof didn't mention that. Let's assume for the sake of discussion, then, that Anon TT prof isn't coming up for tenure, but just wants to move from one TT post to another. Does this make a difference as to what one should do? I think it very well could…

Let's start with Tenure a-comin's query. TAC says they are not willing to "start from scratch", adding "I want my current pubs counted, and I want to cut at least several years off the tenure clock." Here are my thoughts. I'm curious whether others with experience agree!

First, I do not think it is a good idea to say or imply anything like this in a cover letter. My sense is that search committees–and especially administrators–do not to want to be "dictated" to, especially not in the first instance, and that administrators are generally strongly resistant to these things (indeed, at some universities, it is official handbook policy to only count work toward tenure that occurs at that university). I would also not mention or imply any of this in an interview or on-campus visit. The time and place for broaching these subjects, it seems to me, is at the negotiation stage after one has a job-offer. Why? Because it is at that point that people on the hiring side actually have something invested in you: they want to hire you. To use a metaphor I've never heard before but seems to me apt, you don't go reeling in a fish before you have it hooked yet!

Second, this brings me to a more general point, which is that (in my experience) that unless administrators on the hiring side offer to count your previous pubs and give you time toward tenure (which can happen), then you really need some bargaining power to get anything like what TAC wants. That is, you need either a counteroffer from another university or, in TAC's case, the awarding of tenure. I'm sorry to say it, but if you go on the TT market, don't have tenure yet, and don't have any counteroffer in the waiting, you just don't have much bargaining power. If the university really wants you, then they may offer you some of what TAC wants, or they may be willing to negotiate a little, but I wouldn't bet on much. It is, as they say, a buyer's market, and it is very hard to make demands on such a market without some "leverage." Finally, though, there is one more option (which I left for last because TAC didn't include this information): if you are coming up for tenure and are a shoo-in (i.e. there's no way you won't get it), then it might make sense to risk "pulling a hard bargain" at the negotiation stage, basically pushing hard for everything TAC wants…provided you can fall back on the job you expect to be getting tenure at. If this is TAC's situation, then that might make sense–though there is of course always a risk that a tenure decision might not turn out the way one wants.

Anyway, these are my thoughts about TAC's query, based on my experience on both sides of the market. What are your experiences? Do my thoughts here seem accurate and generalizable? Or, does your experience differ?

Now let's turn to Anonymous TT prof's query. I have not been on the job-market and a search committee at the same time, so I cannot comment on that. But what I do feel pretty safe in saying is this: I think it is probably a very bad idea to tell your colleagues or let it "get out" that you are on the market. If you are currently in a TT job and would want tenure there if you couldn't get a TT job elsewhere, then the last thing I would think you would want to do is to risk alienating the faculty and administrators there (the people who will decide whether you get tenure)–something you may well if you convey to them that you'd rather be elsewhere. It's always worth remembering that department and college tenure committees, deans, etc., are all human beings, not tenure-deciding algorithms. People have emotions, it's known empirically that we're largely emotional decisionmakers, and my experience is that people at universities (like people in all walks of human life) have a strong sense of loyalty, community, team, etc. For these reasons, I'm inclined to think the only people you should let know you are looking for the job are the people at the schools you're applying at.

Which brings us, finally, to AnonTT's first question: "should I provide some sort of explanation in my cover letter as to why I am applying out?" My sense here is that it depends. If the reason you're applying is simply that you're coming up for tenure and are applying to other schools as a backup plan (if you don't get tenure), or you're coming up for tenure and you just want to test the waters to see if you can get a better job, then no, I don't think you should mention it in your letter. It's not that either reason is a bad reason to apply for other jobs (they are both good reasons). It's just that I think they are bad reasons to openly convey to people. An analogy: suppose you were seeing someone romantically (non-exclusively, let's say), and you went up to another romantic interest and told them, "I already have someone but I just want to see if you'd like to go out as a backup. And I'd really like to test the waters for someone better." Suffice it to say, I don't think this would come off well–and I don't think their analogues are likely to come off well (to say the least) with search committees.

So, then, when might it be a good idea to say something in your letter? The answer, I think, is when there is some kind of extenuating circumstance that has motivated your move. One such circumstance is the one TAC gave: their state university's future may be in peril. Given how many philosophy programs and positions are being eliminated these days (see e.g. here and here), this could well be something in a cover letter that search committees may find relevant and be sympathetic to (I would!). Another extenuating circumstance: a two-body problem. Another? A university/department with an unhealthy climate. I could go on. In short, I do think it could be a good idea to mention such things in a cover letter, and have seen at least one case where something to this effect in a letter made a difference.

But again, these are just my thoughts based on my experiences. What are yours, both on TAC's query and Anon TT prof's?