In the comments section of our new 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, anon writes: 'Would someone without any major publications almost be immediately disqualified from consideration for a TT position?'
Although it's unclear what anon means by 'major publications', as two comments later in the thread indicate, I think the answer here is yes, both for R1 jobs and jobs at more teaching-focused institutions (SLACs, CCs, etc.)–though for very different reasons. Allow me to explain.
In response to anon's query, Recent PHD wrote:
I'm not a search committee member, but if you scan appointments on philjobs or placement records on "top" department websites you will see that there certainly are people who get jobs without publications. A trend seems to be, however, graduating from a very "top" school.
Although I haven't done job-market statistics for a few years now, back when I did them I found that more than one-third of all hires for R1 jobs had zero publications. Crucially, however, Leiter-rank appeared to play a huge role here. Of the 34 people that year who got R1 jobs with zero publications, 31 were from Leiter top-25 schools.
Now, it's always possible that things have changed since 2012, but if anon is right, it looks like things haven't changed much: recent placements still suggest that people from "top" departments still get jobs without pubs. Finally, from experience I think there's a reason for this: R1 committees often appear interested in gambling on people who 'might be the next star.' Back when I was in graduate school, I was told (by more than one person in the know) that at some top-programs graduate students were told not to publish precisely because it would give them an element of mystery–leading search committees at other R1's to think they might be the next Great Philosopher (whereas actual publications might reveals that they're not!). This is absurd of course–but as I hope we all know by now, absurdity is the norm in this human life, not the exception.
After Recent PHD's comment, anonymous wrote:
I teach in a program with a very non "top" PhD program. When our graduates get tenure track jobs, they exclusively get teaching-focused jobs. And they do so sometimes with publications and sometimes without. But when they do have publications, they are often not what I would consider "major" publications. However, I do think that having publications is a significant advantage for teaching jobs as well as research jobs.
This is also an important comment. I've said it many times, but I'll say it again: search committees at many teaching-focused schools could care less about "major publications." Although I am sure there are exceptions, my experience with the market is that people at teaching schools are not typically looking to hire people who have published in Mind, Nous, or whatever. They are looking for people who can publish enough to get tenure, but who are great teachers, colleagues, and members of the community and profession.
To be clear, anonymous is right: zero publications can be a real disadvantage in applying for 'teaching jobs.' Although zero publications is not necessarily a disqualifier, people at teaching jobs do want to know that you can publish–because if you can't, you won't get tenure. Thus, there is (in my experience) a strong preference for candidates who have a publishing record. However, 'major' publications are in no way a requirement, and in my experience search committees at teaching institutions are at least equally likely to look positively on someone with a number of 'lesser' publications as they would look on someone with a few 'major' publications.
Long story short, it's possible to get a TT job–both at research and teaching institutions–without any publications, let alone without any 'major' ones. However, if you want to get a job at an R1 with no publications, it seems like you had better come from a highly-Leiter-ranked program; and when it comes to teaching schools, a focus on 'major' publications is misguided. What matters more is that you can publish and are a great teacher, colleague, etc.
But of course these are my just my thought, based on my experience and informal data gathered a while ago. What are your thoughts?
Leave a Reply