In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
On this blog, I have seen many questions like "Would X help my prospects on the job market," and often that answer is "No, X won't really make a difference." My question is: what actually, substantially, really, definitely makes a difference? What should grad students actually spend their time on?
Here are the things I think really, actually matter the most (please tell me if I am wrong!): prestige of the PhD-granting institution, publications in top journals, being a great fit for the job AOS/AOC wise, (at least for a lot of jobs) having some solid teaching experience. There are also so many random things at play that can play a major role, like how your personality meshes with the people on the committee, who knows who, who they just hired last year, etc.
It seems like most other things just don't make a big difference, at least enough where it's worth doing action X JUST because you think X will help you on the job market (versus, say, doing public philosophy stuff because you are passionate about it).
So, it seems like there is not too much that's actually both helpful to my prospects AND within my control (publish in top journals, meet a lot of people and seem cool/smart/professional to them, finish the program while keeping my sanity), and I should just focus on those things without worrying much about the rest. Does this sound right?
These are excellent questions, and I'm very curious to hear how readers respond. Allow me to make a few quick points before opening things up for discussion.
The OP suggests that the prestige of a candidate's PhD-granting institution and publications in top journals are two things that actually matter the most on the market. Are they right? Based on the available data, the answer seems to be: yes and no. First, the recent placement data show that if you want an R1 job, then yes, it seems you had better go to a top-ranked program. However, the same data indicates that if you you want a job at a teaching institution, then no, program prestige is not what matters. Most of the PhD programs with the best placement records outside of R1s are not highly ranked programs, but instead low-ranked or unranked programs. Further, our own Helen De Cruz also published a study on this, finding that while virtually all highly ranked R1 jobs go to candidates from prestigious PhD programs, low-ranked and unranked PhD programs actually have the largest placement numbers for jobs at unranked institutions (see below). So again, the evidence is that PhD-program prestige is very important for prestigious R1 jobs, but not for 'teaching jobs.'
What about publications in top-journals? Are they among the things that matter most on the market? Here again, the answer seems to be: yes and no. If you are seeking to be competitive for R1 jobs, then yes, publications in top-ranked journals surely matter. But what about jobs at teaching institutions (e.g. SLACs)? Here, my experience is unequivocal, both as a job-candidate and 5-time search committee member: no, publications in top-ranked journals aren't what matter the most. On the contrary, top-ranked publications can actually be held against you, making the committee worry that you may be a flight risk or 'questionable fit' given the values and priorities of their institution. And indeed, when I informally collated job-market data some years back, this is broadly what I found: that if you want an R1 job, then you either have to come out of a top program or have highly ranked publications; but if you want a job at a teaching institution, then neither of those things seems to be the case. Finally, this also coheres with my experience as a job-candidate. Back then, I didn't have any publications in top-10 or top-20 journals–but the more lower-ranked publications I got, the more interviews that I received at teaching institutions. And indeed, as we've discussed at the blog before, the only evidence that has been collected on this suggests that lower-ranked publications actually help candidates. So again, top-ranked publications don't seem to be what matter most–at least not if you are interested in a job at a teaching-focused institution.
What kinds of things that are under a candidate's control do matter the most on the market, then? If the points above are correct, then the answer to this question actually depends on a candidate's situation and job-market strategy (i.e. whether you are trying to be competitive for R1 jobs or teaching jobs). There isn't just one academic job-market: there are multiple job-markets, as search committees at R1s, R2s, prestigious SLACs, less-prestigious SLACs, and community colleges are all plausibly looking for very different things in a new hire. For these reasons, I've suggested in the past that job-marketeers should consciously and carefully tailor their job-market strategy to their situation. I've also shared a number of thoughts based upon my experience as a job-candidate and 5-time search committee member in our series on the Secret Lives of Search Committees, Notes from Both Sides of the Market, and Job-Market Boot Camp.
But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from past and present job-candidates (what, if anything, helped your performance on the market?), but also from search committee members!
Leave a Reply to European in USCancel reply