A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.
Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)
Contact: marvan@ut.edu
Blog mission & moderation policy
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Tom asks:
I'm on the job market this fall. I'm wondering what my prospects are like if I strike out this round. My plan would be to just stick around my alma mater and do sessional instructing. Would this hurt me when I apply to jobs again next year?
Good question—I’m not sure. What do you all think?
All else equal, I think it is viewed as better to land something outside of one’s degree granting institution, so working where you got your PhD hurts you only insofar as you don’t have one of these jobs. I sincerely hope, however, that search committees don’t hold lecturing at the place where one got their PhD for a year or more after graduating against candidates. This is becoming increasingly common at basically all PhD programs I know except for maybe the elite of the elite. What hurts you, IMO, is that these positions tend to be very teaching heavy, leaving you less time for research. So long as you can communicate to search committees that you are still making progress on research, and that your research has an ‘upward trajectory,’ I would think and hope that search committees would not hold working at the place where you got your PhD against you just by itself.
It’s not better than working elsewhere, but there’s no harm in it. You have to do what you have to do to stay afloat, and the advantages to staying in a city where you’re already established are significant.
The feat is that if you are working at your alma mater that you are not growing, intellectually and as a scholar. In fact, I was scheduled to teach at my alma mater the year after I graduated, but in the summer I was offered a “sessional” position at another university – this is roughly a Canadian equivalent of a VAP (as it is a salaried position, and you are expected to come to department meetings, etc.). The faculty at my alma mater ALL said go for it. So even though they only had 10 weeks to find replacements for my three courses in the fall, they did not hesitate to send me to another institution.
Well, here’s the thing. Landing any position means that when you go on the job market next year, you will appear as someone who’s been vetted at least once post graduation, and that’s a net benefit. It’s really a signaling thing. On the contrast, not having landed any position might be perceived in a somewhat negative light, but I doubt it would hurt you significantly. People’s career trajectories are all different, and it will ultimately come down to your overall application package + fit with institution + a little bit of luck. My advise is do what you have to do (stay afloat, write & publish as much as you can, etc.) and try not to overthink these things.
I’ll echo “i hope not” in saying that I think this is becoming increasingly common. In my experience it’s not an automatic strike against a candidate as long as that candidate can demonstrate that they’re still progressing as a scholar (e.g. presenting new work at conferences, teaching a new prep, etc.). It’s not an ideal situation but it’s certainly better than nothing.
Leave a Reply