The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Do hiring committees prefer recent PhDs?

A reader writes in by email:

At a conference I was kind of shocked to hear a few colleagues say that recent PhDs might look better to hiring committees than folks who have already been at an institution somewhere for a number of years when applying for the same job. The rationale was first: why would you be seeking to leave a tenured position unless you did something pretty bad? (Wouldn’t that one be easily solvable in a cover letter?) But second, you look like you don’t have potential the way a newly minted PhD does. I would really like to know from anyone who has been on hiring committees whether they think that position has merit.

I’ve heard the second rationale before–usually from people at research institutions–but never the first. The first rationale just seems bizarre to me: there’s all kinds of reasons why someone might want to leave a tenured position for something new. As for the second rationale, it’s not one that appeals to me, but I’ve heard it enough times from others that I know it’s an attitude that’s out there. Fortunately, my sense is that it is less common at teaching institutions, as my sense is that at teaching institutions people tend to care more about breadth of teaching experience, pedagogical development, and an established publishing record. But this is just my sense.

What are yours? Have you heard the the kinds of things the OP mentions? And, if you’ve served on a hiring committee, do you think your committee preferred recent PhDs? Why/why not?

Posted in

17 responses to “Do hiring committees prefer recent PhDs?”

  1. Anonymous

    I’ve had heard this based on the second rationale. However, I have also heard this job market slogan: “it’s easier to get a job from a job.” So, I really don’t know which is correct.

    Reply
  2. R1 prof who has worked at various places

    Much like so many of other questions asked here about “hiring committees”, the question “Do hiring committees prefer recent PhDs?” is asked at a level of generality where the answer is both obvious and unhelpful: Some do and some don’t, and their reasons run the gamut from good to bad.

    In a slightly more helpful spirit, search committee members at most institutions except the very most teaching focused want, in this order, to hire people who do interesting research and are at least competent teachers and departmental citizens. That’s about it; that’s the trick – the secret sauce.

    So, I say to the tenured job candidates worried about how they stack up to the shiny new PhDs: You shouldn’t be if your work is interesting and you’re not a horrible teacher and you do your share around the department.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      I’m not sure that this ranking of preferences is accurate for “most institutions except the very most teaching focused”. It seems like a ranking that would be accurate for an R1 dept, but not for a lot of non-R1 depts. For many such depts, you will certainly have to do more than indicate that you’re a “competent” and “not a horrible” teacher.

      Reply
  3. too old and I know it

    I think there is one other possible mechanism, which applies in some of the countries I worked in, where the academic salaries are determined by collective labour agreements and depend heavily on experience, e.g. number of years post-PhD (assuming these years were spent in typical academic employment). Hiring someone younger can easily mean 10-15k euro (or more) savings in salary costs per year, which is not insignificant if, for instance, your department had to eliminate a seminar series or travel funding for staff.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    I led a search in recent years at a small, teaching-focused university. We were looking for someone who can teach a wide variety of classes. We ended up hiring a new Ph.D., which surprised me. When we began the search, I expected that we would hire someone who had been in some other kind of position and accruing teaching experience. Most candidates we interviewed were of this sort. It just so happened that the best fit was the person with the more recent degree.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      How did they demonstrate that they had taught a variety of courses if they were only a graduate student? It is precisely this kind of decision that I take to be informing the OPs worry. A recent PhD surely does not have as much experience teaching (esp. a variety of courses) as someone who is looking for a lateral move. And yet, recent PhDs seem to be hired in such positions all the time. So this is what makes many of us worry that our teaching experience does not matter.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        I finished graduate school as instructor of record for three different courses (intro, intro to Asian philosophy, and a writing course). I had a value theory AOS and TA experience in introduction to ethics. So that’s another two classes. If I’d picked up adjunct work, I could also have picked up logic and some kind of applied ethics. (I’m also a woman, and some departments definitely thought that qualified me for feminist philosophy.) That was sufficient to impress some hiring committees – I know because I got a job and also because a department that routinely sends kind, personalized rejection letters (not e-mails!) noted it in the one they sent me.

        The graduate students in my program now pick up extra classes in the honors college as well as at the community colleges around us. If you teach intro to philosophy, you have a lot of flexibility, and you can use it to acquire an additional kind of teaching experience.

        Graduate students are a diverse bunch.

      2. Anonymous

        It was, of course, the case those other candidates had more teaching experience than the recent Ph.D., but in our pool, this experience didn’t correlate with variety of courses as much as I expected. We were looking for someone to teach a relatively unique array of courses. And, as the follow-up commenter noted, some recent graduates have taught a comparable range of courses.

  5. Paul

    As previously stated regarding other countries, most universities in the US are facing budget cuts and austerity measures, and the unfortunate bottom line is that assistant professors are cheaper and universities are businesses facing enormous financial (and social/political) pressures. And that also extends to the fact that if you are a newer PhD, you will not be fast-tracked, so the first 6 years will be at that salary level.

    But besides the research angle, here is the other reason for preferring early career folks: you have to prove yourself over the entire 6 years, you get to really know the department and the university, and there is a greater chance that you will stay for the long haul and not use us as a stepping stone. Faculty searches are expensive and time-consuming, and no one wants to conduct them any more than we have to.

    Having said all that, I just chaired a search committee that hired a person who was tenured at a smaller university; they are coming in at the assistant level, but will be fast-tracked if all goes well. So, I wouldn’t be discouraged from applying.

    Reply
    1. Daniel

      Paul, you say that one reason to prefer early career people is that “there is a greater chance that [they] will stay for the long haul and not use us as a stepping stone.” I’ve usually thought of this as a reason to prefer later career people. My thought is that it’s relatively common for early career people to move around a bit, since when you’re younger you’re usually more willing to relocate, and in some ways it’s easier to get a job when you’re early in your career (for reasons you and others have discussed in this thread).

      So, to the extent I want to prioritize people who are going to stick around, to me something counts in favor of someone who is later in their career, since I think they’ll be less willing and able to move again a few years down the line.

      I don’t know which one of us is right. I’m sure both of us are right about some subset of people and the real question is which subset is larger. Some early career people are more likely to stick around in part due to their being early career people, some early career people are less likely to stick around in part due to their being early career people, some later career people are more likely to stick around in part due to their being later career people, some later career people are less likely to stick around in part due to their being later career people. What do the overall numbers look like? Hard to say maybe, but it’s interesting that we have basically the opposite view on the same topic.

      My thoughts on this might be influenced a bit by having done my PhD at UC San Diego, where (at least during my time there) a lot of early career people used it as a stepping stone. Maybe that’s a fairly unrepresentative sample.

      Reply
  6. Anonymous

    I’m writing this as someone who has been in contingent positions for the past 6 years (postdocs, VAPs), and I will say that even though my CV dramatically improved the last two years–my strongest journal placements were in that time period–I have had actually had worse success securing interviews that I did ever before. Of course, there are many variables, but I do wonder if I look like used goods or something after so many years without a TT position. Perhaps this swamps my CV improvements. Either that or publishing in top 5 journals is scaring off teaching schools, but I doubt it. Any insight from others on this? I suspect applying out from a TT position looks very different from applying to TT as a long-term VAP.

    Reply
    1. Same

      My experience is similar. I graduated from a top program, immediately got a good post-doc, and then had several bites per year my first few years on the job market, despite having only one not-very-good publication (a co-authored book chapter). Now in an alt-ac position, I’ve since published a book with a major press, 10 additional journal articles, and have designed and taught several additional courses, but I can’t even get a first-round interview. In fact, the last first-round interview I had was two years ago, for a job that eventually went to a recent PhD from a top program with 0 publications. There are of course many different factors at play here, but my own experience has definitely led my to suspect that shiny new PhDs have an edge.

      Reply
  7. Anonymous

    I remember years ago seeing statistics about how many years it is post Ph.D. that people get hired, and it showed that it was nearly impossible by year 6 to get a tenure-stream job. The new and shiny bias is real.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      I wonder if this is as true now as it was was whenever these stats were collected. Anecdotally, a large number of academics I know who landed TT jobs did so after at least one postdoc or VAP, such that it increasingly seems to be the norm. Maybe there is a point after a few years, however, in which this effect is more pronounced (e.g. 5+ years). Would be interested in others’ takes, as I enter my third year of a VAP…

      Reply
      1. Issy

        I’ve also noticed a number of people getting great permanent jobs after 5-6. Maybe it only stands out to me as I was biased to expect things to go the other direction, but it definitely happens not infrequently.

  8. Mike Titelbaum

    Here’s another factor that I don’t think has been mentioned above: Many departments want to hire junior faculty who will get tenured. If you’re a few years out of grad school and already have published enough to earn tenure in our department, that certainly allays any concerns we might have on that front.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    The shiny/new bias is real if you’re coming from a reasonably shiny place (this goes for jobs at SLACs, R1s, and just about everywhere). Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. There has been so much data collected on this over the years that you can dig up. I agree with other commenters that it may be getting a bit better in recent years (since the COVID and post-COVID market led to more people in contingent jobs that would have otherwise secured something sooner), but it is still very much a thing. I’ve heard it explained that less “proven” but sufficiently shiny candidates allow the search committee to project what they want onto a relatively blank slate, combined with some schools’ preference for being able to more easily mold junior colleagues to their liking in terms of teaching and research style. It’s kinda gross, and it kinda sucks, but it’s a reality you’ll need to come to terms with sooner or later if you’re on the market for long enough.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading