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?
Yup, I was going to write the same thing