||[Oct. 20th, 2006|02:18 pm]
Academics On or Near the Tenure Track
Hi, y'all! My name is Anne and I want tenure. [Hi, Anne!]|
I've been through the mill once and didn't get tenure. (Insert long ugly story involving appeals, lawyers, and unemployment.) I've started over at a new place where I am *much* happier - truly feel like I belong here - and I'd really like to get it this time. This is my third year here.
One happy thing I can share is that I was pleasantly surprised to find that having a tenure denial on my record didn't seem to hurt my job search. I got a job the first year I tried (there was a two-year gap for personal reason). I thought I would look shopworn next to the shiny new Ph.D.'s, but they were looking for someone with experience. Last year I was on a job search committee (so weird to see things from the other side of the table!) and one of the people we interviewed had been denied tenure. We didn't count it against him.
Welcome! What's your field/discipline? :)
What's your field/discipline? :)
My area of specialization is technically medieval philosophy, but I'm working more as a generalist in philosophy and also teaching classical Latin.
As someone who prepares for worst case job scenarios, knowing that not making tenure isn't the kiss of death to all hiring committees is v v to know indeed.
Sounds like things have worked out pretty well for you! As neogrammarian
said, that's nice to know.
I was on a job search committee the year after I was hired (AHA bullpen for 2 years in a row, on both sides of the table!), and it was deeply WEIRD. I often found myself thinking, "Why couldn't I have done these experiences in the other order?"
We had searches my 2nd and 3rd years. I sat through interviews thinking "why on earth did they hire *me*?" Everyone seemed so much better organized and professional than I remembered myself being. Very strange.
I sat through interviews thinking "why on earth did they hire *me*?" Everyone seemed so much better organized and professional than I remembered myself being.
I'm amazed at how much the new Ph.D.'s have already done - we had grad students applying who had more publications than most of us!
I found it interesting to see people do things in itnerviews that I would never dreamed of doing . . . it became clearer to me why I was, in some ways, appealing.
(reposting because LJ ate my first attempt; sorry if you got both)
Same here. Not so much in the interview process itself, although I did see some eyebrow-raisers, but in reading the folders. The junior faculty member who was assigned to help shepherd the grad students through the application process when I was in grad school gave us loads of good advice that many of our applicants obviously never got. She was emphatic that we should never apply for positions for which we did not qualify; it would waste the committee's time, make us look bad, and give our institution a bad rep.
Well, we advertised for someone in modern (e.g. Descartes, Kant) and ethics. We got people doing Hegel or Heidegger or Wittgenstein who told us they were modern (NOT!) and people doing social-political philosophy who told us they were ethicists (NOT!). And people doing BOTH who claimed they fit our parameters! (SO not!)
We had been wondering how we managed to get hired - now we understand we must have landed near the top of the stack just for being what they were looking for.