Moving after/just before tenure

[moving]

Does anybody have a sense of how people change departments just before they go up for tenure? I've noticed this happens a lot at the top departments (and even that many people go into the best jobs expecting to move in a few years time). My question is, how do these moves happen? Are people applying for jobs listed on the job bank (probably not)-- do people move through networks by "putting out the word" that they are hoping to move to a specific region or department?

I ask because this could affect some of our decisions about where to go in the first place. That is, if lateral or downward mobility is really tough after you get your first job, you might think more about taking a better fit (say in terms of region or partner issues) in the first place. Thoughts?

[Dont Move]

Unless you love moving, rejection, unbearable stress, and feelings of inadequacy, it seems like the best idea would be to look for a good fit in the first place. For some a top job may be the best fit, but for most of us, even applying for those jobs is an exercise in futility, though I'm sure the Post Office appreciates it.

[removing]

To answer your question more helpfully, I know from talking with people who have moved or contemplated moving that they often apply to jobs that are posted in the job bank and chronicle, etc. Other times they may be more actively courted by specific departments. If you know you will want to move in the future, do what you would anyway--get work published in good journals and make professional contacts. I get the feeling that it has increasingly become more standard to move jobs at or around tenure in recent years.

Of course we all want to find the best fit first. But that isn't always possible--many people only get one job offer, or are constrained by family concerns. Nothing wrong with keeping your options open for the future (although of course, make a decision about taking a job with the realization that you might be there for a long time).

[thanks]

Thanks-- that last reply was very helpful.

[advice]

Just a little piece of advice someone gave me recently that I wish I had been given earlier: work on your record not on tenure.

It sounds simple enough, but as someone back on the market because I'm not going to get tenure here, I wish I had spent more time just working on publishing and working on my record in general rather than working on publishing the kinds of things in the kinds of places that were specific to the demands of this dept. I wasted a tremendous amount of time doing that, and have little to show for myself. Had I been publishing the kinds of things I wanted to in the kinds of places I wanted to I would be in a much better position.

[intlsoc]

I am a fairly recent hire, but from what I have seen after being on the job market for a few years is that there is a lot more moving around on the tenure track than one might think. I have also been advised that it is harder to move after tenure. Yes, you should definitely take a job with the hope that you will stay, although as other posters noted, it is not always possible to find that elusive good fit. I have been told that just about everyone goes on the market during their tenure year (or perhaps slightly earlier, I'm not sure of the timing), even if they really want to stay where they are. Also, if you get job interviews at R1 institutions, you will often find yourself competing against people who are already on the tenure track somewhere else. People try to move for many reasons: seeking a better fit (could be about location, collegiality, etc.); spousal/two body issues; want to move up in prestige; concerned about not getting tenure.

[a little lost]

I feel pretty "in the know" about the profession, but somehow I've obviously been out of the loop with the whole moving before tenure thing. Why is it important to seek a new spot before tenure, and/or why is one unlikely to get hired by a new department after getting tenure?

[gugol]

Jul 21, 2010 20:27:26 GMT -5 @a little lost said:

I feel pretty "in the know" about the profession, but somehow I've obviously been out of the loop with the whole moving before tenure thing. Why is it important to seek a new spot before tenure, and/or why is one unlikely to get hired by a new department after getting tenure?

It is not necessarily important to seek a new spot before tenure, but it is very common to go on the market as you approach the tenure review because you don't know if you will get tenure. Even if it's likely you'll get tenure, you just never know, and an offer from somewhere else can help smooth the process and even help you negotiate a few extra perks. If you don't get tenure, then you have a headstart on a new position, on a search where you aren't yet tainted as the "didn't get tenure" person.

As for why it is easier to move before tenure than after, it really is a number's game: there are more positions for assistant professors than associate professors, the cost of hiring an associate professor is greater than hiring an assistant professor and negotiating an advanced tenure clock, etc.

That, and the whole "big fish, small pond" thing: applying for another assistant professor gig you are competing with ABDs, post docs, etc. Applying for a senior, tenured position you are competing with other real stars.

[Dont Move]

I didn't mean to sound so glib with my first response. Let me outline some thoughts more helpfully (I hope):

Reasons to try to find a good fit in the first place:

It is much easier to move the younger you are. Once you have a partner, s/he might be willing to move onc for your "dream job," but if dream doesn't give you tenure, might not want to move again. Once you have kids, it also gets harder, and the older they get, the harder it is. It also becomes hardest to "start over" as you get older--younger people are often looking for new friends, but have all the friends they need by the time they are in their 30s and 40s.

Reasons to avoid top level tenure tracks:
I have seen the junior faculty at my R1 university in their quest for tenure. It makes me sad. Looking at their lives makes me think a job at Starbucks would be more fulfilling. They are all in therapy, and I think they have some of the problems of the poster who said one begins writing for tenure rather than one's own professional interests. Some of them want spouses or kids or both. Too bad. One got so stressed out she felt she couldn't even take car of her cat anymore and gave it away.

Of course, one might only have one job offer. However, if you are the kind of person getting an offer from Duke, Michigan, or Berkeley (etc), that seems unlikely. Some people live for their work and for fame and status, and that's their prerogative. But if that's not your main goal, if you want to have a life that includes fulfilling work as well as a family and outside interests, think about the job you really want and how to get whatever it is.

I want to thank others who offered advice for what to do when you actually will have to move.

[thanks]

Thanks for the honest elaboration, dontmove.

[Downer]

Wow, that was one of the more depressing posts I've ever read on this board. I just can't believe that there is such a clear cut trade off between having a life and having a job that stimulates you. Maybe the juniors in your department are depressed precisely because they didn't have partners/families to support them in the first place. And whenever this life vs. work balance issue comes up, people seem to focus exclusively on the life side. For many people, having a really unstimulating work environment could actually hurt their home life. At my R1, there are junior people that support both sides of this coin. There are one or two who are miserable, and there are others who (at least outwardly) really have it all together. I don't have a lot of experience with other departments, but I've been happily surprised by the attitudes of people outside my department as well.

As for the correlation between prestige and mean senior people, I would guess there is something to this. But aren't there mean people at non-prestigious places who are angry precisely because they feel their work doesn't get the recognition it deserves? Or, where fights emerge about publishing and grants in high prestige places, don't similar issues with teaching come up in non R1 places? My hypothesis is that there are probably angry/mean academics in just about every department, just like there are those type of people in most other professions.

Also, it seems unreasonable to assume partners wouldn't want to move more than once. Doctors, lawyers, and many other young professionals move almost as much as academics. The only point that seems convincing to me is about moving once your kids get older, there I'm with you.

[whosedatcomte]

For those of you folks new to this game - from what I gather from "Don't Move" - not in you 30s or 40s, don't downplay what "Don't Move" and "advice" and "intlsoc" posted here because they are right on. Getting a full time gig can be a blessing and a trap. That trap is called service and teaching. Two things that are easy to do and not recognized by your college. In the 'few' years since I've landed at TT job, I've seen 4 asst. prof let go because they did not publish enough. I work at a SLAC where teaching used to be good enough. Now, they want 3-5 pubs in a 7 year period. It sucks having a high teaching load, but the rules to today's game are not the same as your colleagues who went on the market from the late 90s until 2006. Just stay focused on your research no matter what the cost - even if it means *gasp* giving multiple choice tests to ensure time for you to write.


And yeah, guess what, for those coming out of grad school right now who think they are the next big shit in sociology, 100's of recent phd's every year make this mistake of thinking this and over estimating their job opportunities. Usually by March this downgrades the message boards into a modern day war of the roses where over privileged kids blame men, women, blacks, hispanics, gays, lesbians and the occasional martian for why they did not get job. After sitting on a hiring committee last year, let me just say that the whole thing is so random and dependent on committee personalities and perceived expectations of deans that I'm surprised anyone ever gets hired. We ended up hiring someone who had no, let me repeat that for you non believers, zero publications in arguably the worst job market ever because they were local. Translation, it did not cost our department anything to interview them and the dean was cutting all costs. You see, departments get budgets to hiring someone, but they may not get budgets to do the actual hiring. Sound crazy? From conversations with other folks in local colleges and universities, not as crazy as you would think. Thus, I suggest those on the market consider all the schools in proximity to your university who have a track record of hiring folks from your school. May not be your dream gig, but it’s a gig to hold you over for a few years.

And while "Don't Move" may sound depressing to the naive to the novice job gazer, they sound like a familiar voice in the night to those of us with jobs dealing with the TT stress. "Downer" is typical of the new job gazer who wants to believe that academic life is special and that their partner will want to follow ‘their’ dreams and move from bumfuck mid-western school to bumfuck southern midwestern school so that one day someone will recognize their minor contribution to the field of sociology. Sorry, but campuses are full of broken marriages/relationships and regrets. During the interview process, no one on a committee tells you that the cool looking coffee shop and or pub starts to suck after a 2 years when there is nothing else to do. Scratch that, it seems by all the busted relationships and faculty in therapy that there is something else to do. Doctors - I'm guessing that "downer" means physicians - and lawyers move jobs because there are more than 6-40 total jobs (depending on your metro area) that comprise the entire sociology market.

The academic job market is a different game from any other profession out there. As much as I don't care for the Chronicle of Higher Ed, it does offer a sobering reality of the job market. Good luck to you all, and don't be afraid to choose the small school in a city you want to live in rather than a big R1 in a state you can barely find on a map.

[What]

So basically you are saying all us kids should not go into academia? Wonderful.

[appreciative]

I, for one, appreciate candid posts like the one by whosedatcomte. These forums are supposed to provide the opportunity for us to share various perspectives based on real experiences. Keep 'em comin'.

[ffffff]

The only thing worse than the naive hopefulness of the novice job seeker is the pseudo world weariness of the assistant professor.

Surely we are all smart enough to recognize that there is significant diversity in what people want out of life. Or at least to recognize that we won't be doling out life changing advice in this forum.

I mean, the topic was started by a question on the timing and the frequency of moving around in academia. It has been given adequate replies by many. No need to get into hypothetical unlikely scenarios and random personal preferences.