Satisficing is the watchword (Signifying Nothing: how does saying nothing at all become so loud?)

Saturday, 18 February 2006

Satisficing is the watchword

Spending today listening to presentations at the Teaching and Learning Conference has reinforced my prior belief that I would be happiest teaching at a private liberal arts college—I was intrigued by the interesting (dare I say cool) things being done by professors of research methods at Birmingham-Southern and Richmond. It could just be coincidence; I don’t know. But in the absence of definite competing opportunities, I’d probably accept an offer from a different sort of institution, particularly one offering a modicum of job security.

As far as the competing offers question goes (a situation I have yet to be in), I still haven’t worked out for myself the transitive ordering between “one-year job at a liberal arts college, narrowly-defined*” and “tenure-track job somewhere else”; it’s something I’ve pondered before and not really gotten any good advice on.

At my first ever campus interview, the chair of a ninth-tier combined department once tried to sell me on the idea that any tenure-track job (versus a one-year gig) was a signal of status to other potential employers—I don’t think he was reading my mind (in which admittedly I was simultaneously plotting the quickest exit possible from the godforsaken place, trying to forestall a panic attack); he just was probably used to giving the speech—but somehow I doubt that’s really the case except when comparing among fairly similar institutions.

* By “narrowly-defined,” I mean a small, private residential college with at least a modicum of selectivity in admissions.

23 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

1. Scott wrote @ Sun, 19 Feb 2006, 12:41 pm CST:

The above should read:

You wrote:

“it’s something I’ve pondered before and not really gotten any good advice on”

Given the fact that the only comment/advice you got on the post you linked was from me…well…OUCH!

2. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Sun, 19 Feb 2006, 4:46 pm CST:

A slip of the keyboard; your advice, as always, was brilliant (because, as I said before, it completely reinforced my prior beliefs!).

3. Scott wrote @ Sun, 19 Feb 2006, 5:45 pm CST:

“A slip of the keyboard”

well…ok then

…COUGH….bull$h%t…COUGH…

Now I know how you really feel…the way “Frequent Commenter Scott™ ” rolls off your keyboard like “Viral Infected Pustule™”

…sniff…I see how it is…just because we were at ICPSR at different times does that mean I can’t be referred to as an “ICPSR Hottie?”

4. mungowitz wrote @ Sun, 19 Feb 2006, 6:54 pm CST:

two things:

1. IMing is faster than talking via blog comments. Perhaps not as much fun, but…

2. I couldn’t find a job myself for two years. Then, I went to Dartmouth, in NH, as a visitor. And….I still pretty much couldn’t find a job. Finally, at the end of my third year, UT-Austin called, and I got a tenure track position.

It’s no solace, I realize, but….it just takes a while.

And, a lagniappe: Scott, you will always, ALWAYS be an ICPSR hottie to me. God, I wish I knew how to quit you!

5. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Sun, 19 Feb 2006, 11:12 pm CST:

Um, Scott, you do realize that blog comments, unlike my email, is Google-able, right? ☺

IMing is for friendless losers. So, sign me up!

6. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Sun, 19 Feb 2006, 11:15 pm CST:

Incidentally, Scott is a hottie, but I didn’t meet Scott at ICPSR… so, he’s not an ICPSR hottie.

7. jenjehay wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 5:58 pm CST:

This is not directly related to the tenure-track at any place versus 1 year temp. pos at a liberal arts school decision but I thought I’d chime in anyway…I recently attended a conference at my university sponsored by Preparing Future Faculty (PFF), and there was a panel focused on getting jobs at “teaching intensive” liberal arts colleges and how to prepare application materials. Interestingly, one tenured prof at a liberal arts college on the panel stated that the most frequent reasons why applicants are put into “Stack 3” (read: do not hire) include: not talking about teaching at all in the cover letter and sending syllabi that are only 3 or so pages in length…this guy said his syllabi are generally 12–20 pages, obviously very in-depth. These syllabi include appendices with more detailed info on assignments—expectations of students, how they will be evaluated, etc.

8. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 7:01 pm CST:

A 12 to 20-page syllabus? Do students actually read these behemoths? At Millsaps, I had a limit of 25 pages per student per semester—including syllabus, exams, handouts, and anything else I wanted to use—in my inrto class. My syllabus was 4 of that, a page of which was collegewide boilerplate about the honor council rules. At the very least, think of the poor trees.

I could understand putting together a formal teaching plan that ran that long, though.

9. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 7:01 pm CST:

Incidentally, thank you for the first serious post in this thread! ☺

10. jenjehay wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 7:44 pm CST:

Yes, 12–20 pages is a bit excessive IMHO. I’m not convinced my students have bothered reading the 5-page syllabus I handed out.
Another interesting thing a panelist mentioned at this conference was the fact that many places (esp. small lib. arts colleges) include several profs from outside political science on political science faculty search committees . I had not realized this before, and it seems like it would be much more difficult putting together an application packet that would appeal to political scientists, physicists, sociologists, etc.

11. jenjehay wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 7:46 pm CST:

Oh, and you’re welcome…I’m actually procrastinating and should be working on my diss. prospectus ;)

12. bryan wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 8:34 pm CST:

12–20 pages is way overboard IMHO. I have a two page syllabus that includes all the boilerplate materials, assignments, grading, and a schedule. Individual assignments are handed out as the semester progresses. I suppose, if I were “packaging” for a job dossier, I could put the assignment pages into the syllabus, but again, that is just window dressing for a potential employer.

But what do I know, I’m not Poli Sci. ;-)

13. Scott wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 8:45 pm CST:

jenjehay:

My experience has been that small schools have outside committee members out of necessity (I was once interviewed at a place so small, I would have been the entire political science department had I taken the job) and Research Ones (or whatever the new designations are…DGI-E and DGI-I?) have outside members to 1) legitimate the process and 2) [try to] keep a lid on major internal squabbles that often explode in searches.

My and Chris’ DGI-I had a policy of putting a grad student rep on big hires. Come time to hire a new Chair, the committee was chaired by an absent minded goofball from another dept (this was a chair search, so the search committee chair had to be from outside). Well, he LOST the application of the candidate my puppet masters wanted. Only he didn’t KNOW he has lost it. He said, “I don’t think the guy sent everything in…maybe he is withdrawing.”

Well, only one of my “handlers” was on the committee and…I guess because he was pretenure, or something, he seemed cowed by the arrogant, bombastic senior member who said, “Well, his file isn’t here let’s vote on the final pool!”

My pretenure handler sat mute. I sat stunned. Out of shear fear of what the Sith Lords would do to me if I watched this happen, I, a then grad student, stopped the vote and forcefully argued that several people had direct knowledge of this candidate’s desire for the position and he did, indeed, want to remain in the pool and a few hours would prove it.

We briefly adjourned and went on a mad panic to get this guy’s vita and supporting materials faxed to us. He was officially returned to the pool and would become the chair. This was aided by a tactical error of Dr. Arrogant-Bombastic. He had used all of his clout to get a friend (higher than himself on the food chain in his sub-discipline) on the short-short list. Because of all of the power-playing, it came down to two instead of three.

Only then did Dr. Arrogant-Bombastic think to check if Dr. Big Name in Sub-Discipline would take the position for the maximum amount of money the university would offer. If memory serves…the top figure that the university COULD offer was tens of thousand less than the guy was currently making.

By throwing all of his effort into an all-or-nothing, there-can-be-no-alternate play, Dr. Arrogant-Bombastic lost out.

At that point, all other candidates had been declared “unworthy.” The only ego saving course was to go through the sham of a one candidate interview.

Shockingly, he got the job.

14. Scott wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 8:47 pm CST:

BTW, an old school guy who retired the year before I started here had a THREE PAGE statement on his LATE POLICY as PART of his syllabus.

15. jenjehay wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 10:11 pm CST:

3 pages on lateness?! I simply say, “Don’t be late!” What more needs to be said?

16. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 10:37 pm CST:

Scott: our graduate alma mater was Doctoral/Research-Extensive (the highest category) under the old “new” Carnegie classifications, as was State. Jackson State and USM were Doctoral/Research-Intensive, the next lower category.

The new “new” Carnegie classifications (2005) are so multidimensional so as to be pretty damn useless unless you care about one of those dimensions. Supposedly a “basic” classification similar to the “old” new classification will come out later this month; more here.

jenjehay: Yep, I’ve been on some interviews at liberal arts colleges where people from biology and mathematics were on the committee. At Millsaps the search committee for the visiting job and the subsequent tenure-track consisted of the sole political scientist who wasn’t the dean (he chaired a department of one) and a pre-tenure sociologist.

17. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 10:40 pm CST:

I might as well go for the full disclosure on the jobs that have been finalized (and where the disclosure couldn’t be construed as reflecting poorly on the institution)... the “some interviews” above include a tenure-track at Lawrence University (Appleton, Wisconsin) where I was one of three finalists but didn’t get the ultimate offer.

18. bryan wrote @ Tue, 21 Feb 2006, 5:57 am CST:

Appleton, Wisconsin would be very cold, wouldn’t it?

I’m glad I haven’t run into a department so beset by internecine squabbles as the ones you mention.

19. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Tue, 21 Feb 2006, 1:50 pm CST:

It was a damn good job, though, despite the weather; I wish I’d been offered it.

Such is life.

20. bryan wrote @ Tue, 21 Feb 2006, 9:24 pm CST:

Ah, well. At least you didn’t get this one: I actually had a person from a university you mention very often on this blog who said “We want you. I’d hire you on the spot if we didn’t have these #%# bureaucratic job descriptions.”

That’s always a great feeling. ;-)

21. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Tue, 21 Feb 2006, 10:54 pm CST:

See if they can put that in letter form for when you go on the market :)

22. jenjehay wrote @ Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 2:09 pm CST:

Now to completely digress: Care to share any sage advice on the dissertation process (how to get it done, considerations in selecting an outside committee member, etc)? Since you’ve already gotten the Ph.D. I thought maybe you’d have some good insights…

23. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 8:13 pm CST:

Good questions, all. Sounds like an idea for a post, since this comment thread is by far the longest in many moons on SN.

Comments are now closed on this post.