On TT 3rd Year Formal Review, Two Pubs, and Job Hunting

[The King Adrock]

I'm in the midst of my 3rd year formal review and 8 years out from my filing my diss. I'm in the process of applying for another job that can restart my clock. haven't yet heard but from formal reviews nor from my manuscript review. In truth, I'm more than a little freaked out about it. My university has a new vice prez and I fear that if I don't get a job this spring They'll cut my line and make a fulltime teaching prof. They did this before in other departments. Any advice on this? 

[Parasaurolophus]

Do you mean you might get failed then offered a choice between leaving and staying on as a full-time teacher (same job security, etc.)?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Turn in the best packet you can and simultaneously hit the market. Not much more that you can do.

[clean]

Even if you were confident or even guaranteed promotion and tenure, I would suggest that you be on the market. 

You are negotiating a 'contract without renewal' and you should know what the market is like and if you want to work there long term. 

[Mobius]

What did your yearly reviews look like? Anyone in a TT position should be on the lookout during third-year review and the year they go up.

[AJ_Katz]

What did your yearly reviews look like? Anyone in a TT position should be on the lookout during third-year review and the year they go up.

Could others here please help me understand why we always advise people to be on the market at the same time as a third year review or even while going up for tenure?  This seems like the kind of thing that only those people anticipating a failed promotion should be doing. It takes so much effort to put together a polished dossier that trying to simultaneously be on the job market seems like it could create a recipe for failure. Additionally, most promotion cases are successful so unless your annual reviews suggest you are not on track, why put yourself through the additional stress of also trying to be on the job market?  I think it creates a lot of unnecessary stress, especially for those people that are doing well and on track for promotion.

All that being said, the other aspects of this person's story seem more disconcerting.  If the position is not expected to be continued due to budgetary constraints or otherwise, then yes, be on the market.  But why would you want to re-start the clock?  If you are doing well and are leaving because of the situation at the institution, wouldn't you want to take years of credit with you? 

There seems to be some details missing from this post that would be helpful to know.  I could see an interpretation of this post where the OP is simply over-reacting when they are actually doing just fine and becoming hyper-focused on inconsequential factors. 

[jerseyjay]

My understanding of why people should be on the market during their review years is that:
(a) nothing is ever guaranteed and it is a good idea to have a backup;
(b) you have already put together all of your publications, written explanations of your teaching and research, and that transferring this to a job application would not be so much trouble;
(c) you are likely at your professional peak during these times, having done your best to publish as much as possible, that you are as likely as ever to get a job then.

All that said, I did not follow this advice. Putting together (for me yearly) tenure-track dossiers and going through the review process sucked so much time and energy out of me, and in any way, I actually wanted to stay where I was.

Of course, my university went into a financial crisis shortly after I was granted tenure, which on the one hand was good timing (people on the tenure track a year or two behind me were made redundant) but on the other hand makes me more interested in looking for a job now that I am tenured. Being an associate (tenured) professor does not mean that one cannot move to an assistant (untenured) position, but it does make such a move much less attractive. So I guess the last reason is,
(d) it is good to be on the market while your options are still relatively open.

[clean]

My understanding of why people should be on the market during their review years is that:
(a) nothing is ever guaranteed and it is a good idea to have a backup;
(b) you have already put together all of your publications, written explanations of your teaching and research, and that transferring this to a job application would not be so much trouble;
(c) you are likely at your professional peak during these times, having done your best to publish as much as possible, that you are as likely as ever to get a job then.

all are good reasons.
Remember also that you are applying for a job for life at this point.  After tenure, people become much less willing to take risk.  (Would you Give UP Tenure once you have it to start over?)  So while you are at your peak of productivity and likely to get tenure where you are, if not at another, similar place, you should be certain that THIS is the place you want to be for a long, long time.  How will you know that there is not a better place for your out there?   Alternatively, you may find that THIS IS the place that you want to be, so you will not play the 'woulda/shoulda/coulda' or 'if only' game later in life. 

Finally, should things not work out, then you WILL be on the market next year, but if you are now on the market you will have the big "REJECT" stamp on your forehead.  You will not only be looking for a job, but you will also spend at least part of the process addressing the elephant in the room.  Someone on the committee or at the next place will certainly wonder 'what is wrong with the reject".   THere are usually more than enough applicants for any job.  It is easier to cull the applicant list by asking "is there any reason to pass on this application and find a better fit" than to find a reason to interview every one.  There are only so many hours in the day! 

Bottom line, while you are up for tenure and on the market you are a star looking for a better location (or whatever you justify to interview with any particular location (better weather, better pay, better students, better life fit, closer to family...), but once you are denied (for any reason), you become a desperate 'reject' who is counting the days until they are unemployed.   

[AJ_Katz]

Finally, should things not work out, then you WILL be on the market next year, but if you are now on the market you will have the big "REJECT" stamp on your forehead.  You will not only be looking for a job, but you will also spend at least part of the process addressing the elephant in the room.  Someone on the committee or at the next place will certainly wonder 'what is wrong with the reject".   THere are usually more than enough applicants for any job.  It is easier to cull the applicant list by asking "is there any reason to pass on this application and find a better fit" than to find a reason to interview every one.  There are only so many hours in the day! 

Bottom line, while you are up for tenure and on the market you are a star looking for a better location (or whatever you justify to interview with any particular location (better weather, better pay, better students, better life fit, closer to family...), but once you are denied (for any reason), you become a desperate 'reject' who is counting the days until they are unemployed.   

Ah, okay, this does make sense to me.  I recall job applications where the timeline made it clear the person was past their tenure review point and so it raised flags. 

All that said, I did not follow this advice. Putting together (for me yearly) tenure-track dossiers and going through the review process sucked so much time and energy out of me, and in any way, I actually wanted to stay where I was.

I also did not follow the advice to be on the job market and spent a ton of time on my promotion dossier.  Many of the reasons you provided also made good sense.

[Ruralguy]

While I never really formally applied out *because* I was going up for contract renewal or tenure, I applied out for a few jobs, and got short-listed for several , before I was awarded tenure. I think I mainly did this because I was interested in those particular jobs (although I have never gotten another TT offer or equivalent besides the one that brought me here).

Whether or not *you* (the OP or general reader) *should* apply out really depends a lot on the school. If they have a reputation for honest reviews (positives mean contract renewal and tenure, negative reviews mean potential trouble), then I wouldn't say you have to apply out just "because." But you might want to look at some things that you might wish to apply for because they might afford you different opportunities (and of course, apply out if you get negative reviews). On the other hand, if your school has a reputation for damning (or not) with faint praise that can go either way, then definitely apply out.

[Puget]

OP, even if you don't get yearly reviews, you should have a good idea of the expected progress towards tenure at 3rd year review, and where you stand. If you don't, you need to talk to your senior mentor and/or chair ASAP. Most places, non-renewal at 3rd year review is rare, but can happen if you are so far behind on making progress toward tenure that it seems clear you are unlikely to be tenurable.

Without knowing your field or institution type, it is hard to know how "two pubs" measures up-- at a teaching focused institution that might be fine, at an R1 in most fields it would definitely not be (e.g., the expectation might be more like two pubs *per year*).

[bio-nonymous]

What did your yearly reviews look like? Anyone in a TT position should be on the lookout during third-year review and the year they go up.

Could others here please help me understand why we always advise people to be on the market at the same time as a third year review or even while going up for tenure?  This seems like the kind of thing that only those people anticipating a failed promotion should be doing. It takes so much effort to put together a polished dossier that trying to simultaneously be on the job market seems like it could create a recipe for failure. Additionally, most promotion cases are successful so unless your annual reviews suggest you are not on track, why put yourself through the additional stress of also trying to be on the job market?  I think it creates a lot of unnecessary stress, especially for those people that are doing well and on track for promotion.

All that being said, the other aspects of this person's story seem more disconcerting.  If the position is not expected to be continued due to budgetary constraints or otherwise, then yes, be on the market.  But why would you want to re-start the clock?  If you are doing well and are leaving because of the situation at the institution, wouldn't you want to take years of credit with you? 

There seems to be some details missing from this post that would be helpful to know.  I could see an interpretation of this post where the OP is simply over-reacting when they are actually doing just fine and becoming hyper-focused on inconsequential factors. 

The main reason I have heard for job searching during the tenure process is to have leverage in negotiation. Some of my friends have done this and either got good retention offers or moved to greener pastures (negotiating tenure at the new place and so hired as Associate). I may be wrong, but getting outside offers seems to be the only way to get anything other than a token raise.

[jerseyjay]

It seems there are several different issues here.

First, are you on track to get tenure? This depends on your school, your field, and other things. Some schools almost never grant tenure, and some almost always grant tenure.In some places,  You should talk to your chair, colleagues, etc., and look at the CVs of people who have recently got tenure in your or related fields to determine where you stand. In any case, you should put your best foot forward in the review, and if you get the sense that you are lacking, try to get a sense of what you should do to improve your chances.

Second, there is the question of looking for a different job. As I and others have stated, there are various reasons to look for a different job, regardless of whether you are on track to get tenure.

Third, related to the first two but independent, is how to deal with the uncertainty and anxiety that anybody on the tenure track feels. My advice is to do the best you can in regards to publications and presenting yourself, and then try to stop worrying about things you cannot change. You may get tenure or you may not, but once you have done everything you can do, there is nothing else you can do. My other advice is to find somebody who knows the process--a colleague, a mentor, etc.--and ask them the questions you are asking.

[Ruralguy]

As for retention offers, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on what your school is really able to do (some aren't very flexible on salary), what your review says about you and of course, what the opposing offer is about (what type of school are they, how do they compare, what is their total compensation package including benefits, and other stuff such as start up funds, if relevant). Also, your own school *might* have merit pay, named chairs for younger faculty, various internal programs for getting more salary/awards, etc.. Check it all out.