Thoughts and Advice about Landing Faculty Jobs in Astronomy

November 24th, 2010

We’re in what I hope is the home stretch of a faculty search for a tenure-track astronomer to join our Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Wyoming.   I probably should have posted something a couple of weeks ago after the first couple stages of the process were complete, or wait until it’s all over, but I can post again if that makes sense later.

We advertised our job where everyone does, the American Astronomical Society job register.   Here’s the ad:

Tenure Track Faculty Position in Astronomy University of Wyoming Department of Physics and Astronomy, #3905 Laramie, WY 82071

Attention: Chair, Faculty Search Committee Email Inquiries: Mike Brotherton (mbrother@uwyo.edu)

The Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Wyoming is seeking highly qualified candidates for an assistant professorship in astronomy beginning the fall semester of 2011. Our research facilities include a 2.3 m optical/infrared telescope (WIRO), a 24 inch telescope (Red Buttes Observatory), and the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center. The successful candidate should demonstrate commitment to teaching and ability to develop a vigorous funded research program that involves graduate and undergraduate students. Minimum requirements: a Ph.D in physics, astronomy, or closely related subject, plus two years post-doctoral experience. For full consideration, applications should be received no later than October 15, 2010. Additional information about the Department is available at http://faraday.uwyo.edu . Applications or inquiries should be addressed to Chair, Faculty Search Committee, at the above address. Completed applications will include a vita, three letters of reference, and statements of teaching philosophy and research interests. Persons seeking admission, employment or access to programs of the University of Wyoming shall be considered without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation or political belief. The University of Wyoming is committed to diversity and endorses principles of affirmative action. We acknowledge that diversity enriches and sustains our scholarship and promotes equal access to our educational mission. We seek and welcome applications from individuals of all backgrounds, experiences and perspectives.

In hindsight, given some of the inquiries I received, we should have clarified a few things.   For instance, our teaching load for research-active faculty is one course a semester.   Several people asked how specifically we would evaluate candidates, and unfortunately that’s difficult to clearly articulate.   I’ll say some things about this below.

I can’t get too specific about some things, but I can talk about the process in general and how our procedure goes, and provide advice for people looking for a job. I didn’t know as much as I should have when I was applying for faculty jobs, and the same is true of many applicants out there now.

A couple of years ago I wrote about the Academic Ponzi Scheme and how it was getting hard for astronomy PhDs to land tenure-track jobs, no matter how good they were, their pedigrees, etc.   And my current experience is driving that home.   We had “only” some 60 applicants for the single opening, which is probably a smaller number than some more prestigious universities in more populated parts of the country.   Not everyone wants to live in Laramie, Wyoming (and as the temperature is 0 degrees outside with high winds and blowing snow, I understand that perspective).   On the other hand, there are those who prefer to live in small towns, like the mountains, and are interested in research universities that also value teaching.

Of our applicants, about 10-15 were from outside the U.S., primarily Europe.   We has less than 10 female applicants, significantly fewer than might be expected from the fractions of women in post-doc positions in astronomy (it was something like 22% in 2003, and I’d expect it to be higher now, so we only got about half as many female applicants as I would have assumed based on the demographics).   It could just be small number statistics, but it was disappointing.   As far as we could tell, there were no historically underrepresented minorities.   I hope having Neil de Grasse Tyson out there as a very visible role model will help boost that figure in the future.

Of the original 60, we discussed 25 applications at some depth that seemed to be strong and interesting after our first reading.   We spent a long day discussing and weeding that 25 down to 11 for phone interviews.   We wanted to get that down to ten, but we couldn’t.   The pool was very impressive.   We tossed out Hubble and Einstein fellows, applicants with good track records for bringing in grant money, people I’d thought for sure we’d interview when I first read their file.   It was really hard and we gave them very close attention and serious consideration.

This is not just a matter of figuring out who came from the most prestigious university, who has published the most papers, who works on the sexiest topic, who has the most grant money already… Being a professor is a multi-faceted career and besides showing ability in a number of areas, they also have to look like a good fit to the department and its needs.

You have to realize that we’re going to be as picky as hell because we’re looking to bring in a colleague to work with us for the next several decades, ideally.   No one cares more about this that the other professors in the department and we’re going to take the problem very seriously.   If we screw up, we’ve made our situation, and that of our students and colleagues, worse for many years to come.   If we do it well, we make everything better for years to come.

We did Skype interviews with our “long” short list of 11, and I have to say almost all of them were as impressive in live conversation as they were on paper and after another long day, I didn’t think we could narrow it down.   Luckily, or perhaps we’re better at evaluating people than I had assumed, the committee had a lot of agreement ranking the list and whittling the number down for four on-campus interviews (that still took several hours).   We’re in the middle of the on-campus now.   We hope to have made a hire by the end of the year.

This is getting long, and I’m still being really general.   Let me get to some specific advice.

First, do contact someone for more information before submitting an application.   There may be some information that won’t show up in the ad (e.g., internal politics that could affect who is hired, specific departmental needs, etc.).   Also, it shows a high level of interest in the position and will permit the application to be better tailored.

Next, write a good cover letter.   Say specifically who you are and why you’d be a good fit for the position.   That could be a fit in terms of subject area, match to available facilities, match to items given in the job ad, etc.   If you tell the committee, they don’t have to puzzle it out.   It’s your chance to set a narrative.   If there’s additional information that might be relevant, mention it here (e.g., ties to the location or institution that the hiring committee may not know).   Consider giving some numbers up front, like publications and grants, rather than making the committee count items off a CV.

Make sure you include all the requested documents!   We had a couple of strong applicants who didn’t supply teaching statements.   With all but a few exceptions, applicants wrote thoughtful teaching statements and we appreciated it.   Not including one may be an oversight, but it’s too easy to read as an indication of disinterest in teaching or sloppiness.

The above also applies to letters of recommendation.   We didn’t get three from everyone.   Four is okay usually, but only one or two can be a problem.   We had a couple of strong applicants with no letters, and were forced to toss them out.   You really have to ask your recommendors early and remind them before every deadline, and make things as easy as possible.   The letter writers should be people who know you well, and preferably more senior in the field.   More senior people are more often experienced at letter writing and know what makes a good letter, while being unlikely to write one that will sink an application.   I should do a post sometime on just this one thing alone.   Until you’ve read hundreds of these, you just don’t know.

It’s common to be asked for a statement of research interests, but rare that you’ll be told details about how to do this.   There’s no right answer, but short and simple is better than long and detailed in my opinion.   But not too short and simple, of course!   Most of the time there won’t be anyone on the committee who is an expert in your subfield, so don’t get too specific!   You can do that when you get a chance to interview on campus.   You just need to be specific enough that people have confidence that you know what you’re talking about and are working in an interesting area.   When I put together my applications nearly a decade ago, I had a one-page summary of my interests, plus an additional 5-6 pages with more details.

It’s a harsh fact of life that numbers count.   Sometimes bright young scientists don’t get close consideration simply because they don’t publish at the rate that their more competitive peers do.   I look for a publication rate that is at least as high as the applicant would need to sustain as a professor in order to get tenure without sweating it too much. One of the other big issues for tenure is grantsmanship.   Evidence of being able to bring in grant money counts for a lot.   Someone who can’t is going to have trouble funding students or post-docs and is going to struggle to get tenure.

There’s a whole bunch of intangibles that are hard to quantify in the process, too.   You want to present evidence that you’re truly interested in the position, that you’d get along with your new colleagues, and that they’d get along with you.   No one wants to work with a sourpuss, or someone whose philosophy of science/life/etc., is contrary to everyone else in a negative way.   In our case, we specifically ask candidates how they think they’d like working in a small department joined with physics, and how they’d like living in a small mountain town.   Their reactions give us an impression and it gets factored in.   If you’re a candidate in this position, you shouldn’t lie, but do put your best foot forward.

Now that I’m on the hiring side, I can enjoy how strong the applicant pool is in astronomy.   I’ve really been quite impressed by the applicants and wish we could hire more than one of them.   I’m sympathetic, too, how difficult and time-consuming the process is for them.   When I was in the market, I interviewed at six different places, and that took quite an effort.

In the end, we’re looking to be made better by a new faculty member, and to help make them better by giving them a supportive base of operations and resources for success.   It should be a win-win in the end.   Failure is a disaster for both sides.   Everyone should be honest, but sell themselves at the same time.   It’s more important to get the best match rather than the best person, and the applicant pool is deep enough these days that the best match is likely a very strong candidate who can be successful.

After we’ve made a hire, I may comment more on the issues of the on-campus interview and negotiating an offer.   I’ve been through that on both sides and it’s the one area where even top candidates may stumble as it’s hard to get a lot of experience with that unless you’re a fantastic candidate and also lucky.

I know some of this has been pretty general.   Please do leave a comment if you’re interested in me elaborating on something.   I can’t be too specific about real searches I’ve been involved with, but I can probably provide hypothetical examples.

Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.