Ace Deuce Twist
I apparently passed the phone interview and made a good impression over the phone. This week, they let me know that they narrowed down the candidate pool, and I am one of those finalists still being considered for the position. That's the good news....and it's flattering/affirming to get noticed by them. BUT...
They also informed the finalists of an administrative decision to modify and re-classify the position as an "Instructor" rank job. That mid-game change has many obvious implications: 1) it places me onto a 10 year tenure clock, which they explicitly laid out (rather than the typical seven year timeline required to achieve tenure in academia, 2) it implies low/lower pay than that of an Assistant Professor-level position, 3) no job security, and 4) the sudden reclassification as "instructor" is a red flag--are there budget woes in their school/department? Maybe this is their way of hiring someone at a cheaper rate? These potential deal-breakers give me pause.
The ball is in my court, and I must soon indicate whether or not I'd like to continue being considered, given their modifications. If I decide to stay in the candidate pool, the next step is likely to be an in-person interview, where I will have to visit the town also known in slang as "Ace Deuce", (or "A2", or "A-squared"), where that university is located, for an on-campus interview.
I'm carefully thinking it over to avoid making a knee-jerk decision that I'll regret. Quite honestly, being put on a 10-year tenure clock at my age makes me re-think many things. It normally takes about 7 years to gain tenure, and that is already a long path to take, with no guarantees. Plenty of highly able and talented people fail at that attempt and are left looking for other options after working so hard for so long. Being placed on a ten year time clock might be OK if I were in my late 20's or even early 30's, but since that's not the case, the prospect of still worrying, in my late 40's, that I might not be promoted to Associate Professor is hard to stomach. That's true even considering that they do stop the tenure clock and give a grace period for life events such as maternity leave (which many schools typically will grant two maximum), or for personal illness/disability, or for time off to care for an ailing parent/relative/family emergency. If those applied to me, it could in theory take 12 years before I knew if I got tenure, and I'd be pushing 50, which is a scary thought.
It's not just the 10 year timeline itself that makes me question things. In my field, as in most sciences and social sciences, tenure-worthy productivity is defined by the benchmark of getting three publications per year. The rumor is that, if you have about 21-24 peer-reviewed publications after working for seven years, you're probably in good shape to be awarded tenure. For someone on a 10-year probationary clock to earn tenure, that translates into cranking out 30 articles. What a daunting task! It's not that I doubt my scholarly ability....I doubt my physical stamina/health as it means stamina is always a baseline issue. I manage well by pacing myself, but I know my own work style. And that is, I will always produce a high-quality final product. But might take me a little bit longer to do it because I have to pace myself and chip away at projects at a slow but steady pace. But I will always give things 110%. Being under the gun to produce articles at lightning speed seems somewhat artificially imposed, as innovation and ideas can happen in fits and spurts. The tenure-wringer is hard enough for people who are healthy, but what if, given my autoimmune-related fatigue, the pressures get to be too much, and pacing myself means less productivity or I crumble physically under the pressure?
The other thing is, I am 100% certain that I want to be a mom, provided I meet the right person. Short of using expensive reproductive technology, basic biology dictates that if motherhood in the cards for me, it will have to happen within that ten year time frame. Even though universities say they stop the clock for childbearing, the tenure clock can still be particularly punishing, even in subtle ways, for women who do take time out (as unfair as it is). Same deal for having to care for aging parents.
Also, I've scanned enough academic job listings in the past couple of years to know that the title of "instructor" is typically reserved for "ABD" (all-but-dissertation) applicants. Not only do I have my Ph.D. in hand, but I also have one, going on two, years of work as a post-doctoral fellow under my belt. That also makes the thought of spending four years at the "Instructor" rank before even becoming "Assistant Professor" unpalatable. In the event that I fail to produce enough articles, and am let go of as an Instructor, that's worse than those who were Assistant Professors who didn't make it to Associate rank.
I believe in starting on the right foot, and I'm not sure that an Instructor position is the right move. Am I overlooking something? Should I consider (this particular university) because being an instructor at well-regarded universities is better than being an Assistant Professor at a no-name school? Also, to be honest, the content of the job sounded interesting because half of the job duties would draw on some of my previous professional background, while the other half would be research. Is it worth considering it if I think the work would be enjoyable? Should I consider it b/c of the economy and the fact that jobs are so hard to come by these days? What if I don't take the job and then end up still looking for the right job next year this time, as my 2nd year of post-doc employment wraps up?
At this point, my post-doc mentor and my former advisor both know my hesitation. But both are telling me to avoid making a decision yet, and, if indeed invited, to go meet them in-person, as much to interview THEM, as they are interviewing me. Part of me is thinking about it, but another part of me is thinking that if I'm so slanted towards saying no, why bother going? If I am offered the job, and say no, will it just be a waste of time? Is it possible I'm going to go and fall in love with some aspect of the position or place that isn't evident to me based on what I know on paper? Is it good practice for future interviews to go interview with them to see how they operate? Is it better to leave the door open, then, if offered the job, say no thank you? There's no guarantee that I'll be offered the position. Even with only two or three people left in the pool now, there's still at most a 50/50 chance I'll be given the offer to start negotiations. Should I do everything I can do get the job offer, and then make a yes/no decision?
I hate having to make hard decisions, though I keep telling myself that the positive part is that I AM in this position. Maybe it's a high-class, or "white whine" problem. But still...what to do.
