From Undergrad To Tenure

[JuniperTree]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Something I've been wondering about, as yet another undergrad who dreams of reaching the pinnacle of academic freedom someday:

Of those who get PhDs, how many will find tenure track positions?
What factors make it more likely to get tenure track positions? Does it matter which grad school you get your PhD from?
As an undergrad, is there anything you wish you would have done, to make your academic career easier later on?

 

[Ollie123]

Hard to say, since not everyones goal is a tenure-track position. Certainly positions are not easy to come by, but nor are they impossible. It also depends what department you are looking in, as psychologists are frequently employed by other departments.

What factors make it more likely to get a tenure-track position? I'm not sure what you mean by this. The obvious ones: qualifications. Pubs, grants, reputation in the field, and possibly teaching (depending on the school...research universities will care less about this). It absolutely matters where you get your degree from, though it seems only to the extent that better schools will generally provide better opportunities and have more productive faculty. Someone who doesn't publish in grad school is in pretty serious trouble. Certainly where you train likely plays some role independent of actual productivity...psychology is a tight-knit field and people will want to know who you trained with.


Only thing I'd really have done differently was work on refining my overall mission. I'll have demonstrated productivity in graduate school, but I'm not convinced my research tells a clear "story" right now, which is something I need to work on.

Oh, and extremely flexibility about where you live...the academic job market is a little too tight to limit yourself geographically, at least in most cases.

 

[JuniperTree]

Hard to say, since not everyones goal is a tenure-track position. Certainly positions are not easy to come by, but nor are they impossible. It also depends what department you are looking in, as psychologists are frequently employed by other departments.

I see. So of those who want to get a tenure-track position, approximately how many succeed?

What factors make it more likely to get a tenure-track position? I'm not sure what you mean by this. The obvious ones: qualifications. Pubs, grants, reputation in the field, and possibly teaching (depending on the school...research universities will care less about this). It absolutely matters where you get your degree from, though it seems only to the extent that better schools will generally provide better opportunities and have more productive faculty. Someone who doesn't publish in grad school is in pretty serious trouble. Certainly where you train likely plays some role independent of actual productivity...psychology is a tight-knit field and people will want to know who you trained with.

That's scary.

Only thing I'd really have done differently was work on refining my overall mission. I'll have demonstrated productivity in graduate school, but I'm not convinced my research tells a clear "story" right now, which is something I need to work on.

When would you start on doing that?

 

[JuniperTree]

Oh, and extremely flexibility about where you live...the academic job market is a little too tight to limit yourself geographically, at least in most cases.

What if you're in NYC or Boston, where there are many universities?

 

[Ollie123]

Again, its really hard to say - there's no published numbers anywhere because this is a really vague question. I suspect most people who go about it the right way could eventually find SOME tenure-track job...perhaps not in psychology....perhaps after spending a very long time in post-doc....etc. It all depends on the individuals goals, and how much they want to prioritize it.

I'm not sure what is scary about that statement of qualifications...what would you expect one to need to get a tenure-track faculty job?

Limiting oneself to a single city (even Boston or NYC) would be crazy-difficult on the academic job market. Heck, most people I know applying do so across the entire US without any regard for location. Even then, several have not met with success and are doing post-docs instead.

It may be more realistic for someone who wants to work at small colleges with few research resources, or who is willing to take a "soft money" position in a med center and has demonstrated success with getting grants. If you want a university psychology department...expect to move.

 

[Born2rumble1st]

As a somewhat related question, for a person looking to have a career in academia how important is the reputation of the school you attend for your Ph.D.? I haven't gotten any formal offers yet, but from my conversations and interviews with the schools I have a feeling I will be choosing between attending a newer program (which has not yet obtained APA accreditation) and a more established program that has a pretty good rep for turning out academics. The research match is better at the newer program, but both POI's have great track records of assisting their students in publishing and obtaining internships. I also prefer the location of the newer program and LOVE the general "feel" of it as well. I guess I'm just really concerned at torpedoing my chances of obtaining a job in academia by attending such a new program.... Any thoughts?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

As a somewhat related question, for a person looking to have a career in academia how important is the reputation of the school you attend for your Ph.D.? I haven't gotten any formal offers yet, but from my conversations and interviews with the schools I have a feeling I will be choosing between attending a newer program (which has not yet obtained APA accreditation) and a more established program that has a pretty good rep for turning out academics. The research match is better at the newer program, but both POI's have great track records of assisting their students in publishing and obtaining internships. I also prefer the location of the newer program and LOVE the general "feel" of it as well. I guess I'm just really concerned at torpedoing my chances of obtaining a job in academia by attending such a new program.... Any thoughts?

From everything I've heard in the field, the "name brand" of your doctoral and internship programs matters more if your career plans involve academia (tenure-track specifically) than if they entail heading into private practice or a medical center setting. As Ollie mentioned, this is due largely to the fact that established and well-known programs often have a history of producing excellent students, are staffed by professors who are well-known in their respective fields (read: networking opportunities), and can provide a plethora of appropriate activities to their graduate students. That, and academia in psychology is a fairly "small world" so to speak; often times, who you know can be almost as important as what you know.

 

[Born2rumble1st]

From everything I've heard in the field, the "name brand" of your doctoral and internship programs matters more if your career plans involve academia (tenure-track specifically) than if they entail heading into private practice or a medical center setting. As Ollie mentioned, this is due largely to the fact that established and well-known programs often have a history of producing excellent students, are staffed by professors who are well-known in their respective fields (read: networking opportunities), and can provide a plethora of appropriate activities to their graduate students. That, and academia in psychology is a fairly "small world" so to speak; often times, who you know can be almost as important as what you know.

That is what I thought. It really stinks though because I love the newer program. Do you think that even if the school itself hasn't established a reputation, but the mentor has, that the "name brand" effect would be diminished? Because my potential mentor at the newer school has been in the field for ages, has about 100 pubs, is heavily involved in various professional organizations, has taught at name brand schools in the past, and seems to be really invested in hir graduate students' success. Not to mention that the research match is PERFECT....

Basically, I'm trying to convince myself that regardless of the pitfalls, going to the newer school wouldn't tank me professionally although my logical side is telling me otherwise. It sucks being torn between your heart and brain! 😕

 

[Mauricia]

Born2rumble1st: can you ask one of your mentors about this? i think professors would have a more accurate idea. I'm under the impression that in the field that I'm in if your mentor were well known enough, it would make up for the school not being a well established program. I think it kind of depends on how well known the mentor is and what the reputation of the school is (a new program with a good reputation v. a new program with a bad reputation)

 

[Psychology 76]

That is what I thought. It really stinks though because I love the newer program. Do you think that even if the school itself hasn't established a reputation, but the mentor has, that the "name brand" effect would be diminished? Because my potential mentor at the newer school has been in the field for ages, has about 100 pubs, is heavily involved in various professional organizations, has taught at name brand schools in the past, and seems to be really invested in hir graduate students' success. Not to mention that the research match is PERFECT....

Basically, I'm trying to convince myself that regardless of the pitfalls, going to the newer school wouldn't tank me professionally although my logical side is telling me otherwise. It sucks being torn between your heart and brain! 😕

From what I have heard, a good mentor can make up for attending a so-so or new program. It makes sense too, if your mentor helps you publish in many leading journals then it won't matter much where your PhD is from (though i'm sure it still matters somewhat). I applied to a few lesser known cognitive neuroscience phd programs but they had well known and successful professors I wanted to work with.

 

[LM02]

From what I have heard, a good mentor can make up for attending a so-so or new program. It makes sense too, if your mentor helps you publish in many leading journals then it won't matter much where your PhD is from (though i'm sure it still matters somewhat). I applied to a few lesser known cognitive neuroscience phd programs but they had well known and successful professors I wanted to work with.

Well, I can certainly see a scenario in which a "big name" mentor is recruited away from his/her institution to start a new program somewhere. In which case, I think you'll probably be in good shape. An influential, senior-level mentor who has a strong record of turning out academics is probably a fairly solid bet.

BUT I agree that, with a new program, I would get all the information you can regarding APA accreditation status, timeline, etc. I would also find out about other training opportunities - even if you want a research career, you don't want to get screwed on your clinical training because they haven't yet set up training experiences for students. For example, is there an on-site training clinic? Established connections with externship sites? Just some more things to ponder...

 

[Ollie123]

Two R01s in that short a window?....yikes. This is what makes me reluctant to take a med center position - funding should be acquired because it is necessary to do the research, it shouldn't be an end goal on its own. I see publication (or, even better...actual citation and/or application of the research) as the ideal end goal, which seems at odds with the medical-setting approach. Just get the money, and after that, squander it and otherwise f- things up as much as you want as long as people are still willing to give you more money (this is perhaps biased by what I've seen in settings that emphasize grants).

Given the need for preliminary studies and the timeline of granting agencies, that seems baffling. Even if you have R21s/R03s ready to send out the door as soon as you arrive, someone is likely 4 years into that before they are even applying for an R01 unless they are joining a team with relevant pilot data or bringing it in from a previous job. I know of plenty of places that require one R01 for tenure, but had never heard of two before.

 

[erg923]

I wouldnt say thats the academic med center model, Olllie, but I can tell you that its happens...in my own lab at least. My lab is based in the med school, and 95% of the talk is about getting the grant, writing the grant, extending the grant, and what other grants or projects we are going to attempt to take on.

Obviously, manuscript writing is important and valued, but that seems take second fidle to seeing what else what can bring in here. We always have lofty goals, such as database extensions we want to do with our currrnt data, but it takes a year to really do any of it because of the frenetic pace around here. Stuff gets lost in shuffle very easy. I guess my point is that the clinical application of our data and the overarching goal of "furthering the science" and the literature base gets lost very easily in hustle for getting grants, keeping them, and going to pointless meetings. Oh god the meetings...

 

[Ollie123]

I wouldnt say thats the academic med center model, Olllie, but I can tell you that its happens...in my own lab at least. My lab is based in the med school, and 95% of the talk is about getting the grant, writing the grant, extending the grant, and what other grants or projects we are going to attempt to take on.

Obviously, manuscript writing is important and valued, but that seems take second fidle to seeing what else what can bring in here. We always have lofty goals, such as database extensions we want to do with our currrnt data, but it takes a year to really do any of it because of the frenetic pace around here. Stuff gets lost in shuffle very easy. I guess my point is that the clinical application of our data and the overarching goal of "furthering the science" and the literature base gets lost very easily in hustle for getting grants, keeping them, and going to pointless meetings. Oh god the meetings...

Oh, I recognize there are certainly exceptions - I'm just saying that I prefer to chase the publications than the dollar signs. There's a reason I decided to pursue psychology instead of business. There's just something that seems a bit backward about someone potentially doing very high-quality research that doesn't get tenured because they didn't need money to do it. I've seen some pretty crummy work come out of large grants, and some very high quality stuff come out of projects with minimal/no funding.

Then again, that may be why the pay is often better in medical settings. I'm still a bit torn on which I'd prefer.

 

[Ollie123]

By the end of next year, I'll probably be a full-time clinician 🙂

Its back to school for me before I'd take a full-time clinical gig. A psych department (or related field anyways - I'm not tied to psychology) at an R1 would probably be ideal for me but, well...I won't be holding my breath on that one. Especially since I am coming to really enjoy teaching, much more than I thought I would.

For now, I'm just going to stay flexible. At least the epic publication lag in my lab seems to have resolved. Three submissions so far this year, two more on their way out in the next few weeks, with another handful on deck that should get out by summer! Not all are stellar, but should get into journals with an IF > 2 or so, and are on the map of respectability, even if they aren't in Abnormal. Hopefully that will make up for my 3 years of nada.

 

[erg923]

What kind of personality, environmental, and political differences did you find between psych research in med departments/schools vs university psychology departments? Just curious...

Also, It would seem to me that clinical neuropsychological research would be much more of a challenge in psychology departments (unless you were just doing theoretical psychometric stuff) than in a med school environment.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Just pull down a few 6 or 7 figure multi-year grants, publish a bunch, and network....easy, right? It really depends on the setting. A smaller college/university may have more realistic goals, but tenure positions are just as hard as larger universities.

I work at a top academic hospital/university/med school....and grant $'s trumps everything. My last two mentors just landed two multi-year grants (unrelated to each other), which buys them each multiple years of external funding AND resets their clocks for landing a grant. They still have publication #'s to meet, but it is obviously much easier to do when you have external-$ to support your efforts.

 

[LM02]

Well, just to make it clear (it is implied between the lines, but nobody has stated it explicitly), the focus on grant dollars at the med school level is not 100% about prestige or promotion, or meeting some bar that is set very high - it is largely due to survival. These are soft money environments, and if you can't support yourself on grant dollars, you don't have a job (assistant, associate or full). So it is a trade-off. Psychology departments do pay less, on average, but there is a much stronger safety net in the form of hard money.

Also, tenure is going by way of the dinosaur in most academic medical centers. So again, there are some distinct benefits such as not having a large teaching load, or having to take the time to mentor students. But the downside is that you are on the constant grant-writing hamster wheel... it never ends.

I'm an assistant professor in an academic medical setting, and there is much to love. By and large, it is the best fit for me in terms of how I like to spend my time (I don't like to teach), the populations I research, and the overall environment. And it is nice that the pay is higher. BUT the lack of a safety net is really unnerving after a while, especially as the federal budget is under attack and grant dollars are getting harder to come by. My output is also very unbalanced, as I go through phases where I'm writing more grants (and fewer manuscripts) or more manuscripts (and fewer grants).

For me, if I can't hack it, I'm not going into clinical practice. I'll go to pharma (in clinical trials auditing, for example), an independent research institute, or some kind of government work. I also wouldn't mind going into academic administration, but I'm one of the few people who enjoys that kind of thing.

 

[LM02]

I hadn't thought about clinical trial auditing. Having some experience with people doing that, I think I might find it boring. For me, what I like about research is the creative process. Without thinking about how things work, I lose interest very fast. I've also been involved in clinical trials before that were very lucrative but boring to me. The idea was not mine. I was paid to do cognitive testing as part of the outcome measures battery. No fun. I also tend to loathe the details of administration. I do enjoy having a large lab and teaching students how to do research. I'm really not sure what I'll do if I bomb out of the soft-money gig.

Well, the work I do now is in clinical trials, so it is what I know best. And although I am on the same page as you wrt the creative process, I figure I'd rather be making the big bucks and doing something a little more dry than be in clinical practice. But as I said before, I'm also the kind of person who actually likes administrative tasks (maybe I just like telling people what to do?). 😉

The grant fund drought/increased competition is definitely anxiety provoking, but what I find must frustrating is the what I call move-the-bar reviewers. Grant reviews are as idiosyncratic as journal reviews, but the consequences are much worse. If you get a goofy journal reviewers, it's no sweat to quickly submit to another. If you get a goofy grant reviewer, that's months of work and lag time in re-submission or re-configuring to submit elsewhere. The move-the-bar piece comes into play when it's obvious that you have entirely new grant reviewers. They have a different take on your work; they want to get their pound of flesh; they might acknolwedge you did everything asked and then screw you by coming up with a bunch of new crap any, in my experience, when this happens, it's usually very poorly reasoned new crap. Hate those people.

Yes, yes, and yes! It is so frustrating - especially when you spend all that time retooling things (with less space, no less!), only to find out that your idiosyncratic reviewer isn't even on the study section for the next cycle.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Well, the work I do now is in clinical trials, so it is what I know best. And although I am on the same page as you wrt the creative process, I figure I'd rather be making the big bucks and doing something a little more dry than be in clinical practice. But as I said before, I'm also the kind of person who actually likes administrative tasks (maybe I just like telling people what to do?). 😉

I'm with you on this, I actually see myself in an administrative position. There can be good money in it, but there is also a lot of politics and related issues that many clinicans would rather just avoid.

 

[Psych2012]

Hi, I'm also very interested in the likelihood of eventually getting a tenure position after PhD. Say you attend a 1st quantile institution and work really hard. Willing to relocate to anywhere. In this case, upon graduation, do most students or just a few can get a tenure position? What about after doing 2 yrs post-doc? Thank you so much!