I have to say, people, I’m very glad that I’m the most clueless and out-of-touch person on the face of this planet. When I was on the job market, I thought that the only job options open to me had the words “Assistant Professor” in the title. I had absolutely no idea that people with PhDs could apply to be instructors, lecturers, or adjuncts. And I still have no idea how these 3 positions differ.
As you know, I never read any academic blogs or websites and was certain that the only possible scenario was the following: people get a PhD, find a tenure-track job, get tenure, become Full Professor.
The terms “R-1,” “SLAC,” “teaching institution,” “4-year college” were completely unknown to me. I’m still not quite certain what they mean.
And while I was on the job market, I had to ask a friend what he meant by “TT” and “VP.” This is still kind of embarrassing.
Just think about the amount of stress and worry I saved myself just because I had this very limited knowledge.
Ignorance is bliss.
Clarissa's Blog 
TT is tenure track, I assume, but what is “VP”?
LikeLike
I’m asssuming VP is Visiting Position? But I never heard that particualr acronym. I always heard VAP (Visiting Assistant Professor.)
LikeLike
Yes, exactly, VAP. As I said, CLUELESS. 🙂
LikeLike
VP can mean “Visiting Professor” or “Vice President” Maybe also “Visiting Position” if the rank is open.
LikeLike
I can be very SLAC
LikeLike
OK, musteryou, SLAC where I come from means small liberal arts college.
LikeLike
In British style systems the ranking is lecturer, senior lecturer, assistant professor, full professor and there is no tenure. The problem with the US system is that unless you went to a US university for your PhD and were a TA you can never get an interview regardless of your publication record. I was unaware of this because the official propaganda line is that only research and publications count and teaching does not. I t turns out to be the exact opposite. So all the claims about research being important are really lies because you can not even get an interview on the basis of research and publication. You can get a tenure track job if you went to a mediocre US university and have no publications what so ever provided you were a TA.
LikeLike
Don’t forget ‘Reader’! I am very much looking forward to becoming a Reader some day. It has a certain ring to it that I quite admire. I still get quite confused by the way titles differ between the US/UK, though I must admit that I’m get a little amused thrill whenever I receive an email from an American student addressing me as Professor.
LikeLike
Actually, I never understand the title “reader.” What is that exactly? Is there an American equivalent? And thank you J. Otto Phol for laying out the British ranking system. I never quite understood the relationship between the terms “lecturer” and “professor” before. 🙂
LikeLike
Ghana for some reason has no rank of reader.
LikeLike
Replying to Evelina below: the traditional British ranking system is lecturer (roughly equivalent to an assistant professor in the US), senior lecturer (usually about 7 years into a permanent post, equivalent to an associate professor), reader (a big step up which usually requires that you demonstrate some level of internationally-distinguished research and leadership – equivalent to either a rather advanced associate professor or a junior full professor) and then professor/chair, which is reserved for the most distinguished academics. Only professors/chairs are allowed to use the title Professor. The majority of academics never make professor, however, and it is not unusual for a person to never become a reader, either. A lot of places these days are adopting a more Americanized ranking system of lecturer, associate professor and professor, and a few places have even done away with lecturer in favour of assistant prof. This is part of a larger trend in UK academia, which randomly, and often nonsensically, adopts bits and bobs from our friends across the Atlantic for no particularly good reason.
LikeLike
Id much rather be called a reader than Assistant Professor because students keep confusing this with a professor’s assistant. I have been asked things like, “When will we get to meet the actual professor?”
LikeLike
I can’t wait to become a Reader! I think it perfectly encapsulates what is at the core of my professional identity.
LikeLike
Speaking as an outsider to your field, my impression is that people who get PhDs in history in the US are not very rigorously prepared and cannot compete with historians who were educated elsewhere. The historians I use for research and read for fun are never from the US.
There are 2 reasons for that which I’m noticing. One is that there is a lack of very basic knowledge among US historians. I mentioned earlier the shock I experienced when PhD students of European history at Yale, of all places, didn’t know when or why WWI started and who fought on whose side. This was one of the most bizarre experiences of my career.
And the second reason is that US historians have taken postmodern thought way too seriously. They are so terrified of grand narratives that they never seem to advance a coherent vision of anything.
Once again, I’m an outsider to the field who uses history for my own research so I don’t insist that I’m right. All I know is that I never find what US historians do to be useful or exciting.
If you have a different explanation for why there is such a reluctance to hire non-US educated historians, do share it.
LikeLike
The problem with the US system is that unless you went to a US university for your PhD and were a TA you can never get an interview regardless of your publication record.
This is false. I have several colleagues whose doctoral degrees are from non-U. S. universities.
LikeLike
It is generally true. There is no teaching involved in getting a UK PhD and having teaching experience is considered far more important than having any number of publications for getting an interview in the US. Sure you can point to a few exceptions from Oxford and Cambridge, but nobody on any US search committee has ever heard of SOAS.
LikeLike
But that also is not a sign of great competence. If I know what SOAS is and know it’s very prestigious, how come they are unaware?
LikeLike
I think this is changing. In my department, virtually every PhD student gets some teaching experience. This was also true of where I did my own doctorate (a comparable institution – both Russell Group if that means anything to you). Likewise, we have never hired anyone without teaching experience, and I cannot imagine that we would ever dare to do so, particularly with the rising importance of the National Student Survey. I am in the humanities and I have a number of friends who have made the jump to America (though I can’t understand why). From what they have said, the biggest hurdle has been navigating a totally different application process. I wonder if it isn’t more discipline-specific, however, as I am in literature and US/UK methodology is not too different.
LikeLike
Sorry, I wanted to add that I do think you are on to something, though, and that the converse applies. When we’ve interviewed American-trained academics, I find they tend to talk way too much about teaching when we’re much more interested in their research. I also find that few American-trained academics fully grasp the pace at which research moves here, being that it is driven by the REF. But I do think that it is changing, as fees increase and ‘student satisfaction’ becomes more central.
LikeLike
Otto is talking about his field, which is history.
I can think of quite a few older scholars with non-US PhDs but nobody of my generation who has been hired recently comes to mind. I’ll keep thinking.
LikeLike
I mean, even a Canadian PhD pretty much dooms you in my field. Canadian schools want US PhDs and so do US schools.
LikeLike