The Successful Clinical Applicant

page 1 of 3123next »

The Successful Clinical Applicant

Realist (guest) 23 Oct 2014 15:14

To those of you with a success story who have been applicants to assistant prof. positions in clinical in the past or who are experiencing success now, and to those of you on clinical search committees: Besides fit (which is important, but definitely overstated in my opinion), what are the metrics of a successful application in a research intensive department and university? The reason why I ask is, this is my second year on the job market, and although it is still early, things are still not looking good for me (no interest from about 70% of institutions I applied to), so I want to know if my ambitions are simply out of reach. I'd hate to be like the person on American Idol who thinks they can make it one day, but who do not have the skill or talent (or patience to develop skill) to actually make it. I am OK with not being able to make it in academia, and although I am extremely passionate about academia, I am also a realist that wants to make a decent living and start their lives. In other words, I know if I stick it out for another 4-5 years my chances will be much better, but I am simply disinterested in doing that (I am baffled and humbled by people who have been postdocing for 5+ years….one or two years is a max in my opinion, and then with every passing year after that, there are considerable diminishing returns).

To make a long story short, I have 11 published peer-reviewed papers, a few chapters, a number of graduate scholarships (but no grants), and 0 years of postdoc experience. Where am I going wrong? I have been told that my record is very good, but I am finding that it is still not enough to generate interviews. Is the field simply just too flooded with amazing applicants?

Apologies about the rant, but the state of the field is frustrating and, in my opinion, unsustainable.

ClinAnon (guest) 23 Oct 2014 15:47

I think that things are super competitive and there's a large amount of randomness as well. I was on the market last year (for R1 clinical psych programs), applied to 5 programs, had interviews at 3, and no offers. At the time, I think I had 30+ publications, 25 or so first-authored, many in top to strong journals, and was PI on two NIH grants (totaling around $1 million). I'm applying very selectively this year, and so far haven't heard any positive news.

Realist (guest) 23 Oct 2014 15:57

ClinAnon - First of all, congratulations on an INCREDIBLE record. This only underscores my point; if people like yourself with 30+ publications and two major grants are struggling to find entry level positions in academia, what chances do people like me have? I would say I need another 5-10 years to develop a record like yours, and I am simply not waiting around that long for a job. Its just not worth it for me.
But I do take your point that CV and experience are not everything…but if you take the only thing that is controllable (i.e., your record) out of the equation, what remains is a complete lottery.

ClinAnon (guest) 23 Oct 2014 16:10

Well, but this is where fit and randomness comes in. At one of the schools I interviewed with, they hired an application who had I believe 10-15 pubs, and no grant experience. So, I don't think your publication/grant record precludes you from landing a job at a R1 school.

Realist (guest) 23 Oct 2014 16:19

ClinAnon - That's fair. I wonder how often these opportunities come along, but I do see your point though. Thank you for this reality check.

dude (guest) 23 Oct 2014 16:20

Some component of it also depends on who you know or who you know knows etc….or for that matter…who another candidate knows or who their advisor knows. If you're looking at a bunch of candidates, know their advisor or recommenders well—it might boost you up. Either that…or maybe we're all really being randomly assigned to condition :)

Realist (guest) 23 Oct 2014 16:33

Dude…I think we're the waitlist condition :P

Re: The Successful Clinical Applicant

DocJ 23 Oct 2014 16:48

Others have good insight, but I wanted to note that one element of randomness comes from the type of institution you apply to.

Obviously, R1 universities will look at publication and grant track records, but things get more nebulous at liberal arts colleges and even some R2s. At many of these institutions, significant research accomplishment looks great to a search committee. At liberal arts colleges featuring a 3/2 or "heavier" teaching load, when we get an applicant with tremendous research accomplishment, we often question - "but does this candidate know how to teach and involve students?" or more often, "why is such a great applicant applying here; are we just a back-up option where he/she will jump ship for the first R1 opportunity?"

So, this ties-in with fit. A strong research candidate can land great positions in non-R1 institutions, but will need to significantly address teaching and enthusiasm for working with students. Otherwise, the search committee at liberal arts colleges or similar institutions may well pass on such "strong" candidates. For those of you who fear you lack a massive publication or grant track-record, there's hope - so long you consider some non-R1 options.

BeenThere (guest) 23 Oct 2014 16:50

Realist, I have to say that your opinion (that fit is overrated) is off, in my view. SO MUCH depends on fit. Usually searches start with a general idea of the topic area you want (depression, anxiety, behavior genetics, childhood psychopathology, substance abuse, etc.). That topic is, itself, based typically on fit with existing strengths (and what existing weaknesses). So, then the search committee winnows the pool down based on publications and scholarly accomplishments. Once you get your top 3 folks (for interviews), they are generally all seen as on a level playing field: All of them "on paper" are thought to make the grade or they would not be interviewed at all. I have been in academics for over 20 years and no department I've been in or search I've been involved with included interviewing someone whose academics credentials were not "on paper" hire-able. (an interview cannot make up for, say, lack of pubs. The person would not be interviewed at all if the pubs were weak).

So, the big question honestly becomes one of fit, broadly defined. In terms of the person's scholarly interests, is there a good fit to what the department needs. In terms of his or her presentation, can we see them teaching at our institution and being a great mentor in our department? And finally, especially for colleagues in the same area, are you interested in having this person around you for the rest of your career?

Realist (guest) 23 Oct 2014 17:20

BeenThere - Thank you for these comments. Are you saying the total pool applicants is usually initially narrowed down based on "fit" (then the remaining people who fit are further narrowed down by their records), or does "fit" usually become more important in the latter stages of the search (during or after interviews), having had the applicants first narrowed down by their record? i.e, fit plays a role during all stages or just in the last stage?

DocJ - I agree, someone with my record may have a better chance in SLACs (maybe even some R2s). I love teaching, but it is not where my passion lies. If I had to pick between non-RI or R2 institutions (i.e., liberal arts colleges/universities) and Clinical work, I would probably be happier with a clinical career. Having said that, I know lots of people who would pick SLACs over R1s any day, just not me. So, in other words, I am applying where I think I will be the happiest.

page 1 of 3123next »