Getting a job at a lower-ranked school

I have been on both sides of the market at schools that are not research intensive institutions and are not ranked in most economics department rankings. I have found that a lot of candidates make fairly egregious errors when trying to get jobs with us. My guess is that because most candidates are at very good departments neither them or their advisers are familiar with our market. I hope that this can serve to close this gap a little.

Where to apply 

The general rule is to apply to any job you think there is a decent chance you would take over having no job at all. That is reasonable advice. Keep in mind that your standards will go down if your market isn't going well. A lot of candidates wish they had applied more widely when their market isn't going well. 

On the other hand, we tend to be pretty strict about fields. We need to offer a full range of the typical courses, and we want to have people teaching courses they are reasonably familiar with. So if our labor economist just left, it is difficult for us to hire someone who studies monetary policy, even if we think he is better. 

There isn't much you can do about that. I am not going to recommend not applying for a job that doesn't match your field, because you never know. I would just say that if a smaller school lists a specific field that isn't yours, don't hold out hope for it. The best adjustment you can make is to figure out if there are other fields you can reasonably claim to be. Make a separate CV and cover letter that emphasizes each field you work in, and send out applications that match the job. If things proceed to the interview stage, keep in mind what fields we are looking for and adjust accordingly.

What do we want in a candidate?

 Basically, we want the same thing higher ranked schools want: a good economist. However, there are a couple things we value a little more than others. Teaching a course and getting good evaluations goes a long way and having one of your references speak to your teaching ability is helpful. We also attach a non-zero value to lower-ranked publications. A publication in the top 100-150 journals counts for tenure with us, so having one or two of those on your CV is a really good sign. At a higher ranked school these may be worth nothing or even hurt you a little because the journals don't count for tenure. These are two ways in which advisors sometimes lead candidates astray. PhD students are often told teaching and minor publications are wastes of time. Unless you are a star and you are confident you are headed to a high ranked school, this is bad advice.

Don't act too good for us

One major mistake candidates make is to massively underestimate us. Faculty at lower ranked schools do not usually publish as well as faculty at higher ranked schools. That is a function of a number of different things. We have more teaching and service commitments taking up time. We have a smaller research budget. We don't have as much pressure to publish, so we don't put in as many late nights and weekends at the office. I would say that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference, at the time of hiring, between the candidates a good teaching school hires and candidates that a school ranked in the top 100-150 hire. Everyone we have hired in the past few years have had interviews, flyouts, and sometimes even job offers at R1 schools.

That may sound like a self aggrandizing rant, but it has a purpose. Do not, as a surprising number of candidates do, approach any interview as if you are condescending to meet with inferior scholars.  I have been in interviews where candidates explained to me what things like a Nash Equilibrium or a regression were as if they didn't expect me to know. All of us have PhDs in economics and regularly publish in legitimate journals. If you act like you are better than us it really puts us off. And more importantly, if you act like you are tremendously overqualified for our job, you probably don't understand our job. We are looking for a good quality PhD candidate (and almost always find one), and that is what you are trying to sell yourself as.  

Prepare for interviews and flyouts

Before being invited for an interview at a lower ranked school, you may know next to nothing about them. Do a little research before the interview. "Why do you want to work here?" is a common question you may be asked, and you want to give a thoughtful answer. Revealing total ignorance about the school doesn't go over well. I have interviewed candidates who didn't even know what state we are in and that didn't go over well at all. When a candidate indicates they know the basics about our department - how big we are, what programs we offer, where our research strengths are, etc - it indicates they are taking the prospect of working here seriously and that makes us more likely take their candidacy seriously. 

No need to go overboard. When preparing for interviews spend 10-15 minutes perusing the website of the department interviewing you and jot down a few notes to jog your memory just before the interview. If you get a flyout, spend a little more time on the day before the flyout familiarizing yourself more with individual faculty members. 

Teaching vs research

 At non-research oriented schools, the emphasis on teaching versus research varies considerably. Even among my own colleagues, I know some feel we are educators first and that, as long as someone can publish enough to meet our tenure standards, teaching is the priority. Others feel that research is what makes our reputation and that, as long as someone is a decent teacher, we want the best researchers we can hire. 

So what can you do about this? My best advice is to let your interviewers or flyout hosts take the lead. If they ask a question about research, give a thorough and  thoughtful answer about research. Don't give a one sentence answer or try to shoehorn teaching into your answer because you think we only care about teaching. Similarly, if you get asked a question about teaching give a thorough and thoughtful answer about teaching. 

Sometimes schools ask you to explicitly state your priorities between teaching and research. This is a tough question. Different people want different answers. I could see some of my colleagues responding to "I prioritize research" by thinking that the candidate is going to shirk teaching duties and not be a good teacher. I could see others responding to "I prioritize teaching" by thinking that the candidate will do as little research as they can get away with (which is pretty close to zero once you get tenure!). Also, you generally want to avoid dishonesty or giving fake answers purely to cater to what you think people want to hear. The best answer I can think of is something like "Teaching and research are both things I value. I hope to have opportunities to do some of both, but I don't have strong preferences about the ratio between them. I know that different institutions have different expectations, and my goal for this job search is to find the opportunity that is the best fit for me professionally and personally, and then adapt to the expectations of that job." 

Meeting with students

 During flyouts at lower-ranked, more teaching oriented, schools it is common to have candidates spend some time with students. It might be a lunch with a few of them or it might be a sample lecture. How much this matters really varies. Some schools have students who are voting members of the hiring committee. Others just survey  students a candidate interacts with. In any case, the best policy on your part is to be positive about the experience. Try to engage the students as much as possible and say positive things to faculty members about the experience of meeting with them. When dealing with students act like a good faculty member should. Friendly and supportive but professional. Accessible but appropriate.