Imagine a full professor who served as the head and dean in Russia. Definitely, he has good chance to be appointed as VP in Russian (but unlikely in UK as the education systems are different and his experiences cannot be applied directly).

Now, if he apply for a faculty position in a UK university along a colleague who had no administrative position (then, he published more papers and supervised more graduate students). Which one has a better chance to get the position?

My hypothesis: Administrative positions are valuable if someone want to get the next job in the same country or countries with similar education systems.

My question: If someone wishes to take a faclty job in a different country, is it useful to spend time for administrative jobs in his home country OR it is better to focus on academic/research matters, which are global and appreciated anywhere?

2 Answers 2


In general, being a university administrator (e.g., Dean or Provost) is good experience for being a university administrator. I do not recall any high level administrators changing countries, so my guess is that the experience is country specific. For traditional research and teaching faculty positions, prior experience as a university administrator is not helpful. While hiring committees try and take into account the "lost time" associated with being an administrator, in general, I think administrators trying to switch tracks are at a disadvantage.


It depends. While as you say a researcher without any administrative duty is likely to have more papers, hiring committees are often not only looking for people that publish a lot but also for people that will 'contribute' to a department by doing their share of collective tasks.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .