Quick thread for those on the academic job market on structuring a cover letter. Here's how I do it (take or leave, of course!). Thread/
First, two notes:
1-This is structured for TT jobs with a research focus/emphasis. Would re-structure for teaching-oriented jobs.
2-I frame my work in two broad orienting questions/areas of interest. I work hard on coming up with these; it’s super helpful. 2/
So the letter:
Introductory paragraph. Who you are, where you are coming from, your interests, anything particular/unique about you, or statements that synthesize how awesome you are in a way that sings (your CV doesn’t sing, it just lists).
3/
Research paragraph 1:
*Begin with first big orienting question
*Describe what you’ve done (broad findings, data used)
*Describe specific next ideas (next immediate papers you'll write)
*Close with long term goal (in 6 yrs, what will your work in this area have accomplished?) 4/
Repeat with second research interest.
[Note: change these as much as necessary. They might need to be longer than a paragraph, or you might really just want to explicate ONE big research interest.] 5/
I then include a paragraph about how my work is distinctive methodologically. (I use multiple methods, so I focus on that.) This could also be a spot to highlight distinct theories you apply; intersections of fields that you distinctly occupy; or sophisticated/unique methods. 6/
Next para: teaching and mentoring, including basic philosophies and specific teaching interests. If possible, tailor to the department (e.g. note which degree and areas programs in the department you could teach in, specific courses they have or that you could add). 7/
Final para: the institution you are applying at. I highlight:
*how I fit in the dept
*centers at the college/university I'd connect with
*other dept/schools I might work with
This is not throwaway. I spend significant time researching this paragraph. 8/
That's it. I aim for two pages total. The research paragraphs can be blown out longer for research statements; similar for teaching/mentoring. I flip order depending on what the search is for (lead with the interest that best fits the ad). 9/
Practically, I keep a blank template version that has highlighted all the places that require tailoring- e.g. names of departments/schools, courses/degree programs that are specific etc. (Avoid "find and replace" failure at all costs!!) End/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you're submitting an Academy Health annual research meeting abstract, here is my short advice thread on writing a good abstract, mostly based on my experience having reviewed abstracts... @AcademyHealth
1 - Spend a lot of time honing the research objective section. Make it compelling. Make sure you are compelling beyond your study/population by directly linking to larger questions in the field. This is hard, but *really* worth it. (For papers too!! But that's for another day)
2- Give disproportionate words to the results (rough estimate I'd put at least 1/3 of your 500 words to results). Hardest part of assessing abstracts is identifying rigorous vs. not rigorous work. More results text helps. Include numbers when relevant.
COVID led to increased gender disparities in publishing, particularly among more junior cohorts of women. "Our findings suggest that the first wave of the pandemic has created potentially cumulative advantages for men." journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…
It seems like this is generally well known, and yet also generally not being systematically accounted for in hiring or promotion, which means we should expect increased gender disparities in the academic ladder to follow.
Great paper from this fall: shows that state laws restricting firearms among people with domestic violence history are associated with substantial reductions in homicide of pregnant and postpartum women. Led by @maeveellen
Authors tease apart different flavors of policy: prohibiting vs. relinquishing firearms, and for those under domestic violence restraining orders vs. those convicted of DV misdemeanors. Overall, effect size differs but direction is same, even with low N and rare events.
My takeaway is that (1) all of these policies are likely reducing homicides, but (2) stricter policies (requiring relinquishment) reduce them more, especially among prior DV offenders.
A thread of questions white academics might use as a starting point to reflect on our own role in perpetuating racism in academia.
I start with counting (to force us to reckon with hard numbers) and then go to reflections (to force us to reckon with silence):
1/
- how many of the students I advise are students of color?
- what proportion of readings I assign on my syllabus are written by scholars of color?
- what proportion of my course do I devote to issues related to equity?
- what proportion of my grants have only white co-investigators?
- how many of my grants include an equity component or focus?
- what proportion of my papers have only white coauthors?
- what proportion of citations in my papers are to scholars of color?
A thread for profs and insturctors (especially white profs) on making your course content more explicitly inclusive, equity-focused, and anti-racist.
I teach an introductory course for our first year PhD students, and I'm sharing how I currently approach this in this thread. 1/
My course is "Introduction to health services and health policy research". We cover the major areas, foundational studies, and debates in our field. (For example, small area variation, payment policy, improvement and implementation science.) 2/
The course is a PhD seminar style, so three hours once a week. First, every week, I include at least one reading that is at the intersection of equity and the topic for the week. e.g. we have a week on health insurance, and we read about health insurance disparities. 3/
Are you aware of NIH research supplements to promote diversity? It's basically extra money that can be tacked on to an existing grant to support researchers from underrepresented backgrounds. Awesome for these reasons (short thread keep clicking plz)... grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/p…
These are generous and can support individuals at variety of levels, including jr faculty, post-docs, PhD/master's students, undergrads. For jr faculty they are roughly equivalent to two years of K funding (75% FTE for two years!!!). For PhD students, could cover a yr of funding.
They are **administrative supplements** which mean they are reviewed by the institutes and not regular study sections. Amongst other things, this means they are much quicker. In general they also have a much higher success rate (e.g. a lot of these get funded).