A thread of advice and tips for applying to tenure-track academic jobs.
Having served on a few search committees now, here are some things I wish I had known.
Disclaimers: free advice is often worth exactly what you paid for it, YMMV, etc. 1/
Having served on a few search committees now, here are some things I wish I had known.
Disclaimers: free advice is often worth exactly what you paid for it, YMMV, etc. 1/
Be sure to put all crucial information in your CV. You may think that since it’s called a “cover" letter, we will read that first, but actually, we will almost always look at your CV first. 2/
Two super important things that about half of applicants leave off their CVs entirely are the title of their dissertation, and the members of their dissertation committee. Definitely include these!!! 3/
On the topic of CVs, make your CV as *easy* to read as possible. Use standard categories and standard ordering. If I notice the formatting of your CV at all, it’s going to be because I am annoyed by it. 4/
Your CV is not the place to try to impress us with your mad formatting skillz. As a general rule, make your CV super boring and your cover letter super interesting. The CV is where I go to *quickly* look up basic facts. 5/
Somehow, word seems to have gotten out among graduate students that a cover letter should be *exactly* two pages - not one word more or less. This is false. 6/
While it’s true that it doesn’t look great if your letter is super short, I’ve never heard any member of any committee complain if a letter is slightly longer than 2 pages. Letters of 2 ½ pages are not rare and don't make us angry. 7/
I would MUCH rather read a 2 ½ page letter than a 2-page letter with a microscopic font and ½-inch margins, or even worse, a letter that leaves out important information to arbitrarily fit into exactly 2 pages! 8/
And yet, otherwise awesome candidates send us microscopic-font, no-margin, exactly 2-page letters all. the. time. We generally don't hold it against them, but it's still super annoying. Please unlearn this "rule"! 9/
Be sure to cover *both* teaching and research in your cover letter. Don’t presume to know whether we are a “teaching school” or a “research school.” That’s for us to decide. Even teaching-focused schools will need to know about your research to get you tenure, and vice versa. 10/
If you already have a job at a peer institution or better, you *must* explain in your cover letter why you would ever want to have our job! Otherwise, we’re forced to make wild assumptions about how maybe you're just using us for leverage or are about to be denied tenure. 11/
In fact, *everyone* should say at least something about our school and why they might want to come here in their cover letter. Yet so many people don’t even mention the name of our school at all! 12/
We don’t have the time and resources to waste on applicants unless we are pretty sure they might ever actually come here. The time to start making that case is *as soon as possible.* Don’t wait for the campus visit to convince us, or else you won’t ever make it that far. 13/
If the application requires a writing sample, do *not* give us a published article only distantly related to your main research project/dissertation/book manuscript. No matter how "polished" you think it is. That won't help us at all, and if anything hurts your case. 14/
If we were to hire you, we would be gambling everything on your *main* research project. That is what will mostly comprise your tenure case. We need it to succeed! But how can we assess if it has a chance, if you don't even show it to us? 15/
It's astonishing how many people spend 2 or 3 grafs talking up their main project in their cover letter, only to give us a completely unrelated published article. Far better to give us a slightly imperfect piece from the main project than a "polished" article of no relation. 16/
In general, do not waste any time applying to jobs for which you do not meet *every* single one of the basic qualifications (it's okay if you don't meet all of the "preferred" qualifications). 17/
It's probably not news to you that there is a massive glut of over-qualified PhDs in almost every academic field, any of whom would probably do great. 18/
Meanwhile, the well-meaning members of the search committee are most likely overworked and reading your one file among hundreds late at night or early in the morning in between their family commitments and their full-time day job(s). 19/
You might think that you will get a chance to "make your case" in your cover letter, but as mentioned, CVs get read first. If we see you don't meet one of the basic qualifications, the brutal truth is that we might not even make it to reading your letter in full. 20/
But even if we *did* read your letter, and even if we *were* somewhat persuaded by your "case," the job ad text usually had to be cleared with one or more deans, perhaps an academic policy committee, and often even the college president/chancellor's office. 21/
Hiring you despite some crucial missing qualification would require us to persuade various levels of the bureaucracy to make special exceptions. Even if we're willing to try, the possibility of a failed search might not be a risk we can afford to take. 22/
On a related note, I don't recommend trying to fool us or "massage" your CV to make it look like you are in the field we need when in fact you are actually in an adjacent or only somewhat similar field. 23/
We're not dumb. We all have PhDs, and frankly, we've been doing this longer than you.
I promise you, we will definitely see through your attempts at subterfuge. 24/
I promise you, we will definitely see through your attempts at subterfuge. 24/
We also have very large professional networks, between all of us. If we have any doubts or concerns, we'll call around to our colleagues and find out the truth. 25/
One particularly common tactic is to try to take advantage of differences in local terminology. Certain schools like to rename basic concepts with quirky terms of their own. Like calling Teaching Assistants "Teaching Fellows," or "Preceptors," or somesuch. 26/
If you are upfront about what your duties entailed, there is no problem with these terms whatsoever, but it's surprising how often people try to take advantage of terminological differences to pass themselves off as having done more than they actually did.
Not a good look. 27/
Not a good look. 27/
