Thread by @SciBry

It’s job application time in academia, so here’s one useful tip. When writing about your past work or future plans, think about the verbs you use.

Avoid pedestrian plans, in which you will use, study, interpret, accomplish, continue, constrain, perform, characterise, ...

... monitor, run, process, confirm, extend, confirm, work on, work with others to, fill gaps, map, focus, am interested in, be involved in, further investigate, measure, place limits on, or work to answer.

These all give the subliminal impression of incremental work.

Instead set out to discover, transform, unveil, understand, resolve, reveal or be the first to, etc.

Also (sparingly!) throw in adjectives like “spectacular”, “unique”, “first”, etc.

This is not just window dressing. You need to force yourself to think of the ways your work is new and important. Using verbs that reflect that will force you to talk about exciting ideas; otherwise the whole thing won’t make sense.

Your initial goal for a job application is to get past that first round of triage, where there are hundreds of applications and the reader is only spending limited time on each one.

You need to make clear what you want to do and why it will make a difference.

Using these “power verbs” (credit to Sean Farrell for coining this term) can make a big difference, and can help ensure the full committee takes a good look at what you have to offer.

More thoughts:

At the start of your research statement, don’t just state the topics you work on. Explain the problems you want to solve and the questions you want to answer.

Get to the point. Don’t give extensive basic background if this is stuff the committee members already know.

My own personal take on faculty job applications: get straight into your future plans.

Yes, you want to explain your previous work, but do it as part of the background for your future work.

If the reader has to get through 2-3 pages of old stuff before getting to what you will bring to their department, you run the risk that they will lose interest before they get to to the good stuff.

One important difference between postdoc jobs and faculty applications.

For a postdoc, usually they want to hear about how you’ll fit right in. Emphasise the commonalities and overlaps.

For a faculty job, it’s almost the opposite. The department probably wants someone who will add a new dimension. So mention possible connections or synergies, but emphasise all the opportunities you will add or create.

Read the job ad carefully. A good job ad will list specific criteria that the choice will be based on. If those are given, make sure you explicitly respond to every selection criterion. Join the dots & tell the reader how you meet the requirements. Don’t leave it in their hands!

Customise your job application if you have the time. It’s super obvious when someone is sending identical applications everywhere, just with the department name changed.

Mention people, programs, courses or facilities you want to work with or benefit from. Google is your friend.

Don’t just assert that your perspective or expertise will be of great value to the department. Explain how! It’s ok to mention gaps in what they offer or work on, which you think you can fill.

Match your ambitions to the scope of the job.

If it’s a 3-year position, don’t claim you will solve everything, but come up with a realistic 3-year plan.

If it’s a tenure track position, think big! Don’t describe your plans for the next 2 years, but set out the next 5-10 years.

And possibly THE MOST IMPORTANT TIP OF ALL.

Have someone who’s sat on search committees read your application beforehand! Their above might not be definitive or unique, but they will point out all sorts of things you might not have thought about.

You’re shooting yourself in the foot if you don’t get other people to check through everything before submitting it.

Now some thoughts that are perhaps more specific to science and to astronomy.

Split up your publication list into first-author, 2nd/3rd author, and then everything else.

It’s ok to list papers that are submitted but not accepted, ideally if you can give a web link so the reader can see the paper.

But DON’T LIST PAPERS IN PREPARATION!

These are not real papers. They don’t count. All you’re doing is telling the reader you’re insecure about your publication list and wish you had published more.

Invited talks, if you’re fortunate night to have any, count for a lot. But make them easy to find. Have 3 clear sections in your CV:

• Genuine invited talks, at conferences

• Other talks at conferences

• Colloquia & seminars (these don’t count as invited talks!)

And I’ll finish with a controversial opinion.

Unless there are some relevant special circumstances like illness or career interruption, don’t list all the jobs you’ve been offered but declined!

It’s intellectually dishonest to take credit for the things you chose not to do, and it’s insulting to those who were ultimately offered these opportunities.