1. I would like to be considered for the position of [title copied from job ad] in [exact department name from job ad] at the [exact institution name from job ad]. I am an advanced doctoral candidate in [your department].
Yes, indeed, except that this sentence contains feeling-talk (I would like) that job candidates routinely overuse. I would recommend, “I am writing in application to the position…” While “I would like” is not a problem in isolation, added to the rest of the feeling-talk that Howard recommends in later sentences, it becomes a bit excessive. The bottom line about feelings in job letters is that candidates always think that their strong feelings are the key to getting jobs, and if they just communicate their “passion” and “excitement,” and “eagerness,” that will surely get them hired. Remember that you and 250 other people are all trying to pitch the same passion, eagerness and excitement, and it’s old before you even start. Actually, what gets you hired is SHOWING, rather than telling, that you have pursued an energetic course of research, publication and teaching, without recourse to cheap emotion words.
2. My doctoral project is a study of [cocktail party description]. Much of the research on this topic suggests that [characterize the literature as woefully inadequate]. But I [demonstrate, reveal, discover] that contrary to received wisdom, [your punch line].
3. To complete this research I have spent [X years] doing [fieldwork/lab work/archival work/statistical analysis]. I have traveled to [these cities or libraries], interviewed [X number of experts], created [original datasets/original compositions/original artwork].
Howard elaborates: “This sentence should be followed by a paragraph with the story of your research process. Overwhelm the committee with the volume of artifacts you’ve studied, people you’ve talked to, time you have dedicated or places you’ve been.”
The sentence itself is indeed essential. Search committees need to know what you examined. However, never, ever, EVER “overwhelm” a search committee with information, and good god don’t write a “story” of your research “process”!! 9 out of 10 job candidates believes that their dissertation is SO fascinating, SO compelling, SO urgent, SO earth-shattering that they would gladly overwhelm every person they meet with endless quantities of minutiae about it, AND the endless tale of how they discovered this, and then turned to that, and then developed an interest in this (see below), and then were “fortunate enough to have the opportunity to” do that…etc. etc. ad nauseum. Ain’t nobody got time for that. Deliver this information crisply, factually, in no more than 2 sentences.
4. I have completed [X] of [Y] chapters of my dissertation, and I have included two substantive chapters as part of my writing sample.
This is ok, although telling them what chapters you have finished in the dissertation is less important than telling them a concrete defense date in the first sentence, in my view. Talk is cheap, but a defense date doesn’t lie.
5. I have well-developed drafts of several other chapters, and expect to defend in [month, year]. OR Having defended in [month, year], I plan to [turn it into a book-length manuscript for a major scholarly press/select key chapters for publication in disciplinary journals].
Howard elaborates: “If any of your committee members are unwilling to commit to even a season of the year for your defense date, or you don’t have two substantive chapters to submit to the hiring committee, it’s too early for you to be on the academic job market.”
He is absolutely right about plans for publication. He is mostly right about the too early to go on the market, except that sometimes it is good to go on the market early to get your worst mistakes out of the way while your still have a cushion of time, affiliation, and, we presume, support.
6. Although my primary area of research is [disciplinary keyword here], I have additional expertise in [another disciplinary keyword here] and am eager to teach in both areas. I have [taught/served as a teaching assistant] in courses about [A, B and C]. In the next few years, I hope to develop courses in [X and Y].
Of course you must describe teaching competencies, but don’t do it with vague claims and emotion-talk. Eager? Hope? How does that help us? Again, 250 other people will resting their cases on exactly the same feelings. Give us facts and specifics instead.
7. For the most part, my approach to research is through [social science or humanistic method keyword here], and I would be interested in developing a methods class on this approach to research.
All candidates need to be prepared to teach both specialized classes related to their research, and bread-and-butter classes such as Intro, Methods, and Theory. Thus, he is correct that you should be able to discuss a methods class. However, again, he reverts to feeling-talk (“I would be interested”). Candidates overuse the word interest almost as much as they overuse the words passion and excited, and are often already so self-involved that their letters devolve into an endless vortex of “I am interested in xxxx, and I have an additional interest in yyy, and I would be interested in teaching zzzz, and I have a great interest in the work of pppp and my interests in qqqq coincide…..” It’s an addiction. I have a whole post on it called, “Nobody Cares What You Are Interested In.” By which I mean, don’t TELL search committees that you’re interested in this or that. SHOW them you’re interested with specifics.
8. Although I have been focused on my graduate research for several years, I have been actively involved in conversations with [scholars in the department you are applying to, or scholars at other universities/professional associations/conferences/other disciplines].
What? How do conversations help anything? Talk is cheap, and anybody can converse, particularly a grad student, about his dissertation. That does not distinguish you.
Howard elaborates, “This can be the one paragraph about service, highlighting conferences you’ve attended, workshops you’ve organized, and other ways you’ve supported your discipline.”
The key here is conferences. Those are peer-reviewed and your attendance at them will set your record apart. Never hang your hat on service.
9. In the next few years, I hope to be able to investigate [reasonably related problems or questions].
Everybody needs a second project. However, please don’t articulate it in vague aspirational feeling language like “hope.” Are you really that unsure? That doesn’t inspire confidence. And while we’re on the subject, don’t try, attempt, endeavor, or seek, either. Read my post: Do. Or Do Not. There Is No Try.
10. I am interested in this post for a variety of reasons: [something about the character of the department/university/community/city].
This is tailoring, and it’s essential.
11. Because of my graduate training, my doctoral research, and my teaching [experience/interests], I am uniquely qualified for this job.
Oh good god. Really? Uniquely qualified? Did your mom tell you that?
When a search committee reads 250 letters that each say the applicant is “uniquely qualified” (which, by the way, they do already as it is, even without his post telling them to), those words are emptied of meaning. They constitute pitiful, desperate rhetoric. Connect your achievements and record with the position without recourse to wheedling claims.
12. In the next few months, I will be attending [conference A] and [conference B]. If you or your colleagues are also planning to attend, I would be happy to meet for an informal conversation.
To my eye this also reads as desperate. The academic job search is a “don’t call us, we’ll call you” situation. If they want you, they’ll ask.
Shoot for two and a half pages of content: less than that and you might not seem like an advanced doctoral candidate well -immersed in a project; more than that and committee members may stop reading.
No, two pages is plenty. He is opening many doors here, through the constant emotion and interest talk, for excessive and self-involved verbiage. Good editing and a focus on the facts rather than feelings easily keep letters within two pages.
As you write, drop in the names of granting agencies that have supported you, or the journals that are publishing or reviewing your work.
Ideally several faculty members will write letters on your behalf. If possible, at least one letter-writer can come from a university other than yours. Hiring committees love reference letters on different university letterheads; it shows that you have social capital beyond your home department.
100% agreed. I have a blog post on this subject–“Why You Need a Recommender From Outside Your Department.”
Address your letter to the person heading the search or the department head. A greeting such as “Dear Committee Members” shows you haven’t done enough research. Ask a friend to proofread your document for grammar and spelling.
Finally, follow up with the department. Hiring committees do not always tell candidates whether they are on the shortlist. If you finish another dissertation chapter, or get an article published, a few weeks after submitting your letter, submit an update by email and ask that this example be added to your file and where the committee is in the hiring process.
Follow up with additional information like this, yes. However, don’t follow up to querulously ask if you’ve been short-listed, etc. Candidates are always asking me when they should do that. Don’t do that. Again: “don’t call us, we’ll call you.”