Pearls of Wisdom–The Blog

~~ You tell the truth, you tell it well. In the crowded and fetid swamp that is the job market, that is oxygen.” – a reader

Love the blog? Now get it in handy book form!


Buy it at all these places!

indiebound-button-graphicamazon-button-graphicbn-button-graphic target_retailer googlebooks-button-graphic New iBooks Badge - 11 12

It also makes a great gift for all those struggling grad students in your life!

For bulk orders for use in classes, seminars, and workshops, please call Crown Publishing  (Random House) Customer Service at 1-800-733-3000.



The definitive career guide for grad students, adjuncts, post-docs and anyone else eager to get tenure or turn their Ph.D.  into their ideal job.

Karen Kelsky has made it her mission to help readers join the select few who get the most out of their Ph.D. As a former tenured professor and department head who oversaw numerous academic job searches, she knows from experience exactly what gets an academic applicant a job. And as the creator of the popular and widely respected advice site The Professor is In, she has helped countless Ph.D.’s turn themselves into stronger applicants and land their dream careers.

Now, for the first time ever, Karen has poured all her best advice into a single handy guide that addresses the most important issues facing any Ph.D., including:

-When, where, and what to publish
-Writing a foolproof grant application
-Cultivating references and crafting the perfect CV
-Acing the job talk and campus interview
-Avoiding the adjunct trap
-Making the leap to nonacademic work, when the time is right

The Professor Is In addresses all of these issues, and many more.

If you would like your academic career to begin in delusion and end in disillusionment, then by all means, ignore Karen Kelsky. If, however, you want unvarnished straight talk about the academic job market—and how to navigate it—then heed her, and heed her now.” —Rebecca Schuman, education columnist for Slate.



I post once a week, usually on Friday, on topics related to the academic job market, academic life and politics, general professionalization skills related to writing, publishing, conferencing, networking, and scholarly comportment, and the tenure process.

I also put up posts on the Post-Ac/Non-Ac job search by my Panel of Post-Ac Experts, on Monday or Tuesday.

Let me know if there’s a topic you want to see me post on!  I am always happy to put Special Requests into the queue. Comment here, or email me at:

You can  always get to a particular Category by clicking it in the Categories column to the right.———>

Please note that as of January 2013  the rate of comments to this blog has exceeded my ability to respond individually to each one. I’m sorry that not all comments will get a personal response by Dr. Karen.  If you have a really pressing question, do consider getting in touch to get on my calendar to work together.  I strive to make services affordable to all.

Here’s a short glossary to help you follow the discussions in the blog:


TT– tenure track


VAP–visiting assistant professor (position)


ABD–all but dissertation (status)


SLAC–small liberal arts college


R1–top ranked research-intensive institution with Ph.D.-granting departments, such as University of California at Berkeley, University of Michigan, etc.


R2–research institution with primarily MA-granting departments

Ph.D. Debt Survey Revisited

Remember my Ph.D. Debt Survey (who could forget it?) — my crowdsourced google spreadsheet from 2014, of volunteered reader debt information from their undergraduate and graduate studies?  (It’s still open–feel free to add your own info using the form)* It’s not a scientific survey, but it contains lots of individual stories of graduate school debt, including not a few humanities Ph.D.s with debt of over $200,000 and a Psychology Ph.D. with debt of $350K.
Well, reader Tanim Islam (Ph.D. Physics) got in touch recently to tell me that he had gone to the trouble of providing us with a bit of statistical analysis of the results, divided between STEM and non-STEM fields.  Here it is.
Thank you, Tanim!
I have done some rudimentary analysis on your google docs spreadsheet, which I have linked to here. I found of the 2987 current records (as of 7 November 2015, 10:57 PDT), that I define 2882 records as valid: the record has a total current debt that is not none, and a field of study that isn’t blank or stated as unknown. Of these 2882 entries:
  • 400 are in STEM fields.
  • 2482 are in non-STEM fields.
I have identified the list of 84 fields in the 2882 records that are STEM. I have identified a list of 247 fields in the 2882 records that are non-STEM. I have not done especially thorough systematics to determine how accurate was my classification.
In any case, I have summarized the statistics:
  • for the 400 graduate degree holders in STEM fields in your survey:
    • 196 / 400 (49%) have no current debt.
    • The median debt is $1500.
    • The mean debt is $22,548.
    • The maximum debt is $186,000, reported by a biology major who defends in 2014.
  • For the 2482 graduate degree holders in non-STEM fields in your survey:
    • 567 / 2482 ( 22.8%) have no current debt.
    • The median debt is $40,000.
    • The mean debt is $56,047.
    • The maximum debt is $750,000, reported by an English major who completed their degree in 2012.**
I also have distributions of debts for STEM and non STEM degree holders.
Here they are:
Science (STEM) Debt

Science (STEM) Debt

Humanities and Social Science (Non-STEM) Debt

Humanities and Social Science (Non-STEM) Debt

I hope this is useful.
*Here is the form!

**I have to believe that this is a typo… while a number of humanities Ph.D.s had debt well over $200K, $750K is hard to fathom. I realize if this is the case, it throws off the stats, but I share them nonetheless mainly because I want to give readers another chance to visit the Ph.D. debt survey, and I appreciate that Tanim went to this trouble.

The Dreaded Fit Question Comes First! (by Kellee Weinhold)

by Kellee Weinhold, TPII Interview Intervention Master

Kellee, accompanied by Penelope the Rabbit.

I’m inundated with Interview Interventions right now, doing 4 a day, every day this month.  Let’s just say, I’ve worked with a LOT of interview candidates. By this point in the year, one advantage of the volume is that I have the ability to see patterns both in the mistakes the clients make, and in the current questions that clients get asked. Many report their experiences back to me, and so I get an amazing snapshot of interview trends across the country.

It was one of those reports that prompted this post.

This came from a client this week: “Thanks for a fantastic intervention. As you had suggested, the ‘why did you apply to this job/what caught your eye about this job’ question was the FIRST question they asked.”

The client went on: “I’m so glad we practiced the four-point, ‘you do…I do…’ approach; pre-intervention it wasn’t a question I’d focused on particularly thoughtfully and it would have totally thrown me as the first question.”

Sadly the client is not alone in failing to prepare for the question of why s/he applied for the job. There is a certain logic to that lack of preparation. S/he applied for the job the same reason 200 other people did: it’s one of three listed in the field and they are desperate for a job. The problem is that the search committee does not make its hiring decision based on your desperation for a job. They hire you because you are a good fit.

And that’s what they’re trying to get at with the question. “Why do you apply for this job?” is the oblique way of asking “Why do you think belong here?” Which is basically demanding, “Prove to us that you fit the hole we are trying to fill and that you’re just like us.” Because that’s really what anyone who is looking for in a colleague: someone who solves the problem that they have and also won’t freak them out.

As the client wisely notes, your preparedness for this question is even more important given that a significant percentage of our clients report that this is the FIRST question of the interview. If you are not prepared for the fit question and you’re already nervous because you got yourself worked up and believing that this exact interview is a make or break moment in your life (I’m here to assure you that it’s not) then you are setting yourself for up for a rocky time.

If you are paying attention, at this point you should be wondering, “Well, how AM I supposed to answer that question?”

First let me follow a long-standing TPII tradition and tell you how you’re NOT supposed to answer:

  • You have a great library and archives in my area that I need in my research.
  • My friends and family and a bunch of people I know live in the area so I want to be there.
  • Dude, it’s Harvard. Why wouldn’t I apply?
  • I’m attracted to the intimate environment of a small liberal arts college. I really like small classes. I love undergraduates. blah blah, liberal arts mush.

That’s certainly not an exhaustive list, but they are answers I hear all of the time. They are all facepalm fails.

So, how do you answer?

Here is the four-point, “you do…I do… approach” that I use with my interview intervention clients:

Address the question of fit in four areas 1) the department 2) the faculty 3) programs, initiatives and institutes in the department and on campus 4) the classroom.

Think of each area as a bucket that you are filling with information and are prepared to pour out no matter which way the question comes.

Structure the answer for each as a comparison between the department and you and your contribution. In other words, “You (department) do this and I do this.”

Here’s an example, which I assume you know by now not to use word for word or run the risk of being TPII cookie-cutter material.

1)I am particularly interested in this department because of its commitment to examining media communications from a global perspective, challenging the western media normative model, which I’m doing my own work by examining media portrayals of race and class in the coverage of labor unions in the US and Chile.

You will note, I did not say that I fit. I did not say that I would be a good addition. I simply said you do this and I do this. You want to follow the same pattern with each of the other buckets.

2) I see interesting intersections with my work and [Margaret Smith] (not Professor Smith! first name-last name) and her work on gender normativity and social media.

3) I would look forward being involved with your Institute for Racial Justice, which is examining many of the same issues that I have in my work with  XXX

4) I look forward to teaching your courses in X and Y and bringing my expertise in Z to the XXX classroom.

Got it? Four buckets: you do this…I do this….

One more thing:

There is no faking this answer. You have to decide why this is a good university for you. You do that by digging in and learning about the department. It’s that knowledge and thoughtfulness that show the search committee why you should be their colleague.


Want more guidance? Get on my calendar for a live Skype Interview Intervention, Job Talk Intervention, or Campus Visit Intervention!

Your File Gets 2.5 Minutes Max

Dear readers of the blog, today I’m copying one of my recent Chronicle Vitae columns, “Drowning in Application Files,” here, because I want you all to read it. It’s about 2 things: how should faculty deal with skyrocketing numbers of application files, and how many minutes of review should job candidates expect their files to receive at the initial stage?

Since most of my readers here identify more with the latter question, I want you to grasp the point:   at this point in university hiring your entire application file,  at the point of initial review, is likely read and acted upon in well under three minutes.  When I say, in my book, on this blog, and elsewhere, to BE CONCISE and give them FACTS NOT EMOTIONS, this is why.

Please see the comment thread of the Chronicle Vitae post for more insights from other faculty members, including one who estimates he spends closer to 30 seconds at the initial stage of review.


From Chronicle Vitae:

Q: I would love to see a future column on time management for assistant professors serving on search committees in the humanities. I’m on one now and drowning in files. How do we do justice to applicants without pulling all nighters?

That question was posted on my Facebook page, and quickly inspired the following comment:

I’d love advice on this, too. My tactic was to use the CV, cover letter, and letters of recommendation to narrow things down, then look at more material from the top candidates (writing sample, teaching materials). I hated not being able to read every word of every file, knowing how much work went into it. But one can only do so much.

This struggle of the search committee is the flip side of the job-market crisis, and while the suffering of the securely employed is not, perhaps, the most urgent element in this crisis, it is worth taking a moment to consider.

The overwhelming number of application files is the reason that I begin all of my job-market workshops with this claim: “They want to reject you.” And it’s the reason that my book has a chapter, “Why They Want To Reject You,” in which I write: “They don’t love you. They aren’t excited to see your application come in. On the contrary, they dread dealing with it. But it’s not personal. It’s not you they dread, per se. It’s the search itself. The whole exercise of sifting through applications, evaluating, discussing, interviewing, inviting, and offering in this demoralized and downsized industry.”

Search committees come to love certain candidates later in the search, and generally get very invested in one or more of them — but not at the opening stages, when they are drowning in documents. Remember that, job seekers, when you are wondering whether to send in that writing sample that the committee didn’t ask for.

Anyway, back to the question. Let’s be realistic. If your search draws 300 complete applications, and you spend 4 minutes on each application, that is 1,200 minutes, or 20 hours. I repeat: 20 hours. Very few full-time faculty have 20 free hours to spend on the initial review of files for a search. That would be 4 hours a day for a solid week, or two hours a day for two weeks. (And remember, 300 is not a very large number of files, comparatively speaking, when a single English opening in some specializations can draw 900 or 1,000 applications.)

What does all of that mean? Basically it means that if you on a search committee, and you are confronting more than 100 or 150 applications, you should expect to spend less than 4 minutes reading each one of them.

I can anticipate howls of protest from readers. But, in my experience on search committees, we looked only at the cover letter and CV at the initial stage of review. The secondary documents — the research statement, teaching statement, diversity statement, and letters of recommendation — came into play only after the long shortlist of about 25 to 30 applicants was established. If a search-committee member was conflicted about several files at the initial stage of review, and then perhaps some supporting documents might be examined, very selectively. But that was the exception. The general rule was that only two documents — the CV and cover letter — played a major role at the initial stage. Some of us tended to prioritize the letter, and some of us prioritized the CV. I was one of the former, as I liked to get a sense of the candidate’s “voice” as well as that person’s record, but I had colleagues who felt the CV best delivered the most important information. Either way, the CV could be flipped through in about a minute, and a cover letter in about two. And on that basis, our long shortlists were created.

A tenured professor at a research university once posted on The Professor Is In Facebook page that he had reviewed X number of files in X minutes, spending an average of 2.73 minutes per file. Much shock and consternation ensued in the comments from job-seeking readers.Candidates find it distressing and insulting that the documents they spent untold hours crafting are read under such rushed and haphazard conditions.

It’s safe to say that nobody on any search committee feels that this is a desirable state of affairs. Pretty much everyone finds it deplorable. But there is no real alternative. In the current academy, tenured and tenure-track professors don’t have an extra 35 hours a week to devote to reviewing 300 files in a way that would allow for a leisurely 7-minute perusal of each file. The contraction in the ranks of tenure-line faculty and their increasing administrative burdens have left almost all of them, outside of the most elite, extremely time-stressed.

I don’t recommend that assistant professors pull all-nighters for the sake of a search, as one of the questioners remarked. It’s not healthy, and it sets a bad precedent for other work obligations that are looming for them just down the road.

In short, I think we have reached a point where 3 minutes or less is the amount of time many candidate files will get at the stage of initial review. As an assistant professor on a search committee, don’t martyr yourself trying to give more time than your starved and shrunken institutional infrastructure supports. And job seekers, as unfair as it is, make sure that your two primary documents deliver up your complete record as concisely and directly as possible.
– See more at:

Join the AAUP, People! (Guest Post by Michael Bérubé)

by Michael Bérubé*

Michael Bérubé is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Literature at Pennsylvania State University, a former president of the Modern Language Association, and a member of AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 

I was recently in Washington, DC for the fall 2015 meeting of AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. AAUP stands for the American Association of University Professors.**  Discussing updates on the dismantling of tenure in the Wisconsin system– and getting a report on just how badly rigged the University of Iowa’s farcical presidential search was.

Also, going over the first draft of Committee A’s report on Title IX and academic freedom, revising the Association’s policy barring “collegiality” as a criterion in faculty evaluation, and discussing the Association’s defense of due process for contingent faculty members. And much, much else in the course of a two-day, ten-hour meeting and a working dinner.

I got to thinking, as I often do, about the dwindling number of AAUP members who are not in collective bargaining units (a/k/a “advocacy” members). I am always absolutely stunned, stupefied, and gobsmacked by the overwhelming number of my academic friends and associates who are not members of the only organization that defends academic freedom. Including, most amazingly, thousands of faculty members at universities that are under ferocious political and economic assault. Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Carolina, I am looking at you.

It is so, so, so depressing. How depressing, you ask? It makes me want to give up and go home depressing, that’s how depressing.

I’m not giving up and going home, though, because if I do I will not be able to face John Dewey in the afterlife when he asks me what I did to defend the academic freedom he helped to define.


[KK:  You join the AAUP by joining your local chapter. Find a list of chapters here, or consider starting your own!]


Over the years I have heard four varieties of complaint from people trying to justify their refusal to join AAUP.

One: it is an antiquated, elitist association devoted solely to defending the rights of a small handful of tenured professors, ignoring three-quarters of the professoriate– the new faculty majority of contingent labor.

This is just totally and completely untrue, as this handy compilation of AAUP resources on contingent appointments will show.


Two: the dues are too damn high.

For many years this was totally and completely true. Dues were flat fees around $180, and some states and chapters charged fees on top of that. $180 is just way too high for contingent faculty, graduate students (yes, graduate students can join!), junior faculty, and most underpaid faculty generally.

But now the AAUP has a progressive dues structure.

Dues start at $58, and nobody making under $50,000 pays more than $8.08 per month. $8.08. That’s a lunch from a food truck, once a month. And not even the most awesome food truck will defend your academic freedom.


Three: in the past, most notably in the McCarthy era, the AAUP has dropped the ball, failing to do precisely the thing it was founded to do– defend the academic freedom of controversial faculty members.

Also true, as openly acknowledged and discussed in this powerful report from 2011.

But the McCarthy era was quite a while ago. Here in the present, the AAUP position on politically controversial professors was critical for our defense of Steven Salaita and our censure of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

And unlike the “resolutions” debated so hotly by disciplinary associations, AAUP censure actually matters. When I led the investigation of layoffs and program closures at the University of Northern Iowa in 2012, the threat of censure was what brought the administration back to the bargaining table with the faculty union. Read that last bit again: unionization did not protect the UNI faculty from layoffs and closures. The same was true at the University of Southern Maine, where I led an investigation in early 2015.


Four: OK, OK, the AAUP has great policies on the due process rights of contingent faculty members, the dues are reasonable, and the McCarthy era was quite a while ago. But the AAUP still doesn’t do enough. There are all kinds of injustices and outrages to which it does not respond.

Let me go back to the absolutely stunned, stupefied, and gobsmacked part of this post. There are 1.5 million faculty members in the United States. There are just over 40,000 members of the AAUP, and if you subtract the number of members in collective bargaining units, you get fewer than 10,000 “advocacy” members.

The organization is ridiculously, scandalously small, and it has only the number of staff it can afford. That number, too, is ridiculously, scandalously small. The faculty members on AAUP committees, and the faculty members who conduct AAUP investigations, do all their work pro bono. We are operating on a shoestring.

And yet we don’t ask whether people are members, or whether a campus has a chapter, before we take cases or do investigations. We try to represent and defend the entire profession. Merciful Moloch, I honestly don’t know how the AAUP gets as much done as it does.

So if you are complaining that the AAUP doesn’t do more, you can help fix that. Join. Form a campus chapter. This organization should be ten times the size it is now– and even then, it would consist of less than one-third of the professoriate. It will cost you a few bucks a month, but you will be able to face John Dewey in the afterlife.


[KK:  You join the AAUP by joining your local chapter. Find a list of chapters here, or consider starting your own!]


*Michael posted a version of this on Facebook; I saw it there, and asked if he’d be willing to expand it a bit for The Professor Is In. He kindly agreed.

**From the AAUP Website: “The mission of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is to advance academic freedom and shared governance; to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education; to promote the economic security of faculty, academic professionals, graduate students, post?doctoral fellows, and all those engaged in teaching and research in higher education; to help the higher education community organize to make our goals a reality; and to ensure higher education’s contribution to the common good. Founded in 1915, the AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country’s colleges and universities.”

Go Ahead, Lose Your Balance

I have been reading a lot of things by life coach Martha Beck lately, and I found this blog post of hers from a few years ago – Balancing Act: The Dance of an Unbalanced Life –  deeply illuminating.  She basically comes out and says what very few will: that doing everything that our culture expects of women is impossible. Not difficult. Impossible.

“In fact, having done all that research, I can tell you with absolute assurance that it is impossible for women to achieve the kind of balance recommended by many well-meaning self-help counselors. I didn’t say such balance is difficult to attain. I didn’t say it’s rare. It’s impossible. Our culture’s definition of what women should be is fundamentally, irreconcilably unbalanced.”

Beck writes that women should abandon the effort to reconcile impossible expectations:

“Many of these women were haunted by the fear that others were judging them negatively. They were right. Our culture does belittle women who cannot be both professional high-achievers and traditional moms. It questions the devotion of women who attempt to combine the two roles. My conclusion? Balance, schmalance. Trying to establish a harmonious equilibrium between our society’s definition of What a Woman Should Be is like trying to resolve the tension between two hostile enemies by locking them in a room together.”

Instead, she urges us to embrace unbalance:

“If someone condemned you because, say, you failed to prevent Hurricane Katrina, you wouldn’t dissolve in shame or work to overcome your inadequacy. You’d probably conclude that your critic was nuts, then simply dismiss the whole issue. That’s the wonderful thing about seeing that our society makes impossible demands on all women. You free yourself to ignore social pressures and begin creating a life that comes from your own deepest desires, hopes, and dreams. You’ll stop living life from the outside in and begin living it from the inside out.”

In other words, she asks us to think about living authentically, from our own internal values, not those of others (for example, oh I don’t know, your dissertation committee):

“If you feel trapped by contradictory demands, you may want to join this gentle rebellion. You can help create a new cultural paradigm, one that replaces conformity with honesty, convention with creativity, and judgment with kindness. That, in the end, is the gift of the disequilibrium that society has bequeathed to all of us.”

What will this look like?  I can’t actually you. Unlike the proper outline of a tenure track job application cover letter, there is no formula. No formula at all. Absolutely none.

It comes from your own sense of motivation, belief, commitment.

I know that for my part, The Professor Is In arose when I finally admitted defeat–I could not make the academic career work and still protect my kids.  I “failed,” I gave up, I gave in. And then… I manifested a vision that became a livelihood, which in turn has exceeded anything I accomplished as a professor.

As Martha writes, “Being forced to seek balance within ourselves, we can make our unsteady, stumbling days feel less and less like disaster and more and more like a joyful dance—the dance of a wildly, wonderfully, perfectly unbalanced life.”

This has been true for me.

I don’t have answers in this unbalanced quest, answers like the kind I have spent the past 4 years providing for the tenure track job search and academic career.  What I have are some good questions, along with instinct, gut feeling, my bedrock contrarianism, and the conviction of my own experience.  Which tell me that it’s time to tell you: It’s ok to try something different.

The Reviews Are In!

I want to take today’s post to share a few of the Amazon reviews of my book, The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. Into a Job, which has been the #1 bestseller in its category of Academic Development Counseling since it came out!

The reviews are almost uniformly great.  Sharing them might look a bit like bragging, but hey,  if I can’t brag on my own blog, where can I?  And, the ones I’m sharing here are worth reading–they’re funny, well-written, and make some interesting points about the academy along the way.  I do include one of the less-positive ones at the end, because it too is illuminating.

I hope that if you’re a job seeker, you buy a copy of the book for yourself! And if you’re a professor, that you buy the book for your students, and assign it in your grad and professionalization seminars! (please do let me know if you do).


From 10/8/15:  “Reading college advice guides is a lot like looking at those pictures where they overlap the faces of the 25 hottest stars to show you what beauty is. You can pick out an ear here, an eyelash there, but you realize they’re almost all exactly the same. The Professor Is in: The Essential Guide to Turning Your PH.D. Into a Job is the Quasimodo of this allegory. Karen Kelsky‘s guide to transitioning from grad student to tenure-track faculty doesn’t overlap with books of its ilk, and it looks pretty damn ugly to anyone considering grad school.

If it sounds as though I’m downing Kelsky, rest assured: I’m not. I can’t fault The Professor Is In for any of the ugliness it brings, because it’s a necessity. The outlook for grad students isn’t Hollywood overlap-pretty, and Kelsky isn’t airbrushing its rough edges. Instead, she eviscerates the flaws in the academic system that allow PhDs to languish in adjunct hell for years, and maps out the most hopeful course for those with their eyes on the tenure prize.

Not only has Kelsky identified and appealed to a gap in advice materials available to grad students, but she’s also closed it. Barring great changes for terminal degree holders in the jobs market, The Professor Is In has monopolized and exhausted the conversation. Kelsky leaves few, if any, stones unturned, and she spreads out her information in such a way as to leave no need for other voices. It’s a shrewd and compassionate decision on her part, to offer graduates a single book to answer all their questions. For Kelsky’s readers, there’ll be no combing nearly-identical texts for minor differences in chapters and footnotes, and no competition for the foreseeable future.

It’s worth noting that I almost never purchase copies of books I’ve read digitally, but I ordered a copy of The Professor Is In before I’d even finished it. Kelsky’s words didn’t dissuade me from pursuing a graduate degree, but they have proven vital to that journey. The Professor Is In is the item you grab when it gets dangerous to go alone, and I wasted no time recommending it to friends in the process of applying to graduate programs. If you’re considering a second degree, or know someone who is, put this book in their hands. They’ll thank you later.”


From 9/9/15: “I will say that I was very, very hesitant in purchasing this book as there is always so much information online and it does feel wrong to buy a book to tell me how to get a job. However, Dr. Kelsky is the very necessary slap across the face when you are desiring a job in academia. I am currently a postdoc in a psychology department and on the job market again. I am not an ardent follower of Dr. Kelsky’s blog, but I absolutely adore this book. It is indispensable to graduate student, postdocs, and faculty. I recommend every graduate student purchases a copy and read it when they start graduate school so they can start making the correct decisions right away that are needed for a successful graduate career. For more senior graduate students and postdocs, her advice is very useful in crafting your documents, deciding how you want to market yourself, and preparing for interviews. For faculty members, I would recommend reading this book so you can be a better advisor for your students. I go to every graduate student I work with and tell them about this book. I wish it had been published years ago when I was first starting graduate school! It is worth every penny and every academic-wannabe should see it as a reasonably-price investment in their future!


From 9/2/15: “I discovered Karen’s blog in my darkest time in grad school when I felt like a failure and could not figure out how to turn all the time I spent in school into a paycheck that I could live on. Reading the blog helped me stop wallowing in self-pity, realize that I wanted a non-academic job, get my PhD, and then get that job. I have now bought and read the book and would recommend it to every PhD student and undergraduate contemplating a PhD. The book is well-written, absolutely non-judgmental, and contains career and life advice that almost no one, and definitely not my tenured and neglectful PhD advisor, would share with me.”


From 8/6/15: “If you are a graduate student, considering graduate school, a faculty member, academic support, academic administration, or human; you need to read this book. The American academy is broken. I say this as one of the lucky few with a tenure track job. A system of graduate education was created in a time with circumstances that no longer exist. As Karen Kelsky explains in the opening chapters, the path to secure employment via a doctoral degree is a rocky one with a very uncertain outcome. For those that choose to pursue it, this book (and Kelsky’s blog and social media profiles) provides a frank, honest, and accurate description of what it takes to get something out of the doctoral experience.

– The scope of this book could have been problematic. Yet somehow Kelsky pulled it off: covering what it takes to get a tenure track job, the job market process, and throws in some additional material on grants and leaving the academy….
– Occasionally Kelsky’s experience as an anthropologist does not resonate with my experience in a different field. Almost always Kelsky acknowledges when there are disciplinary or paradigmatic differences and suggests that the reader knows her field.

This book may frighten some people. But it is absolutely essential that anyone that is a part of this process understands how this works. I read the book as a veteran of Kelsky’s blog and consulting. I suspect that reading the entire book would be challenging and/or overwhelming for a young graduate student. I would suggest that an early graduate student read Part I, II, III, and IV carefully and skim the rest for familiarity. A graduate student that successfully passes exams should re-read Parts I-IV and then read V-VII carefully. Parts VIII-X are more topic-specific, but are excellent resources for any scholar.

I believe that faculty should read this entire book with a goal of being better advisors and better academic community members. We all need to take responsibility for the system that currently exists and Kelsky’s book (and other work) may be a good starting point for trying to resolve some of the problems – either as individuals or systematically.

I sincerely hope that Kelsky can carve out time from her consulting work to write a similar book about life on the tenure track and getting tenure. Her blog posts on this topic are fantastic and I suspect that it would be a good “second project” 😉 for her. We all desperately need this sort of frankness and guidance.”


And one that was less positive:  “I bought this book hoping for some good advice on how to succeed post-PhD. Unfortunately, most of this advice is coming too late for me. If you’re still in your grad program (particularly in the early stages), I think you’ll find this book is helpful. If you’re already out and working the adjunct circuit, as I am, I’m not sure it’s particularly helpful. Mostly, it just made me feel like a failure.

(I have to say, I don’t really agree that the book isn’t helpful for those who are beyond the Ph.D., and who are adjuncting.  All the same principles apply in terms of creating a competitive record, crafting your application documents, and interviewing.  Chapter 10 includes notes on how to talk about an adjuncting record.  But a couple reviewers made similar points, so I guess I should have addressed the post-Ph.D. job search a bit more directly.  I will do that in my next book, The Professor Is You: Your Life With a Ph.D.)



A Perspective From the Hiring Committee (A Guest Post)

This is a guest post, volunteered by a tenured reader.  Also check out her previous post.


I and my fellow committee members work in a somewhat technical field at a mid-tier state university.    While every institution and department is different, there are some things that are common to all tenure-track hires.  Frankly many of these things should be obvious, but apparently they aren’t, at least judging by many of the applications we’ve received.

Understand the other side:   It’s tempting to blame the committee for the awful job market and seemingly byzantine hiring process.   But take a moment to understand what it is like to be on a hiring committee.    We are typically recently promoted Full Professors or Associate Professors and are juggling this assignment along with our regular teaching and research load.  This type of service takes a lot more time and effort than what most of colleagues get away with, such as membership on the “Task Force to Re-craft the Mission Statement”, but we undertake this effort because it’s crucial to our future and, frankly, because somebody has to.  Remember how you as a student used to think that your professors enjoyed giving hard midterms until you actually got stuck grading 200 essay exams?   Perhaps we aren’t reading all 200 applications the same weekend, but it’s similar.

We aren’t asking for sympathy, just some empathy, evidenced by you making your application easy to parse.    An additional bonus to demonstrating empathy is that we will assume you can apply this talent with your future colleagues and students.

Tailor your application to the position.   Yes, we know that we aren’t your one true love, and we expect- indeed hope- that you are applying many other places.    But spend at least 15 minutes convincing us that your attempt to land a position with us is more targeted than an oyster’s broadcast spawning.  At a bare minimum, put the position, department and school in the cover letter, and if an actual person’s name is provided, address your letter appropriately.   If we are asking for 3 letters of reference, either include them (if at all possible) or provide your recommenders’ contact information and explicitly mention that the letters will arrive under separate cover.   Our professors both need to teach and do research, so failing to mention either duty in your cover letter would be a fatal flaw.

Don’t dump:    Yes, we know that different committees ask for different materials.   But if we didn’t request a teaching statement, a research statement or a writing sample (which we didn’t), don’t send it.   We aren’t going to read it, and it just makes you seem like you didn’t read our advertisement closely.     Sending in a manuscript not yet even conditionally accepted in a journal smacks of desperation.    One applicant sent us 9 pages of raw computer-generated teaching scores with no explanation of the scale.  If you have an article in a prestigious journal or have been the subject of a glowing report in a relevant trade publication, feel free to mention it in your cover letter and offer to provide it on request, but let us ask for it first.   When we see 13+ attachments that we have to download, we tend to get cranky.

Anticipate objections:   Perhaps you are applying to a department outside of your doctoral study or perhaps you have never taught students before.     Provide evidence of why our concerns are unwarranted, and if you can’t provide such evidence, at least find a way to acknowledge them in your cover letter.    For example:  “While my school does not provide graduate students the opportunity to undertake sole teaching responsibility for classes, I have served as the primary TA for class X….” Don’t think we won’t notice, and you don’t want our one comment on the spreadsheet by your name to be “Not a good fit.”  If you are trying to switch from a tenure track job at another school to us, we are naturally going to wonder why (and also if you’d bail on us after a year or two), unless you tell us that you are attempting to relocate due to a better fit with your research needs, geographic preferences or another plausible reason.    For those of you still ABD who are looking to start in our fall term, the term “expected to defend in Summer 2015” raises concerns when our next academic year starts in the middle of August.   Lock in that date in and, if at all possible, make it before July!

Streamline/simplify your CV:   As Dr. Karen says, don’t shop at Costco.   If you put too much filler in, we might not notice the good stuff.   Here’s what we are looking for:

Research:  Ideally, we’d like you to list publications in reverse chronological order.  You can include acceptances and even “accepted pending minor revisions” as long as they are identified as such, but listing “submitted to Journal X” or “targeted for Journal Y” under “publications” is misleading and instead belongs under a “Work in Progress” section.   We’d rather see 1 publication and evidence of a healthy research pipeline than see 3 journal publications dating back to 2011 with no evidence of new research in progress.  Furthermore, we get accreditation kudos (and you get credits toward tenure) for articles that are published after you start working for us. So, in a perverse way, we would prefer an “accepted pending minor revisions” over an outright publication, once you have at least one relevant intellectual contribution in print.

For teaching experience we’d like to see classes listed in chronological order, indicating role (sole or co-instructor, or TA?) and any teaching evaluation scores with relevant scale and context, such as “Overall evaluation: 4.5 out of 5(best) where the departmental average for this class is 4.2.”   Not including evaluations for classes that should have them or merely providing a few cherry picked student quotations suggests you are hiding something.  We know firsthand the common pitfalls that occur the first time a class is taught, so we won’t hold a few bad evaluations against you- honest!

Service: You should certainly list relevant activities outside of research and teaching:  pertinent industry experience, membership in relevant organizations, (especially any leadership roles), reviews for respected journals in your field.   But as this is the least important section (sorry- it just is!) for most schools please keep it to the point: do we really need to know you were team captain of your college trivia club?

If you can master these basics and have done some decent work, you dramatically increase your chances of being noticed by us and our peers in the other schools you are applying to.

Heroic Mother Teaches Class With Sick Child – Guest Post

(This is not a post-ac post, as I normally put up on Mondays.  But it’s a great guest post and I wanted to share it right away.)
It’s by Stephanie Brown.

Stephanie is cultural anthropologist and adjunct instructor in the Department of Human Development and Women’s Studies at California State University, East Bay. She studies the anthropology of childhood and conducts program evaluation for child-serving non-profits in the San Francisco Bay Area. Stephanie is currently traveling around the world with her family. You can follow her journey on her blog at

Twice in the past six months, I have stumbled across a viral news stories about a professor heroically holding a student’s baby while lecturing. In May, a story appeared about a psychology professor who took in arms the fussing infant of a student. Then, last week, another story emerged about a management professor holding a toddler brought to class by student.

In both cases, the story covered a male professor holding a child brought to class by a female student. In both cases, the professor was lauded for combining the lecturing required by his job with compassion toward a student in need of child care, described using words like, “generous,” “compassionate,” “patient,” “heart-warming” and “kind.” In both cases, the story sent me into a tizzy.
I don’t object to the presence of a child in class nor to the professors’ actions, but a couple of months prior to the appearance of that first story, I brought my daughter to a class I was teaching and earned a different response: an anonymous complaint to the dean about the presence of my child in class.
What was the difference between my situation and those reported in the news? Was it that the consumer model of education favors the consumer/student, such that the consumer should be accommodated at any cost while the worker/professor is not afforded such flexibility? Yes. But I think a great deal of the difference has to do with gender.
My daughter disrupted the class, as did the two children in the news stories cited. In those stories, the professors were lauded for assisting a parent in need of support. It’s heartwarming to see someone helping a parent in need of support, but notice that the praise goes to the person offering support and not the parent. Parents are frequent subjects of criticism in our culture, and it’s easier to praise the hero who steps in than to forgive the parent whose child has been disruptive.
Male workers are less likely, however, to find themselves in the position of needing parenting assistance. According to the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, seventy percent of women with children under the age of 18 participate in the work force. Male workers are still less likely, however, to be the parent primarily responsible for child care in their households. This means, of course, that a working parent who needs accommodation for their parenting responsibilities is more likely to be a woman than a man.
This is true in my household: my husband works a fulltime tech job and his long commute means he is often away from home for 12 hours a day. I, on the other hand, am an adjunct professor. I left a tenure-track position when my husband received a job offer in another city, a decision that was largely economic: because his career earns him more than I earned as a tenure-track professor, I “opted out” rather than “leaning in.” Pay inequity plays a role: women continue to make make less than men, even in identical careers. Pay inequities within my profession played a role as well: I was the lowest paid assistant professor in the College of Liberal Arts at the public university where I taught, a situation reflecting both my gender and the feminized discipline in which I taught.
After leaving that job, I have worked less than fulltime so I could be available for our children (a luxury many families don’t have). I am the parent in my family who takes children to doctors appointments, attends parent-teacher conferences, drives to lessons. I was also the one who, for 18 months, was available during the day to help with the care of my husband’s dying mother. Despite their presence in the workplace, women still perform the majority of the care-work of all kinds, and the burden for care work is especially high in “sandwich generation” families like mine.
Stepping in to “help” may have been a luxury available to the professors precisely because they were not doing so of necessity. I’m making assumptions, of course, about the family circumstances of these two professors. But the female students in these stories—the mothers—were not the ones receiving praise. They were incidental to the tales’ protagonists.  And the praise heaped on the male professors is a further sign of the gender imbalance in the work-family equation: men earn praise for doing the care work that women do as a matter of course.
An article in the January 23, 2013 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, titled Dads Caring for Their Kids: It’s Parenting, Not Babysitting made this point: when women are the presumed primary parent, men’s involvement in parenting becomes praiseworthy. Doyin Richards, author of the blog Daddy Doin’ Work, also made this point when a photo of him parenting elicited widespread praise on the internet: Richards responded in a piece for the Huffington Post:
I’m concerned that the bar for being a good dad is set so low that a dude can take a photo with his kids, post it online, and automatically become the ‘world’s greatest dad’ in the eyes of some because of it.
Profs Engleberg and Bunkowske became “world’s greatest professor” for doing something that earned me a poison-pen letter.
The expectations on women as caregivers are part of the picture. But here is the double-bind: it is also that women are the focus of criticism for anything that “goes wrong” with children. This has been true for at least the last 100 years: mothers have been blamed for everything from “inadequate” masculinity to autism. My student’s letter did not just criticize my bringing my daughter to class, but also my parenting more generally. My student’s letter complained:
Her daughter then proceeded to be a complete disturbance to the class the entire time. She would not sit still, she kept interrupting the lecture and the professor kept allowing her to do this. [emphasis in the original]
Here is the trap for working mothers: damned for your commitment to your children, and damned for your inadequate commitment to your children; damned for your commitment to your career, and damned for your inadequate commitment to your career.
As her parent, I felt the disruption caused by the presence of my child in the workplace (believe me!), and I empathize both with my student’s annoyance and his/her feeling that I was asserting a privilege a student would likely be denied. I would like to see all families afforded support so that accommodating parenting wasn’t treated as a burden and tolerating it didn’t make one a hero.

The Job Search is Not a Striptease

One of my pet peeves in job documents is when the job candidate coyly gestures toward a research conclusion, without actually coming out and saying what the conclusion is.

I have no idea why so many job seekers are so invested in this coyness.  The job search is not a striptease; you don’t get points for strategically withholding.  That withholding does not make search committees perk up and take notice. It makes them bored and irritated, and motivated to instantly reject you in favor of the people who can actually articulate their arguments and conclusions.

This coy withholding is done through the vague meta-claim.  Here are some examples:

“I conclude that gender plays a significant role in xx.”

Really?  And we care why?

No.  We need to know: WHAT ROLE does gender play?  WHAT ROLE????  Spell it out!

“I discovered that there is a relationship between xx and yy.” 


WHAT RELATIONSHIP did you find between xx and yy?  Spell it out!

“I argue that this is an example of neoliberalism.”


“I conclude that policy is not linear or static, but multidimensional and changing.”

WHO IN 2015 SAYS ANYTHING IS LINEAR OR STATIC?  Don’t waste our time with idle pseudo-theoretical posturing.  If I were on a search committee I’d throw out the letter from sheer irritation at the combination of tendentiousness, self-importance, and cluelessness.  TELL US A SPECIFIC CONCLUSION: “Policy emerged from the input of [xx actors], [yy actors], and [zz actors], operating in [xx condition] and [yy location], and shifted in response to [xx event] and [yy event].”

Don’t tease, job seekers; show us what you’ve got.

(By the way, this is a close cousin to both stating the obvious, and making claims so painfully general as to be meaningless.  Please read and study these posts and banish generic verbiage.)

Certifications You Can Use for Post-Ac Employment – Robert Oprisko (3 of 3)

by Robert Oprisko

Dr. Robert Oprisko

Dr. Robert Oprisko

One of the largest hurdles that a non-STEM Ph.D. will face moving into the Post-Ac environment is perception, both their own and others of who they are and what they do.  Successful transition into a non-academic environment is assisted by practical production of post-academic passion and performance.  In today’s white-collar service economy, one of the very best ways to prepare for this transition is to acquire a credential or two that emphasizes your skill-set and is recognized across disciplines:  elite certifications.  My favorite one-two punch for all post-ac job seekers is to become LEAN and Agile.

LEAN certification is used in business analytics to reduce waste and increase efficiency in processes.  For anyone who holds an analytic mind, increasing your skill-set by getting the premier LEAN cert, Six Sigma Black Belt, will pay dividends.  LEAN methodologies follow systems of empirical review to control process improvement.  Often these process improvements utilize the Deming Cycle, or a revision of it, including Six Sigma’s and Motorola’s.  Effectively, these methodologies present processes as problems and the task of the quality manager or quality analyst is to use statistical tools to measure the impact of alterations to the process.

First and foremost, there are a number of credentialing bodies because there is no overarching certifying body, so purchase with care.  If you’re still in graduate school, there is a good chance that a class (likely housed within either the business or management school) will be designed around Six Sigma and may result in certification.  Perhaps the best known credential can be earned through the American Society of Quality, which helpfully provides deep discounts to students and requires passing an exam.  If you have no familiarity, you can enter into Six Sigma with the lower certifications before progressing to the Black Belt level.  This progression can be helpful for improving your mastery of the processes as you gain Post-Ac experience.

Project management is a growing sector of the economy and is moving out of technical fields, such as software development, into other areas, including higher education.  The most sought after certifications are the Project Management Professional (PMP) and the Certified Scrum Professional (CSP); the former is used primarily for static teams while the latter is essential for teams that shift and change based upon the needs of the project, hence it is Agile.  The Project Management Institute issues PMP certifications while CSP certifications are provided by the Scrum Alliance.

Similar to Six Sigma, project management certifications have accessible points of entry, with the Certified Associate in Project Management and the Certified Scrum Master available for individuals to formalize their interest in project management and to provide mastery of the terms of art needed to succeed within the field.  Agile methodologies, such as Scrum, are premised on versatility and translate more readily into non-technical fields and environments.

I’ve seen both LEAN and Agile methods employed within universities to manage ad hoc projects and it’s becoming a norm within non-profits and academic publishing, including for e-journal publishing.  My experience with E-International Relations (E-IR) has emphasized both over the past year.  Using teams of three to seven academics, E-IR has been able to move into academic publishing of open-access textbooks, monographs, and edited volumes, has been selected to start a peer-reviewed journal of record for the International Association of Political Science Students, and has increased its site traffic and income substantially.  Utilizing LEAN principles, E-IR is able to accomplish all of this at less than 10% of the cost incurred by traditional publishing houses.

Although no credential can guarantee success or employment (if it did, you’d already have a tenure-track position and wouldn’t be reading this post), elite certifications can provide an effective means of transitioning from academe to industry.  As valued credentials, they may also increase your potential salary range.  Within higher education administration (Alt-Ac paths) there are a number of credentials available based upon specialty.  The only limiting factors are interest and cost.  It may be worthwhile to earmark the money you would have spent going to an academic conference hedging your bet and credentialing yourself for Plan B.