Women Fail, But Men Bomb: A Special Request Post for Guys on the Market

Today’s post is a Special Request post for Jon, who wrote very good-naturedly to ask, “You have much advice for women. Got any male-specific advice for the ABD, on-the-market sort of guy?”

Jon went on to ask, “did you ever meet a promising job or postdoc candidates only to watch him screw up…and think, ‘wow, that is a very guy-type of mistake?!’”

I have to confess, this one brought me up short. In the first moments of reading the email, I drew a complete blank. I even momentarily thought that perhaps I had no “guy-type” mistakes to discuss. Then, of course, I immediately admonished myself. Of COURSE there are guy-type mistakes. We just don’t see them as such because “guys” are the unmarked normal. So their mistakes are catalogued as “mistakes,” not “guy mistakes.”

Annoyed with myself for even momentarily participating in the discourses of male normativity, I set myself to the task of contemplating guy-type mistakes. And I came up with three.

The first is: a tendency to miss social cues and barrel through the interpersonal elements of the interview process in a state of cluelessness.

The second, and this is related to the first: a tendency to profoundly mis-read the reception of the research by the audience and to proceed in a state of blissful ignorance of any possible negative response.

And the third, and this one is kind of basic: a tendency to dress wrong.

It goes without saying (for astute readers of this blog) that the first two of these tendencies (which of course are not shared by all male Ph.D.s any more than the women’s patterns of behavior I discuss are shared equally by all female Ph.D.s) are reverse images of the problems that women generally face. That is, where women routinely over-censor and over-efface themselves from feelings of intense inadequacy, men routinely under-censor and over-inflate themselves from feelings of intense entitlement. And these feelings of entitlement are just as unconscious and unintentional as are women’s feelings of inadequacy. But they have real impacts.

The third problem, of dress, is merely an extension of gendered expectations of proper attire in American society—women are scrutinized, men are not. Therefore, men have little to no experience in strategizing their clothing choices, and have little awareness of the microscopic rules of fashion, and in particular, of proper fit, that they are breaking.

How do these play out in interviews?

The first problem, of missing social cues, manifests in a tendency to pontificate. Particularly in the awkward social settings of the campus visit—the poorly defined spaces of the candidate dinners, lunches, and receptions—male candidates have a tendency to mis-read the expectations, and treat the social interactions as extensions of the “job talk,” (ie, requiring more monologue), rather than what they really are, which is more like “water cooler chats” (ie, dialogic and informal).

This can also happen in formal interview settings as well. Male candidates are far, far more likely than female candidates to give in to the temptation to “hold forth” at excruciating length, entranced by the eloquence of their own words, eyes glazed over or fixed on a spot over the committee members’ heads, profoundly oblivious to the cleared throats and shuffled papers that signal the NEED to MOVE ON.

Interestingly, a closely related problem, less often seen, is a tendency to talk too little.  This stems equally from a mis-reading of social cues. A remark such as “I can see how this line of research would raise interesting questions in the classroom….” must be understood as a QUESTION:  “How does your research find expression in your teaching?”  But not being asked directly, in the form of a question, led this type of question to be missed by male candidates with some regularity.   I recall candidates who would sit quietly looking at us, moments ticking by, silence dragging on, until someone finally realized that a question had been indirectly asked but not recognized as such.

My guess–and this is just speculation–is that this problem is most common where a male candidate is interviewed by women, who may equally unconsiously be relying on indirection and suggestion, and body language and facial cues that don’t always translate well across genders.

 

Now, the second problem—the excessive confidence in one’s brilliance and unawareness of the audience reception— is one that afflicts the job talk in particular.

As I counted back through the many, many job talks of my faculty career, I realized that men and women candidates gave good and bad talks in equal numbers, and no gender predominated, in my relatively gender-balanced fields of anthropology and Asian Studies, in ultimate hireability (or offers).  Nevertheless, one rule of gender and the job talk prevailed.

That rule was: women fail, but men bomb.

In other words, the good job talk was the good job talk. Gender played little role indeed.

But the BAD job talk? THAT was gendered. The bad job talks by women candidates were run-of-the-mill bad—They were dull, or poorly organized, or unoriginal, or unconvincing, or sadly presented.

But the bad job talks by male candidates? Well, those talks could be spectacularly bad. Flamboyantly bad. Memorably bad.

These were the job talks that lived on in departmental legend. “Remember ‘dog-boy’–the one who talked about dogs for an hour?” “Remember the one who talked about how the nuclear bomb wasn’t so bad for the plants and bugs?” “Remember the one who said ‘gosh I didn’t study any women’ when someone asked him to think about gender?” “Remember the one we had to cut off at an hour and 15 minutes?”

These male candidates had somehow managed to completely and totally fail to grasp the spectacular inappropriateness of their topics, their preparedness, and/or presentation styles. They had, apparently, blithely ignored any of the cautions or admonitions that they undoubtedly received from advisors, peers, and general well-wishers, and they proceeded with blissful abandon past the looks of shock, dismay, and outrage gathering on the faces of their job talk audiences.

I never saw a woman candidate bomb a job talk in this way.

Obviously, this is the flip side of male privilege. Women are not given the license to fail big because they aren’t given the license to try big. Women are disciplined (and punished) and circumscribed and admonished and chastised at so many levels, in so many ways, that men are not….that in the end it is by and large only males who have the opportunity to burst out onto the job market with wildly inappropriate egos and presentation habits intact.

This is not to say that all men do. I know well how many male candidates are filled with anxiety and insecurity, and a desperate desire to do well and be agreeable, and read the cues correctly. To be sure.

But the chances are higher, far higher, that a man may slip through the cracks of the graduate school socializing apparatus, meant to beat graduate students into a state of deference and submission and hyper-self-criticism, and emerge entirely unaware of the impression that he is making on his audience.

And that, readers, is the ultimate “guy-type” mistake.

Oh, and then there are the clothes. Guys, go out to Macy’s or Men’s Wearhouse and buy a suit in the $250-350 range. If you can spring for $500 do that, but it’s not crucial. Have the in-house tailor fit you, and DO NOT LEAVE with the suit until it has been tailored for you. This will cost around $40 more. Buy at least one new Oxford cloth shirt and one new tie. Buy a pair of decent quality leather dress shoes, and buy socks that match the shoes or the pants. Buy a good quality leather belt if you don’t have one—make sure it’s fresh and not cracked!

[Addendum:  As noted in the comment stream below, for many contexts and disciplines, the suit is unnecessary and a sports jacket with pants and tie is more appropriate.  Variables that will affect this decision include: is your discipline formal or informal (poli sci and econ tend to be formal, while comp lit and anthropology tend to be informal…), and is the campus formal or informal (the south and the northeast are more formal than the midwest and the west coast).  Ask all the reliable sources you can, particularly successful young male faculty members.  When in doubt lean toward formality.]

Practice wearing the suit or at least jacket around the house, and wear it out to work for a full day and to dinner at least once before you go on a campus visit, to get it broken in. Iron the package creases out of your shirts. Try the suit and the pants and shirts on in different combinations, and plan out day one and day two outfits for the campus visit, with day one (job talk day) being the full suit, and day two being just the pants and shirt and a tie. You can consider wearing a nice Ralph Lauren-style half zipper jersey sweater pullover, with the Oxford shirt and the tie, for day two, if it’s cold, or if it’s a casual, West Coast sort of place. 

Invest in a quality dress coat!  It is conceivable that this you can find second-hand.  Second-hand is a good budget option for everything but the suit itself, and the shoes, which need to be fresh and fitted.

A cool looking watch can be a nice addition. The ties don’t have to be boring. Men’s attire expresses individuality in these small details.

DO NOT CARRY A BACKPACK! Get a quality leather or microfiber briefcase. These can be found cheaply at places like OfficeMax.

Have your girlfriend or boyfriend or mother study your options and give you a stamp of approval before you pack.

And then, put on all these clothes, and commandeer a classroom in your department, and for god’s sake, give a mock job talk to a bunch of people who will tell you the truth. Because, while not all job talks will succeed, there is no reason at all to bomb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is That Your Final Answer? Or, Why Graduate Students Ramble

Graduate students ramble. The question is not, do you ramble. The question is, why.

I was on the phone with a client last week, working on interview responses for an upcoming fellowship interview, and for the first time, I understood the answer to this question.

Graduate students ramble because you are afraid to stop talking. Because if you stop talking, then your answer is finished. And if your answer is finished, then you have to commit to it. And it has to sit there, and either be right, or wrong. One way or another, you sink or swim on that answer.

And nobody wants to do that. Nobody wants to be pinned down as having answered a question in one particular way, because what if that way is the wrong way? What if that isn’t what they “want to hear”? So, you say to yourself, somewhere—probably unconsciously– “if I just keep talking, maybe I’ll suss out what they really want to hear, and then I can say that! Because, whatever they want to hear, I’ll say! If I just knew what it was!”

(This is the close cousin to the related problem that graduate students jump in before the questioner has finished talking. Why? Because you want to look like you “already thought about that,” and “didn’t really need to be asked,” and “really, should and would have said it already if you’d had a chance, but in any case will definitely tell you everything you could possibly want to know about it right now.” Because you’re afraid to look stupid. And if for some reason you left something OUT of your answer, then you have failed to tell them what they “want to hear.” So the slightest peep from the interviewer has to be met with an avalanche of new talking, talking which will surely cover everything they could possibly “want to hear” on the subject.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guess what? If you want to get hired for a tenure track position, you have to commit to your final answer. You actually have to speak in declarative sentences with a strong falling tone at the end that signals, aurally, the period.

You have to stop, and then wait. Wait while your interlocutor processes what you said, reflects on it, and then responds with thoughts of her own.

And guess what? She might disagree with you. Yeah, she might. And you still have to respond in declarative sentences.

Here’s how this looks:

Interviewer: What text would you use for the introductory course?

You: I would use Martindale.

Interviewer: Oh….? Why?

You: Because I think Martindale does the best job of bridging social and political economic viewpoints. He’s not the strongest on contemporary developments, of course, but that can be augmented with other readings. For the basic textbook, I think he gives the best and most thorough overview.

Interviewer: I used Martindale last year and I thought it was terrible. The students hated it. It was disappointing because I’d heard such good things about that textbook.

You: Really? That’s interesting. What happened, do you think? What did the students dislike?

Interviewer: They found his writing too hard to follow, and the format was confusing.

You: Interesting. When I’ve used that textbook students have given it positive feedback. But that may be because I make them study guides of each chapter, and walk them through the chapter the first day we cover it in class, alerting them to the parts to focus on for the lectures and exams.

Interviewer: Ohhhh, what a good idea! I’ll bet that would help. We should talk more! I’m ordering my books for the next term this week, and I’d like to talk with you more about the options.

You: Perhaps over dinner after my talk today? I’ll look forward to it.

OK, what happened here? What happened here is that the interviewee stuck to his guns. He had a position, he stated it clearly, and he defended it. He did not panic and fall down when the interviewer took an opposing viewpoint. And what happened as a result? He had a meaty, substantive exchange with the interviewer that resulted in him coming across as a credible, authoritative and effective teacher. It resulted in a deeply satisfying dialogue. It also ended with the interviewer wanting to know more.

And that, dear readers, is where you want your interviewers to be. You want them eager to know more, and ready to ask for it.

Now, here’s how that usually goes, for the ramblers among you:

Interviewer: What text would you use for the introductory course?

You: I would probably use Martindale, although, you know, there are a lot of good options out there and I’ve heard good things about Nelson, and Richardson, and you know of course, NO textbook really covers everything so you always have to augment, but I’m sure you already know that….!

Interviewer: Ok, ok!  So, anyway, why would you use Martindale?

You: Because I think Martindale is pretty good on social and political economic viewpoints, although, you know, a lot of people say that he’s not that great on contemporary developments, but that isn’t always the main thing, because sometimes I assign other readings for that, like the Patrick piece from the Annual Review, and this great article I found on current theory that was in this one reader out of Routledge, and even though sometimes those are too hard for undergraduates it’s pretty important that they get a sense of the field….so, um, yeah, what was the question?

Interviewer: I used Martindale last year and I thought it was terrible. The students hated it. It was disappointing because I’d heard such good things about that textbook.

You: Oh, wow, really? Oh gosh, I never even thought of that. I wonder if my students thought that? You know, a few of them DID say to me that it was kind of hard to follow and I noticed that their quiz scores were really low in the beginning, so I was trying to figure out what to do, and I thought of maybe making study guides that would help them, so I made some and it seemed to help, but you know, it’s hard to say, and I should really look at some other textbooks, like maybe Nelson, which is what my advisor used when he taught that class and I was his TA, so yeah, I hope maybe I can ask you what has worked for you because you know I’d definitely do whatever was expected for the way the department teaches that class……. you know?

Interviewer: Ummmm, ok. So moving on to the next question….

Here’s what happened in this case. In this case, in the candidate’s abject eagerness to “please” the interviewer and say whatever it is that he thinks she “wants to hear,” he ended up doing several things:

  • overwhelming his interviewer in several panicked, inarticulate monologues.
  • squelching all opportunity for collegial dialogue.
  • undermining his own authority and credibility as a teacher.
  • reinforcing an outdated subordinate identity as a graduate student TA.
  • burying the effective teaching method that he devised to deal with the text, which was creating chapter study guides.
  • boring and alienating the interviewer, who drops the subject and irritatedly moves on to another question.

In short, the panicked, rambly effort to just keep talking until some kind of magic “right answer” will present itself…… that effort is precisely the behavior that bombs the interview and disqualifies the candidate as an effective teacher, a confident professional, and most of all, an appealing colleague.

The fact is, there are not that many “right answers” in a job interview. Sure, there are sometimes strong ideological, methodological, and pedagogical orthodoxies that some departments adhere to, and it’s important to keep all of your antennae alert to those. But you can discover many of those by thorough research ahead of time.

The fact is, there are fewer orthodoxies per se, then there are opinions. Because academics specialize in having opinions. And in order for you to make an impression as a credible academic, you too must have opinions, strong opinions, that you’re prepared to state clearly, and defend.

That doesn’t mean being a jerk. The best interviewee is the one who is open-minded and pleasant. But not one who is a doormat, and who is so afraid of offending someone that he literally won’t stop talking because his“final answer” might be wrong.

No, ramblers, that has to stop. Ask yourself, “is this my final answer?” And be ready to say, “yes.”

 

 

 

 

Wanted: The Academic Equivalent of the “Pretty Girl Rock”

Today’s post is a Guest Post by Kristen Ghodsee,  John S. Osterweis Associate Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies, and Director of the Gender and Women’s Studies Program, at Bowdoin College.

I originally got in touch with Kristen to congratulate her on her excellent IHE column on strategies of self-promotion, and to commiserate over the handful of sour comments that followed it.  We got to talking about her new book, co-authored with Rachel Connelly, another Bowdoin professor and TPII guest blogger, Professor Mommy: Finding Work/Family Balance in Academia. I asked Kristen if she’d be willing to contribute a post to the blog, and she very kindly has.

Thank you and welcome, Professor Ghodsee!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A little over a year ago, my colleague, Rachel Connelly, and I were telling a friend about our new book project, Professor Mommy: Finding Work/Family Balance in Academia.  We were all driving to a bowling alley for a girl’s night out and the conversation was light and bantering.  We were explaining that the idea behind the book was to help younger women scholars achieve professional success while also raising families.  Our friend said something like, “So you guys think you have achieved professional success?” in a slightly sarcastic tone. Rachel and I immediately made some joke about her comment and changed the subject.  But the implicit meaning haunted us long afterward.  Who are you guys to be telling other women what to do?  Do you really think you are both that good?

I was suddenly filled with doubt.  Perhaps it was inappropriate for me to be offering advice to anyone.  Isn’t offering advice a form of bragging and isn’t bragging something that is unbecoming in a woman? As a professor of gender and women’s studies, I am intimately familiar with the scholarship on the social constructedness of what we consider appropriate feminine and masculine behaviors.  In American culture, self-assured men are considered to be confident; self-assured women are arrogant.  Driven men are called ambitious.  Similarly driven women are called selfish.

Studies suggest that one factor underlying the wage gap is the differential propensity for men and women to negotiate about their remuneration.  But further research suggests that if a woman does try to negotiate for a raise based on her performance, both male and female bosses will negatively perceive her as self-promoting and greedy.  Good girls don’t talk about their achievements.  Good girls certainly don’t ask to be rewarded for them. In academia, so much of scholarly success is linked to our ability to promote the originality of our ideas.  No one ever got tenure by writing a demure self-evaluation statement.

Today more than ever before, social media demands that we be the primary advocates for our research and writing, and university presses are now sending out lists of things you can do to electronically promote your work.  Women are told that they need to be confident and self-assured, but just not too confident or too self-assured lest we rub people the wrong way.  The balancing act can be exhausting.  Sometimes it is just easier to keep quiet.

I have a nine-year-old daughter who is in the process of learning all of these implicit gender roles even as I try desperately to fight against them.  Last summer, the pop singer Keri Hilson had a hit single called the “Pretty Girl Rock,” which my daughter loved to put on auto repeat in our car.  The song was transgressive because Hilson spends the better part of five minutes singing about how pretty she is compared to other women.  Although I wish the song had been about how smart or successful Hilson was, my daughter loved it because it was a woman being openly confident, something girls are taught from an early age not to do.

Recently, I had the great fortune of winning a third major prize for a book I published in 2009.  My college has a policy of announcing faculty honors and awards on its website.  When I think about emailing the publicity folks at Bowdoin about this last prize, I find myself hesitating.  They have already run two stories about the previous awards; it might be unseemly for me to ask them to run yet another one.  It’s not that I am not proud of this award.  I worked incredibly hard on that book, and it is wonderful to have that work recognized by my scholarly peers.  But I am still afraid that my colleagues at Bowdoin will think that I am conceited.  Despite all of the good feminist reasons to click that send button, I still find myself paralyzed by the thought that I will be hated because I have the audacity to win book awards and to want the world to know about them.

We live in a meritocratic society where personal effort and ability are supposed to be rewarded.  But in our hyper individualized work lives, the only way our peers and superiors find out about our achievements is if we occasionally tout them.  Nowhere is this truer than in academia where we often toil in obscurity on our projects for years before they see the light of day.

If it is more socially acceptable for men to brag than it is for women, then it is no surprise that men continue to reap a disproportionate amount of the financial rewards and scholarly accolades in our respective fields.  It is hard to fight against these deeply held cultural assumptions, but women (including me) have to do so if we are ever going to reach true equality with men.  Perhaps what we need is the academic equivalent of the “Pretty Girl Rock.”

Kristen Ghodsee is the John S. Osterweis Associate Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies at Bowdoin College, the author of three books on gender and economic transition after communism: The Red Riviera: Gender, Tourism and Postsocialism on the Black Sea (Duke University Press, 2005), Muslim Lives in Eastern Europe: Gender, Ethnicity and the Transformation of Islam in Postsocialist Bulgaria (Princeton University Press 2009) and Lost In Transition: Ethnographies of Everyday Life After Communism (Duke University Press 2011).   She is also the co-author of Professor Mommy: Finding Work/Family Balance in Academia (Rowman & Littlefield 2011).

Links:

Professor Mommy (http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=1442208589

My faculty web page, http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/k/kghodsee/

Keri Hilson’s video for “Pretty Girl Rock” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtXOVKNazYU

 

Do. Or Do Not. There Is No Try. (Academic Writing and The Force)

The best piece of advice about writing that I got as a graduate student came from my external Ph.D. committee member, a full professor in the English department.  A poet and a romantic and undoubtedly a former or current pot smoker, he was much more up on his spiritual musings and pop culture references than were my anthro committee members, a rather dreary lot. His advice was always entertaining (when it wasn’t ill-informed and infuriating, but that’s a topic for another post).

I was in his office one day to show show him my latest conference paper. My professor began to read the first page, then paused, looked up with a bemused smile, and said, “Do or do not. There is no try.”

Do or do not. There is no try.” The immortal words of Yoda to the young Skywalker.

 

But why Yoda?  Why then?

Because I’d done that thing that young academics all too often do. I’d hedged my bets.  The paper, a pretty standard effort, contained on its first page the sentence, “This paper will attempt to show that Japanese women are traveling abroad in increasing numbers in order to effect a quasi-feminist critique of unequal gender relations at home.”

How many of you reading this would even have thought twice about that sentence?

What is it about young academics (and not only young ones, I’d hasten to add) that compels them to frame their scholarly efforts as “attempts”? Are they really so insecure?  Is the outcome really that much in doubt?

Think about how much academic writing depends on formulations like:

  • In this research I hope to prove that…
  • Through such an analysis I will try to show that….
  • I believe that in making this argument I may be able to demonstrate that…

Hope? Try? Believe? Why are scholars embarking on their studies with so much doubt? And so little confidence?

Perhaps you will say that these turns of phrase are simply writing conventions, and have no literal meaning. But why use them at all? If you did the research, and reached your conclusions, then you stand by them, do you not? Efforts to modulate or soften them with hedging phrases merely cast doubt on the legitimacy of your research itself. If you couldn’t actually prove the thing, then really, you have no business saying that you did.

Release your mind to go all the way. Own your findings. Claim your ground. Take every sentence where you find these power-sucking words, and remove them. In their place, write:

  • In this research I will prove that…
  • Through such an analysis I will show that….
  • In making this argument I will be able to demonstrate that…

If you are one of the multitudes of graduate students and young academics who have come to unconsciously depend on such phrases, and I’ll bet you are, stop. They do nothing for you. They are simply one more way that junior people, and women in particular, bend over backward to express deference and submission in their writing practices.

And if you’re aiming for a career in academia, those habits of deference and submission that you absorbed in graduate school need to go. Stat.  In their place:  Your power, expressed.

Listen to the words of Yoda:

You must unlearn what you have learned…

Try not!

Do! Or do not!

There is no try.”

And may The Force be with you.

 

 

 

Interviewing and Confidence

This past week I did a handful of “Interview Bootcamp” sessions with clients, and will soon have many more.  People are starting to look ahead hopefully to the pain and the glory of conference interviews and campus visits.

And it got me thinking about interviewing. What’s a good interview, and what’s a bad one?

There are many places on the web that you can find lists of potential academic interview questions. Here’s one to start. I may well post my own such list some time in the coming weeks.

But for today, I don’t want to talk about lists of questions, and how to prepare for them. I want to talk about attitude.

Because, in the end, it’s attitude that makes or breaks the interview.

Basically, in a nutshell, confidence sells. And desperation smells. Before any interview, no matter how brief, you must put yourself into the mindset that you ARE worthy of the job.

What does that mean? It means believing, at a core level, that you:

are a first class intellectual

have something important to say

are a major player in your field

are poised to challenge orthodoxies in the discipline

are excited to get your ideas into the public realm

love to share your ideas with students

are equal to any classroom situation

find inspiration in others’ work

believe that you can contribute to a department

believe your discipline brings critical insight to the human enterprise

Yes, the job market is awful. No, there aren’t enough jobs for the candidates who need them. Desperation would be a natural outcome. But desperation will cost you your chance for the job you want. The fact is, self-confidence gets jobs.  And self-confidence is displayed by a calm and friendly but firm assertiveness of manner.

You do not apologize, you do not make excuses, you do not pander or flatter or laugh too much or twist your hands.  You simply remember that you ARE the expert in your field.  You DO know how to teach.  Your discipline IS important and fascinating, you ARE qualified to go toe to toe with the very leaders of your scholarly world.   Don’t cave, and for God’s sake, call your interviewers by their FIRST NAMES!  You belong!  You’re one of them!

The most important thing?  That you retain your sense of dignity and self-worth.  Yes, the job market is awful. But no, you do not therefore have to grovel.  You will survive with or without this job.  Maybe poorer, maybe sadder.  But you’ll survive.

So hold your head up, straighten your shoulders, turn your sense of humor back on,  and remember:  you ARE good enough, whether you have a tenure track job, or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memo to Professors: How Useless Are You? Really?

Regular readers of this blog know that I use this space for focused advice for young academics on overcoming specific pitfalls and challenges in the academic career—how to write an abstract, apply for a grant, deal with a difficult advisor, etc.

I don’t use this space to vent about the injustices of the academy or the cluelessness of its members.

However. There is a first time for everything.

Yesterday I published a column in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The column, titled “To: Professors; Re: Your Advisees” was fashioned as a “memo” to professors about their graduate students who come to me for help here at The Professor Is In, and an indictment of those same professors for their failure to properly advise their Ph.D.s on the full range of skills required to find tenure-track work in this day and age. Those skills include: writing a proper CV, crafting a brilliant job letter, calculating letter writers, publishing in top-tier journals, effectively working a conference, doing the elevator talk, and so on.

When I was a tenured faculty member on searches I always suspected, and now that I am an academic careers coach I know, that the vast majority of faculty have not only utterly abdicated their responsibility to train their Ph.D.s for actual careers, but heap contempt upon those who speak directly about the need for such skills. “You’re gaming the system,” they cry. “The Ph.D. is not a professional degree.” they intone. “It’s not my job” is the message.

This has enraged me for years—since my own graduate schools days, actually, as you can read here, and I am absolutely thrilled to have written and published that column and gotten my rage at this professorial lack of accountability off my chest at long last.

Being a regular reader of the Chronicle, I expected that the comment stream would be ugly and filled with trolls.

The most startling thing to me about the comment stream that did follow the column is how negative it ISN’T. I mean, yes, it has the usual column:troll ratio of anything published in the Chronicle. But the fury level seems muted, and the insults, frankly, pretty weak.

I’m mystified. Why am I not being villified in hundreds of flaming ad hominem attacks at the same level as Bill Pannapacker, in his pathbreaking columns?

There’s still time, of course.  It may come.

But in any case, there are certainly idiotic comments, and it’s those I wish to talk about it today’s post. I expected fury; I didn’t expect idiocy.

And the pouting….I didn’t expect the pouting.

Like all online writers, I of course was tempted to dive into the fray right there on the comment stream itself, but I was dissuaded by friends and supporters who said, in the words of one delightful Facebook fan, “do not give fools more crumbs than they already scavenged.”

So, here are a few of the critical comments from the column, and what I’d like to say in response:

How could I do all the other aspects of my own job (including but not limited to advising) if I spent my entire day only advising?  Students should get an advisor from their academic institution, but they won’t get a personal career manager, stylist, and coach–not because we don’t value the futures of our students, but because we don’t have the time (and often the expertise) to provide all these individualized services.

You know someone has lost the argument when the best they can come up with is, “I don’t have time.” That’s the answer that you just raise an eyebrow at when it applies to exercising, cooking, or spending time with your children. Call it what it is: evidence you don’t care enough to make it a priority.

How many Ph.D.s do most advisors have? 3? 5? Maybe 10? Not an impossible number when in fact, all you need to do is call one advisee meeting per semester to keep them on track and light fires under their butts about publishing, grants, conferences, and networking.

Laziness. Pure laziness.

Unless they are passionate about their subject (and would almost want to do the research on their own time even if they weren’t paid to do so) they may not have the independent attitude to succeed in their field.  So, I think that the lack of “support” is part of a natural weeding out process. I think that most of the skills that the article states that advising is supposed to teach can be learned independently and their masterly (sic) will not slow down the best students.

A natural weeding out process? Really?  This is not med school, people.

I do get frustrated with graduate students who don’t take responsibility for their own career prospects, and ask, constantly, “What’s coming at the end of this? What do I need to do to prepare? What is the capital that has value on this market? How do I accrue it?”

But to justify a refusal by advisors to promote their Ph.D.s’ best interests by every means possible, the Ph.D.s who have taught their classes and invested in their department for 5-10 years, as a natural weeding out process? Are you kidding me?   It goes without saying that this is just another iteration of the truly evil “love” cop-out: that you do it because you “love” it and true love can’t be measured by money.  That is the biggest lie of them all.

Take 5% of the time that you devote to your tiresome blah blah about the juxtaposition of structure and agency in the last third of chapter four of the dissertation…and spend it going over your student’s CV! And having them deliver the elevator talk—it IS only 2 minutes long, remember—that’s why it’s called an ELEVATOR TALK. Tell your students that they won’t get effing shortlisted unless they have at least one refereed journal article, and then tell them how to convert that chapter four into one of those.

All that? That takes about 15 minutes. Yeah. Not gonna kill ya.

What do most faculty members know about the job market? What do most faculty members know about writing cover letters or following up on interviews? Most of them have been on the job market once or twice, and they have only their own experience – often decades old – to go on. They are almost never given any training by their institutions in career advising. They don’t have a treasure trove of helpful connections or proven strategies. All they can really draw on is their experience on search committees, which really only helps in finding a job at their own institutions.

You don’t know how? You don’t know how? Are you effing kidding me? NOBODY TAUGHT ME HOW TO DO THIS. My advisor and my department were utterly, completely, shamelessly indifferent to the job prospects of their Ph.D.s. I failed embarassingly on the job market my first year, and put myself through an intensive bootcamp, using every research skill I had gained as a cultural anthropologist, to uncover the real requirements of the academic job market, and learn to master them myself.

How many searches do faculty members serve on, anyway? Once I was on the other side of the table, I had an unending stream of learning materials at my fingertips, every year, on how to get, and how to not get, a tenure track job. From the cover letter to the conference interview to the campus visit and the job talk…. every year I had a new set of evidence on what works and what doesn’t. All of that, instantly, was turned around into knowledge that I shared with my own Ph.D. Advisees. We would deconstruct every job talk afterward, often by email. “Good God, what was that???” Followed by, “Did you see what he did? Did you? Did you see how he flubbed that question? Now how would you have answered it?”

Again, not hard, not onerous, and not time-consuming. In fact, it was actually fun. Imagine that.

Given her demonizing of faculty, I wonder if Dr. Kelsky has always shown such diligence in advising students throughout her career? If so, I would love to hear more about how she managed her duties and provided this level of career counseling for students as a faculty member.

I was a tenured professor with a joint appointment in two departments and a department head (with two children to boot and a life disintegrating in a horrific multi-year custody case), and I managed to make sure all my advisees published before finishing, attended national conferences yearly, organized high profile panels, applied for and won the most prestigious grants in their fields, learned how to wear a suit, could shake hands firmly, and could talk intelligently, engagingly, and briefly, about their research. This is not rocket science.

Remember, too, faculty do not get compensated to do career counseling–if they do the stuff you do, they would be doing if “for free.” Why should they? It’s not a matter of arrogance or elitism (necessarily), but good old-fashioned rationality.

Professors do a whole bunch of shit for free. They publish articles for free. They write books for free. They serve on committees for free. They attend departmental potlucks for free. And…they already advise students. So why is this one thing—this “tacking on” of a little bit of additional advising to an already existing advising relationship—too onerous to be done for free? Why indeed.

We have a lot of unemployed PhDs right now, especially in the humanities, but I think it’s important to consider that a lot of schools that really have no business offering the PhD are giving it.  How many unemployed PhDs went to mediocre graduate programs?  If you’re thinking of going to graduate school and you’re not applying to, say, the BEST English departments in the United States, yes, you will be unemployed.

LOL. This one unleashed such hounds as there were on the comment stream. It’s so over-the-top clueless that it was mostly just funny.  And many commenters rebutted its exuberant elitism just fine.

But for the sake of thoroughness I want to state clearly: it’s the Ivy Leagues that far and away do the worst job of career training of Ph.D.s.

I saw it as a grad student, I saw it as a faculty member on search committees, and I see it now as Dr. Karen. The Ivy Leagues are simply appalling in their utter abdication of responsibility for the career prospects of their Ph.D.s. And the high second tier schools, large state R1s and R2s—they’re not much better, but they are better. Why? Because there’s no monumental sense of entitlement getting in the way. In the old days, undoubtedly the Ivy League pedigree was a total advantage on the job market, and its holders probably did not have to scramble and professionalize. But right now, the abysmal job market has had an interesting democratizing effect: Ivy Leaguers are as screwed as everybody else. And it’s the candidates who publish, and network, and self-promote, and organize, and scramble, and so on and so on, who get the jobs. And by and large, those candidates are not from the Ivy Leagues.

Their [Professors’] job is to toe the company line and that line is very often far afield of contemporary realities or even the student’s best interests. Everyone that gets all of the help they need from their faculty should continue to do so.  For all of those who are being ignored, fed lies, or subjected to academic malpractice – there are folks out here happy to take some money for what the university can’t seem to, or won’t, provide.

This one said it best. It’s academic malpractice. Nobody would accept these excuses from their doctors, and doctors would be sued for such negligence.

I’m sorry that there is such a devastating need for my services.  I’m happy to have created a successful business providing them.  I like seeing people succeed.  It gratifies me.  And I’m glad that the column prompted so many commenters to show their true stripes, and admit to the truth: they are too lazy, too entitled, and too selfish to lift a finger from their tiny, myopic intellectual fiefdom to be bothered learning the skills to help their Ph.D.s find real work.

 

Finding Mentors

Today’s post is a Special Request post for Lauri, who is a new assistant professor, and wishes to know how to cultivate mentors on campus.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I frequently mention the importance of cultivating mentors on campus when you are a new assistant professor. Many campuses already recognize the importance of mentorship, and have programs set up to link new faculty members with potential mentors. Even when the campus as a whole does not, often-times smaller, more specialized networks on campus—such as women faculty, or faculty of color—will run their own official or unofficial mentoring initiatives.

If your campus has any of these resources, be sure and avail yourself of them. While the mentor you are paired with may seem far afield at first (for example, when I arrived at U Oregon, I was paired with a senior woman faculty member in Chemistry), the fact is, that mentor can help you. Even when they are in a different field, even a different college, mentors can provide the savvy and hands-on suggestions that you need to manage things like:

  • evaluating service obligations
  • mastering the art of time management
  • creating a writing schedule
  • dealing with difficult colleagues
  • solving classroom dilemmas
  • finding pots of money on campus
  • building a network

Sometimes the out-of-department mentor is the best possible support, because he or she is not implicated in your review and tenure decisions, and can really proceed in a strictly supportive (rather than evaluative) role.

If your campus does not provide these mentoring resources, then you must proceed on your own.

You should seek out a mentor in your own department if possible, and you should seek out at least one mentor from outside your department.

Your in-department mentor will look out for you in a host of ways—by advising you on dealing with the department head and other senior colleagues; by helping you to decide which courses to offer and when; by protecting you from destructive situations; by filling you in on the backstory of departmental animosities; by assisting you in understanding the politics of voting in the faculty meetings.

You should get in the habit of stopping in that mentor’s office after getting the faculty meeting agenda in your email, and before the meeting is held. “So, what’s this thing here, this agenda item #4?” you ask, “The department strategic plan? What is that?” And the mentor explains that it’s a matter that goes back 7 years, and has supporters, and has detractors, and is the pet project of the Dean, and has finally reached the point where it has to be voted on. Your mentor will tell you who’s likely to vote how, and what the stakes are. You walk in informed and fore-armed.

Your in-department mentor will continue to play an invaluable role in your departmental life all the way through tenure. Indeed, the best mentors will mobilize at tenure-time to make sure they’re on your committee, and to intervene in all the small and large ways there are to promote a successful tenure outcome. Quiet casual conversations about who, exactly, must never, ever be asked to write your tenure letters lay the groundwork for external reviewer lists that work to your advantage. And so on.

Your out of department mentor is someone whom you can cultivate over the course of your first one or two years, as you get to know the campus and the faculty. In my own case, I cultivated a senior woman faculty member in History, vastly respected by all, and well known for being a generous and yet highly productive teacher and scholar. I knew that she was incredibly busy, and made sure not to abuse the relationship. But about once a term I’d invite her to coffee, and would share my latest dilemma. I’d email with questions about once every two weeks or so. An active and internationally known scholar, she helped me to navigate the politics of applying for a major research grant that released me from teaching for over a year. More than just a source of information, she was a model for how to comport oneself as a member of a scholarly community—at once generous, but with excellent boundaries; a first rate scholar, who also prioritized the mentoring of graduate students and junior faculty.

Many of you may be wondering, “how do I approach somebody to be a mentor to me?” and that is a good question.

In your department, allow a few months to go by. Attend a number of ffaculty meetings, and observe your colleagues’ behavior. Who knows how to listen well? Who, when she speaks, speaks rationally and at a reasonable length? Who seems well informed? Who laughs and retains a sense of humor? Who interrupts a discussion to fill “the new guy” in on the essential backstory? The person who does those things is the person you want to be your mentor.

When you’ve chosen someone, find ways to open up a channel of communication. Drop by his office occasionally (not intrusively!!) when his door is open. Chat by the water cooler. Send the occasional email asking for clarification of a departmental memo. Little by little, determine whether he seems available and willing to be your go-to person in the department. At some point, you could say something like, “I really appreciate all the help you’ve given me as I get adjusted in the department. You’ve been so generous, thank you. Would it be ok if I considered you a kind of senior mentor in the department? I know I’ll have a lot of questions as time goes by, and it would be great if I could run some of those by you.” Generally, as long as you’ve proven that you’re not a pest or a drama queen your mentor-candidate will feel flattered to have been asked and respond kindly.

Outside of your department, the same principle applies, but you must be more circumspect and cautious. Many senior faculty are already over-taxed, and may have demands from junior faculty in their own departments. They won’t necessarily fall all over themselves rushing to serve as a mentor to you. This effort may emerge gradually, over your first year or two on campus. As you attend various interdisciplinary events, you’ll begin to see the same people. Just as you observed your departmental colleagues in faculty meetings, you’ll observe campus colleagues in larger events. Again, ask: who has a sense of humor? Who says smart and rational things? Who is open-minded in talking to colleagues? Who seems to be kind? You will quickly learn.

And again, start out slowly, with the occasional email. Don’t just make yourself a burden—rather, contribute to campus wide events that the colleague is involved in. Prove yourself to be a valuable community member. That buys the kind of goodwill that wins friends, and mentors.

In sum, the first year or two as an assistant professor is fraught with confusion and inadvertant political and social missteps. The senior mentor can help prevent the worst errors, and guide you as you make a name for yourself, and go after money, leave time, reputation, and tenure.

 

What is Evidence of Teaching Excellence?

Today’s post is a Special Request post for quite a few clients, who wanted to know what is meant when a job ad asks for “Evidence of Teaching Excellence.”

I want to state at the outset that I have only a few thoughts to offer on this subject, and that I hope that readers will weigh in on the comments. It is entirely possible that I will not list every possible document that can be included as part of this “Evidence,” and I would appreciate readers sharing their own experiences, both as job seekers and as search committee members.

I believe that the basic evidence of teaching excellence to be submitted with a general job application includes the following:

  • A teaching statement
  • A sample syllabus
  • A list of courses taught (this does not have to be 100% exhaustive but gives a sense of overall breadth and scope)
  • Brief summary of evaluations

I will take each of these in turn.

The teaching statement is very easy to write badly, and very difficult to write well.

The overwhelming majority of teaching statements are simply awful.

I will not go into the reasons why here. I simply refer you to a recent post, The Dreaded Teaching Statement: 8 Pitfalls, that goes deeply into the subject. Please read this post closely and subject your teaching statement to a very close critical read for the errors and pitfalls I mention.

The sample syllabus should be a syllabus that reflects a course that you taught that is in some way similar to the courses you’ll be asked to teach at the job for which you’re applying. You do NOT need to write a new syllabus for one of the courses currently on their books (unless, of course, that were to be asked for explicitly in the ad). Your purpose here is simply to give evidence that you know how to put together a class, with appropriate organization, subject coverage, assigned readings, and course assignments and exams. The syllabus you submit should be a substantive one, with a good “course description” at the top that really demonstrates your original approach to and your pedagogical commitments in the class. Resist the temptation to create a “mega-class” to impress the search committee. Remember, they want evidence that your courses are successful, and that means, actually do-able by students. Keep the readings and assignments reasonable for actual students, and don’t use the syllabus as an opportunity to create an exhaustive bibliography for a scholarly topic.

Your list of courses taught should include the names, the level, and the enrollment. In my opinion descriptions are unnecessary. You can divide this list into undergraduate and graduate subheadings if you wish.

Lastly, you’ll want a brief summary of your evaluations. I say brief, because I do not believe it to be appropriate to send a complete teaching portfolio that includes exhaustive archives of your numerical and narrative teaching evaluations from all of your classes. These will most likely not be read, and may well offend the search committee.

Rather, find a way to summarize your numerical evaluations in a table, and then give a sample of the written comments.

It might be appropriate to, instead of the above, send the complete evaluation set, both numerical and narrative, from a single class. That would allow for an objective view, rather than the edited view that arises from your choosing which narrative comments to include. However, a single class probably does not give a sense of your overall teaching profile.

Two clients have been kind enough to send examples of their teaching evaluation summary tables. I share them here.

StudentEvals-anonymized

teachingevals1_Page_1

teachingevals1_Page_2

In all of your documents it is critical to be vigilant about the difference between your teaching as a TA and as Instructor of Record.  Be aware that for the vast majority of search committees, TA work does not count as full-fledged teaching experience.  If your department uses TAs as Instructors of Record for courses, then be absolutely sure that the title you use for the position includes an explanation that you were Instructor of Record.

In your selection of materials to include in this set of materials, always prioritize the classes for which you were primary instructor.  Only use TA materials if you don’t have any Instructor of Record teaching experience.  In general, even if the narrative evaluations from TA discussion sections were excellent, you should avoid using them if you have equally excellent alternatives from your sole-taught courses.

To conclude, readers, please feel free to add to comments below other documents you have seen included in the Evidence of Teaching Excellence.  It would be helpful for this comment thread to serve as part of the archive on this subject.

 


Be Careful What You Wish For

Amanda Krauss left a position at Vanderbilt to become a web developer in Austin. She now blogs as Worst Professor Ever.

I got to know Amanda when I approached her about writing a Guest Post on her blog, the post that ended up as “Death of a Soul (on Campus).”  I loved her spirit from the first moment.  I definitely don’t always agree with her, but I always enjoy hearing what she has to say.

And on the post that follows?  I agree with her on this, her ultimate point: “know exactly why you’re doing it” (and for whom).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I feel a little awkward writing for this audience, because I tend to think of academic “success” as an oxymoron, at least for those who weren’t hired way back in the Era of Achievable, Frequent, and Leisured Tenure.

I’ve already told Dr. Karen that most tenure-trackers I know are medicated, lonely/estranged, and barely holding their overworked lives together. My tenured acquaintances aren’t much better off; a recently-tenured friend suggested that there should be a tenure PSA playing off the “It Gets Better” campaign — except that the point of these ads would be that it doesn’t get better after tenure. Their words, not mine.

My guess is, you don’t want to hear that. If you’re reading this blog, you want to control your destiny and win the game. Well, okay, you can do that.* I’m not denying that persistence and savvy improve your odds.

So, to be very clear, I think Dr. Karen gives excellent advice here. I think she’s cutting through a lot of the BS you’ll get from idealistic (and unrealistic) advisors. Follow her advice, devote yourself single-mindedly to your task, and maybe you’ll get what you want. Only one question: then what?

While I was still a professor, I was doing all the right things. I was authoring articles, networking at conferences, working on the book. And the working was…working. I was “going places,” I guess. But I also had no life whatsoever; nor did any other academics I knew, anywhere — even those with tenure. There one always one more thing to do, one “last” obstacle before everything got super awesome (please see above re: why this is an illusion). I started to wonder how this lifestyle would look from a deathbed. Really not good, I decided, no matter how impressed anyone acted when I dropped the “professor at Vanderbilt” line. Surveying what I saw, I determined that academia systemically didn’t allow, let alone reward, any sort of work/life balance. Quite the opposite: narcissistic assholes thrived because they were most willing to do whatever it took to win.

Even if you’re a perfectly lovely person, it’s no fun to be in an environment that fetishizes external validation. I’ve seen folks so wrapped up in other people’s visions of success, they literally can’t articulate what they, as an individual, want. I’ve seen people get tenure, only to discover that it’s the only thing they have — and that, instead of providing any joy, it continues to interfere with finding meaningful relationships.

I’ve fought the urge to argue with academics who told me they were happy when all evidence pointed to the contrary; in reality, I think they felt they had to be happy at having nabbed a “dream” job. But by whose standards? And I don’t care what your individual situation is, academia is built on letting other people tell you when your career counts as successful – in writing, down to the year or semester or millisecond.

So, all I’d say is, brutal self-honesty is not a bad thing. If you’re going to kill yourself trying because success means just that much to you, great. As long as you know exactly why you’re doing it — in your own words, I mean, and not the ones that come from your Chair, Dean, mom, or neighbor. Or even from me.

* Sort of. I’m with Machiavelli, I think free will gets you slightly less than 50% of the way there.

 

 

Should I Use Interfolio?

Today’s Post is a Special Request post for XXX, who asked the $64,000 question: should I use a dossier service like Interfolio?

If I had my druthers, this post would run like my previous one on edited collections—ie, variations on “no.”

Fundamentally speaking, nobody who is on the scholarly, tenure track job market should be using a dossier service for their letters.

However, it has come to my attention that quite a few Ph.D.s on the market ARE using such services, for a range of reasons. The reasons that I’ve heard include the following:

  1. My professors insisted I use a service
  2. My professors have proven themselves to be totally unreliable and my only hope of being sure of letters arriving by the deadline is if they come from a service
  3. My professors seem really busy and I already bothered them last year, so this year I think I should use a service.
  4. I am a control freak and want to control how and when my letters are sent out.

There are only two reasons among these four that have a modicum (and it’s only a modicum) of validity.

These are #1 and #2 . If your professors have proven, through their past behavior, that they cannot and must not be counted on to provide letters on time for your job and postdoc and grant deadlines, then, and only then, are you justified in considering (not immediately turning to, but considering) a dossier service.

Similarly, if your professors have told you point blank that they refuse to write fresh letters for students in general/you in particular and that they will only consider providing one for a service, then, again, you may consider using a dossier service.

However, in principle, nobody who is on the scholarly, tenure track job market should be in a position in which their supporters are not writing them fresh letters.

The fact is, in all the searches I conducted (11) over the course of my career, I never once—not even one time—saw a candidate short short listed, ie, invited to a campus visit, who had a letter that came from a dossier service.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the personalized letter. The custom of personal letter writing reflects one of the most fundamental values of the academic community. Ph.D. level training is slow, painstaking, and highly individualized. It is not a mass market process, and it never can be. Its extreme personalization, based on a relationship built over years between a graduate student and his/her advisor, means that every Ph.D. student finishes with the personal imprimatur—and de facto sponsorship—of that advisor, as well as a committee of other deeply invested faculty members. These relationships at the heart of the graduate enterprise are reflected in the lengthy, detailed, and personal letters of reference that the advisor and committee member write for the student.

There is no clearer sign of the neoliberalization of higher ed than that this relationship has broken down to such a degree that there are advisors all across the country, including extremely well known and influential ones, who will do no more for their Ph.D. advisees than write a single generic letter to be put into a dossier file.

It is a core duty of faculty to write letters of recommendation. This is not an optional part of the job; it is a required part of the job. A faculty member certainly is not obliged to write for every student who asks. But a faculty member is obliged to write for those students whom he or she genuinely supports, and for whom he or she is a major element of their educational experience.

[Addendum: Faculty have computers.  Computers have files.  Letter files can be easily customized by simply adding a new heading/address, first paragraph, and closing paragraph. Each individual letter is not completely different.  Rather, each letter is sent out with a tailored address, a few sentences appropriate to the job, and a  live signature.

There may be field variation, with some fields more likely to accept such letters.

At the same time, it’s important to understand that the quantity of letters that a professor has to write is not in and of itself justification for turning to a service.  Many professors have lots of grad students applying for lots of jobs (my Ph.D.s applied for 25- 50 jobs in any given year, as did my colleagues’, and yet we all wrote personalized letters). It is typical in the Fall job season to hear faculty groaning about the “25 letters I have to write today,” etc. etc. ]

What does this mean for you, the applicant? It means that you need to start out with the expectation of having individualized, personalized, and tailored letters written for you for every single application you submit. It doesn’t matter how many applications you submit, or over how many years. You are justified in expecting that from your main group of recommenders. Just because they “seem” busy, or you “think” that you’re annoying them, doesn’t mean you should not ask them in a courteous but determined way.

If a letter writer is proving unreliable or obdurate, then the solution is not to then give up and beg for a dossier letter, but to find a different, and better, letter writer.

You are not tied to your committee members for your letters. In fact, the most successful candidates will have letters from leading scholars around the country, and not just from their Ph.D. granting institution. You cultivate these relationships over a period of years, by getting to know senior scholars in the field at conferences, during their visits to your campus, or through polite email correspondence. While asking external scholars to write for you can be delicate, as those scholars might have their own Ph.D. students on the market as your competition, nevertheless, it can often work very well indeed. And be aware that having a letter writer from outside your Ph.D. institution adds greatly to your reputation, in that when that letter writer indicates that you are among “the top 2% of students with whom he’s worked,” the total includes his university, in addition to your own.

It goes without saying that reason #4 has no place in the decision making process about letters for your applications. It should be evident by now why. The relationship of trust between the applicant and his or her letter writers is a reflection of the quality of the applicant’s graduate training itself. An applicant who is demonstrating that he or she does not have sufficient trust in faculty mentors to submit letters on their own is communicating a profound message about the quality of his or her graduate education and the attitude that he or she might bring to the new department.

Having said all of this, there are good and bad ways to request letters. A frantic email at midnight, 2 days before the due date, with no email address or mailing address or even full description of the thing being applied for is the bad way.

The good way is an excel spread sheet that has columns clearly listing:

the job/grant

the deadline

the contact email/website

the snail mail address (still essential for the heading of the letter, even when it is sent electronically)

the contact person’s name

the description of the job or grant

notes about the applicant’s ideas for tailoring and the strengths and weaknesses of his candidacy.

This spreadsheet should be created at least a month in advance of the deadlines, and 2 months in advance if possible.

If a candidate provides this exhaustive information in a timely fashion, then the occasional last minute lapse for a sudden, unexpected opportunity will be forgiven.

So to conclude, the dossier service is a poor, poor substitute for individual tailored letters. It is becoming more and more common in recent years, and is even being demanded by an increasing number of advisors. Nevertheless, candidates should be aware that they are entitled to expect individual letters from their dissertation advisors and committee members, and should be aware that the refusal to provide these represents a dereliction of duty. To the extent possible, candidates should seek to replace unreliable and irresponsible letter writers who will not provide individual letters with better ones who will. Where that is not possible, then, and only then, can a dossier service be entertained as a substitute, with a full understanding of the risks.