I just wrote something to a postdoc client that I want to share because I think it clarifies what The Professor Is In does, and how we do it. And also what we don’t do.

People who have never worked with us are often skeptical.  A tenured reader related recently that their English department colleagues declined to use my book as a resource for their PhD students on the job market on the basis of, “what could an anthropologist have to say about the English job market?” (to which I replied, “After 15 years of The Prof Is In, I know FAR more about the English and Psychology job markets than I do about anthropology, based on sheer quantity of clients with whom I’ve worked.”)

But anyway, people don’t always understand. They sometimes think we are gimmicky, impersonal, or like the English faculty above, only qualified to edit anthropologists (lol).

So when I wrote this email just now, I thought–this might be useful to share.  We’ve been around 15 years now (it’s hard to believe) and I think our success and longevity speaks for itself.  Folks who worked with us in the beginning are now coming up on Full Professor! And every year our clients continue to get the ever declining number of jobs and grants that are available.

Just this morning another former client, who wrote to ask me about editing an article manuscript (which I do on a case by case basis),  remarked “First I want to thank you because after the campus visit intervention we did on Zoom in February 2024– I got the tenure track job at [R1]!  Now, can I ask you to edit my article?”

That is another delight of the work–the large number of returning clients. I’ve been with people now through first jobs, several moves, through tenure, even through getting tenure and deciding to leave academia.

But anyway, this email is in response to a client who asked why I needed to invoice for a second postdoc application after we had already commenced the editing process.  In her very unusual case, this second postdoc had been tucked under a single umbrella organization she had contracted us to edit for, which meant we missed it at time of scheduling. I wrote:

When there is a second target postdoc —which technically this is because the XXX  requires a separate logic and approach to craft the appropriate rationale, match with the mission and so on — then we re-start the hour count because it is a fresh document. Yours is awkward because the two postdocs are under one umbrella and that’s why it wasn’t apparent at the start.

We DO give a discount for the second document, when there is substantial overlap and I’ll be glad to apply the discount.

More importantly though: I want you to understand that our work is NOT just proofreading your English. It’s actually studying your CONTENT to ensure that it actually works for the institution to which you’re applying, and that it effectively speaks to the institution’s requirements and mission.

This entails a lot of thinking and judgment. It is not just editing. So when the institution changes, our thinking has “start over” in a sense. And XX as an institution is quite distinct from the regular YY application.  As you can see from the application, the two major questions it’s asking are very different, because the mission of XX, while related, is distinct from YY, and needs its own targeted approach.

You also mention that you had asked for “just a skim” of this second part.

“Just a skim” is not within the scope of what Professor Is In does.

We do not “skim.” We study the application requirements, and help you conceptualize and craft language that matches your specific work to the specific mission and requirements of any given application.

This is why we are so good and our success rate is so high.

I hope this makes sense. I don’t want you to be stressed out, and I really dislike changing an invoice after the fact, but I do want pricing to reflect the work we are actually doing.

I hope that this provides a useful window onto what we do. Academic professional writing is all “PR” in a sense. And like all PR it has to do a tremendous amount of very precisely targeted work in very few words.

Academic professional writing is NOT just describing what you do. That is probably the single biggest misapprehension I see in academic writers. People commonly launch grant proposals with “My research is about…” and honestly, there is nothing more generic and boring. You can describe your work, even describe it effectively, and not get the job or grant. Why? Because you didn’t CRAFT the description to speak compellingly, explicitly, concisely, and specifically to the stated mission and agenda of the institution to which you are applying.

The editing process is not always pain-free. As one former client wrote, ““While I shook my metaphorical fist at you every time I received a round of edits, the process empowered me as a job seeker and scholar. Between our one-on-one work, your webinars, and the blog, I came to know what I offer academia and the kind of scholarly community I want to join. I also learned how to present myself as a professional, and to be confident in which of the academic ‘games’ I simply was not going to play.” 

Perhaps counterintuitively, one of the reasons my team and I are so good at this is precisely because we are NOT from your committee, department or even field. We are not impressed with description and we are easily bored. We HAVE to see the “why.” And also the “how.”  And we look at the job ad or call for proposals to which you are responding with neutral, comparatively objective (to the degree that’s possible) eyes.

So, if you want a “skim,” please look elsewhere. If you want a deep, intense, possibly temporarily distressing but ultimately gratifying investigation into your research and how best to craft it for desired results, then get in touch.