Tenured Idiots, and "Advice" to watch out for

[heraclitus]

My AOS is Ancient, so I deal with the Classics wiki and job-blog Famae Volent as well. The blog recently received a link to a post by a senior faculty member who is actually a member of one of the search committees for a job to whom many Famae readers have applied: Hobart and William Smith. Among other nuggets of wisdom he left the following:

"Candidates - don't settle for portfolio services. Develop enough of a relationship with your recommenders that they at least tailor something to different types of schools. The all-purpose to whom it may concern recommendation really isn't inspiring me to want to interview you."

Many Classicists are in the process of calling bullsh*t on this, but I wondered what the consensus here would be. Discussion thread is here:

famaevolent.blogspot.com/2008/09/job-search-updates.html?showComment=1229578320000#c1578154850379705118

Blog of Tenured Idiot is here:

www.crankyprofessor.com/archives/002053.html

Methinks he needs some "real-world" advice of his own.

[useyourtools]

"Candidates - don't settle for portfolio services. Develop enough of a relationship with your recommenders that they at least tailor something to different types of schools. The all-purpose to whom it may concern recommendation really isn't inspiring me to want to interview you."


This sounds like someone on a SC that wants their program to be so special that when you apply to it -- from among the 20-100 jobs you are applying to -- you will have your recommenders take the time to write a special recommendation for that specific program. Would this be the best approach in a world where people -- such as applicants and recommenders -- were not busy? Sure, but it's an impractical request. The recommendation should be personalized for the candidate, not necessarily for each individual job for which they are applying.

I have done this for two specific programs that were not only hiring my AOS, but hiring someone who worked on very particular issues I work on. In this case I asked one of my recommenders to send an individualized letter to those programs. Apart from that, there is simply not enough time for a recommender to tailor each letter.

[jphil]

Dec 18, 2008 8:57:13 GMT -5 heraclitus said:

Candidates - don't settle for portfolio services. Develop enough of a relationship with your recommenders that they at least tailor something to different types of schools. The all-purpose to whom it may concern recommendation really isn't inspiring me to want to interview you.

Sure. And maybe my letter writers could also catch a flight to your school and give you a deep tissue massage. Why the heck not? There's no limit to time or money around here.

[squid]

Um, I had to chase my recommenders for weeks to get my letters. Could I get more letters out of them? Sure, if the deadlines are extended for a few more months. As it is I missed a bunch of deadlines because I didn't have all my letters.

[apdent]

I am sick and tired of SC members who pretend to not realize that theirs isn't the only (or one of only several) job you are applying for. This formalized job search process is already ridiculously long enough and difficult enough! As far as I am concerned, asking people to jump through additional individualized hoops is inconsiderate and insulting...

[docs]

Ouch. Look, I do not want to appear a scold, but some of the responses, here, are just off track. Perhaps this person who recommended more individualized letters is not aware of the conditions at larger grad programs. On the other hand, the advice is not bad advice. Your professors and advisors ought to care about your job search. To that extent, they ought to be willing to write more than one letter. Of course, if you are applying to 25 or more places, they cannot be expected to write a letter for each application.

But how is it you are applying to so many places, when the ads are directed, usually, to certain areas and come from very different kinds of institutions? Of course, everyone wants A job, but the schools are looking for people who fit their needs and who will be - ceteris paribus - happy at the specific institution.

I don't understand the tone of some of the posts. I get that people are worried - even desperate - but no one is owed a position in any profession. The anger I see in some of these posts is unjustified. Perhaps some of us SC folks are tenured idiots, but most of us are not idiots, at all. We are looking for people who will work best in our schools. We recognize that there are many, many wonderful candidates. Somehow, we must sort through the files and the interviews. The 'tenured idiot' villified in the initial post was probably just making a point about this difficult process from his perspective: it would be helpful to have more information from the files, given that SCs can do only so many interviews.

[Experienced SC member]

I am a veteran of many search committees over the 17 years I have been at my institution, and I do not want the job-hunters who read this blog to go into a panic thinking that the views expressed by docs (or, for that matter, by the Cranky Professor/Tenured Idiot) are universal or even typical among members of search committees:

Dec 30, 2008 21:45:12 GMT -5 @docs said:

But how is it you are applying to so many places, when the ads are directed, usually, to certain areas and come from very different kinds of institutions? Of course, everyone wants A job, but the schools are looking for people who fit their needs and who will be - ceteris paribus - happy at the specific institution.

My jaw dropped when I read this. "How is it you are applying to so many places?" Bloody freaking hell! I cannot imagine a more out-of-touch comment for someone at the hiring end to make.

Attention job hunters: (i) apply for every open position and every job that lists an AOS that you fit - if that's fewer than 60, then you're probably not applying to enough jobs; (ii) *do not worry* about using the same set of letters in each application; the number of hiring committees to whom customized letters will make any difference is *microscopic*.

It is true that no one is owed a position in any profession, but it is also true that hiring committees who look for signs of customized letters and other examples of extra effort in a dossier are making a conspicuous display of either institutional insecurity or else laziness with respect to evaluating the real qualifications of candidates. In my experience, when the hiring discussion turns to questions of "fit" and of "whether the candidate will be happy here", that means qualifications are no longer at issue and a weak hire is likely to follow.

[categoricalimp]

Surely there's something in between a letter tailored to each school and a completely generic letter. I've had many friends who applied to different types of positions, and they had different letters -- one emphasizing research and one emphasizing teaching skills. I don't think there's anything dishonest about this, either. A person may have excellent quality research and very good teaching skills; yet, it's well-known that a letter that discusses too much of either may be deadly at some institutions. I know SC members who say that if a letter discusses teaching for more than a paragraph, that file is immediately discarded. Other schools want extensive discussion of teaching and not too much research. If a person is good at both, they deserve a shot at both types of jobs.

And, frankly, given the current job market there is nothing wrong with applying for every job for which you're qualified, even if you ultimately only want a research or teaching job. If you will do the job well, then the dept. will get their money's worth. If you're not right for the job, they'll find that out well before they grant you tenure. And if they accidentally grant you tenure anyway, that's due to their own incompetence. It's the search committee's job to weed out those who aren't suitable, not the applicant's job to guess what the committee wants and weed him/herself out.

Finally, tenured idiot really is being an idiot. Weeding out applicants because the letter is generic is just stupid. Don't you want to hire the best qualified people? Doesn't that mean looking at the hard evidence of the candidates' qualifications -- little things like whether their research is interesting and intelligent, whether their teaching is effective, whether they're productive? I suppose in a buyer's market one can afford to be sloppy in hiring, but it seems rather short-sighted.

[docs]

Sigh. I see I have expressed myself badly. Of course, IF one is qualified for 60 or more positions, one should apply to all of them. I may have been thinking 25, this year, would be a high number, and I was no doubt reflecting our dismay at the number of completely inapt applications.

If tenured idiot, or anyone else, will not look at files absent personalized letters, well yes, s/he is an idiot [tenured or not]. And that would be astonishingly lazy.

My point was that more information, especially an indication that one understands the kind of institution to which one is applying, is helpful. So, categoricalimp's comments are in line with my meaning. Further, it simply seems to be a fact that the generic info leaves out information in many cases. We have discovered, through the cover letters or emails, that a candidate is interested in teaching in an area not indicated on the cv. That can make the difference between an interview and no interview.

Finally, I would point out that concern for fit and finding a colleague who will flourish in one's institution is not a recipe for a 'weak hire.' It is what programs at small colleges must do. We are not looking for the whiz kid who will depart in two or three years or who will be miserable to work with [flourishing and happiness]. We are not looking for someone who cannot teach courses we need to offer [fit]. Larger programs and those that are not focused on undergraduate education may not need to be concerned about these issues. But, all of us are concerned to find the smartest, most promising/accomplished folks we can. Smaller places simply have other aims, as well.

I apologize if my first post offended anyone. After two days of straight interviewing, I am as worn out as the candidates must be, and I am trying to figure out how to select 3 candidates for on-sites out of 15 excellent, deserving people. Of course, the people searching are in a far less happy situation. But I believe that the vast majority of SC members work very hard on their end of this gruelling process.

I hope everyone has recovered and will have a good New Year's break.

[apdent]

In response to post #5, I would simply like to point out that Dr. Guest's position as a SC member does not entitle him or her to scold other posters for opinions he or she dislikes. SC's already hold enough power over our lives, and already use it unwisely often enough (and this is not to mention the increasingly common cases of obvious nepotism at some of the most prestigious departments), that perhaps Dr. Guest should allow us a forum to freely discuss the process without being "graded" on our opinions by people in power.

[apdent]

I would also like to say that I in no way feel "entitled" to a job, or "deserving" of any specific job. That does not mean that I will allow myself to be deprived of the right to voice concerns that the people who, in fact, got the job (or even a place on a SC) were even less deserving of it. Again, Dr. Guest's position does not entitle him or her to dictate whether or not (or how) others will be free to discuss these issues.

[docs]

I think 'adpent' has been responding to my first post, for which I tried to apologize. I'll repeat that apology, although I never intended any offense.
Certainly, I don't think anyone on any blog should feel they are not permitted to post [ok, assuming that basic limits of decency or whatever imposed by the hosts are observed].

[apdent]

I would also like to apologize. It has not been a great year for me myin many respects, and I allowed my frustrations to get the better of me, resulting in the unnecessarily harsh tone of previous 2 posts.

[docs]

Adpent:

I'm sorry to hear about your difficult year; I know it has been terrible for most looking for phil jobs.

Here's wishing you a new and better one!