next »

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

One of the English positions I am applying for requires quite a number of supporting materials, such as observations, student evaluations, sample graded essays, etc. Each of the requirements is listed in the plural, and the posting is very clear about the expectation that ALL itemized materials be included.

I have all of these materials, so no problem there.

However, I cannot wrap my mind around how they want this huge stack of papers organized or labeled. So, at the risk of eliciting snarky responses, how have you chosen to present your supporting materials? I could certainly generate a bound teaching portfolio of sorts, but I assume that creates a hassle for whomever has to copy applications. At present, I have them stacked with a loose cover sheet listing the contents, but that seems so sloppy.

[nailman]

You could try this thread: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,32865.0.html. Duct taping your package to a naked mole rat seems to be a popular suggestion. Or there's origami.

More seriously (since this actually seems to be a serious question): I haven't dealt with anything similar. But since this sounds like a large stack of stuff, you should probably try and put the most important stuff at the top, and the less important stuff at the bottom (although someone secretarial will most likely go through and collate anyway, so this probably won't matter). You could even put in dividers or sections to divide things up. I wouldn't bind it for the reasons you describe.

If it were me, I would just send them what they ask for and not worry too much about organization. Unless it is someplace really small, again, I assume there is someone secretarial who will organize things into how the committee actually wants them, so what's important is just that you send what they ask for. I can't imagine a SC throwing out a package because the papers weren't organized or labeled in the right manner (at least not when they don't specify how it should be done, and there's clearly no standard way of doing it!)

[drdirt55]

Try a three ring binder - I think that one would fit nicely into a Priority Mail box, makes for easy to tailor applicaitons and would allow you to pre-package your supporting documents at a time convenient for you.

I don't know how the binder would be received in your field, but it might be worth asking others.

[seniorscholar]

Whatever you do, put the letter and c.v. on top -- I hate to tell you this, but I'm sure that in many places, depending on the number of applications, the search committee doesn't bother reading the rest of the stuff until they've checked the letter/c.v. on everyone, to avoid wasting time on packages when they know the applicant is not in the running.

I think this is awful (we ask only for letter, c.v. and dissertation abstract, request writing sample from a mid-list, and get letters sent from the MLA interview list -- and never want to see teaching portfolio, student evaluations or anything else, though people do have to bring an official graduate transcript to the campus interview so we can shoot it over to the Provost, who requires it when we ask for permission to hire), but since they've asked for it, send exactly what they've asked for. I agree, however, that as long as "like materials" are more or less together, order makes no difference.

[history_grrrl]

However you organize the material, I'd suggest doing it in such a way that search committee members can easily make photocopies or separate one piece of material from the others. We had an applicant who put everything (cover letter, CV, writing samples, student evals, etc.) into one of those folder-things with the three metal prongs and the plastic cover (like students sometimes use for reports). To take something out, you have to take off the cover and pull everything off the prongs till you get to the item you want. What a pain! I needed to read the writing sample at home, but since I was short on time I had to take the whole file with me.

[smurlein]

I have often wondered if some SCs ask for all of this material at the beginning just to weed people out. I know that there were at least three jobs that I thought looked really great, but they asked for so many materials that I let them go. So, if one of their objectives was to elicit responses only from people who really wanted the job, then that did the trick from my end of things.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

Thank you for the replies. Your suggestions are along the lines of what I was thinking, and I'm glad to see nobody thinks there is a particularly right way to go about it.

As for the school utilizing it as a "weed out" process, that is part of it. They have a lot of long-standing adjuncts (10+ years), some of whom should never have been hired in the first place, and in hopes of cleaning up the department they've upped the expectations, including a yearly re-application process. It bites for those adjuncts who have been loyal and strong instructors, but the higher-ups seemed to think it was the only way to be fair. Pay has jumped significantly each year for the past three years, so the increased expectation of professionalism is at least being matched (to a degree) by increased compensation.

I'm not applying for an adjunct position, but it seems they carried the expectations across the board, which I suppose was unavoidable.