next »

[frenchdoctor]

I'm reacting to this article :

http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/07/2008072401c.htm

All the things "Clement Vincent" says are probably correct seen from the SC. However, in my opinion, he fails to notice something important from the applicant's point of view : all jobs offer are written the same way. They all say the same things.

All HE institutions, each and every one of them, will want an innovative researcher, committed to excellence in teaching and research, who will provide innovative high quality excellence, will demonstrate an ability to work in an innovative and collegial environment, based on innovative teamwork and innovative relationship between students and faculty, with a innovative research agenda of excellence in high quality collegial innovative student's centered teaching innovative excellence blablablablabla.

Each and every one of them will serve you the same brochure blurb, with the same words used in the same sentences in the same order, looking for the same, impersonal Dr. Nobody. An innovative Dr. Nobody.

(which brings an interesting problem of semantics. When 100% of teachers are "innovative," is it really innovative anymore ? When 100% of people claim to be original, this so-called originality is in fact the new norm, no ?) 

I've yet to find a job offer looking for a conservative, timid scholar, too humble to call himself "excellent" and who favors lectures in his teaching.

Sometimes, at any use of the words "innovative", "excellence", "collegial," "high something," I dream that applicants were allowed to loudly use some expletives. Maybe the MLA could work on it.

In short, how could we provide meaningful answers to meaningless job offers ?

[englitprof]

You can only describe yourself and what you do.  You can always look at uni/dept. websites to scout around for more info about the institution and student population, etc.

I know this was probably meant more as a rant (?), but I'm trying to offer real suggestions here.

[frenchdoctor]

It was a rant, but not only. Frankly, look at the way job offers are written. As I said, it is nothing more than brochure blurb, talking about a world far away from reality.

Let's take an example. At most institutions, "excellence in teaching" actually means "dealing with illiteracy" (see another recent column in the CHE). Put in front of such a shameless, outrageous lie, how should the applicant react ? Should he talk about illiteracy, or "excellence" ?

And how "excellent" this "excellence" should be, by the way ? Einstein was excellent, but are all HE institutions "excellent" too ? All of them ? This language is so exaggerated that it doesn't mean anything anymore. 
 
Another example. "Clement Vincent" writes "those degrees do not give you a professional competency to teach our classes, even in this interdisciplinary age". However, I'm certain the internet site of his institution (whatever it is, because they are all the same) shows long, lavish and flowery examples of interdisciplinary works, how it is important, how it must be done, how it is the center of the innovative teaching that said institution offers. I'm ready to bet his ad also talks about interdisciplinary work (they all do).

So, you send your application and.... you're wrong : "interdisciplinary" was just an empty buzzword, that everyone uses in order to sound trendy but that nobody actually takes seriously.

Such are slogans good for commercials on TV. You could sell used cars with them. However, you can't base an academic application, or a serious job talk, on them. For these purposes, they're meaningless. Universities print blurb, search committees write blurb, they get blurb in return. Why is "Clement Vincent" so surprised about that ?

[king_ghidorah]

It was a rant, but not only. Frankly, look at the way job offers are written. As I said, it is nothing more than brochure blurb, talking about a world far away from reality.

Let's take an example. At most institutions, "excellence in teaching" actually means "dealing with illiteracy" (see another recent column in the CHE). Put in front of such a shameless, outrageous lie, how should the applicant react ? Should he talk about illiteracy, or "excellence" ?

And how "excellent" this "excellence" should be, by the way ? Einstein was excellent, but are all HE institutions "excellent" too ? All of them ? This language is so exaggerated that it doesn't mean anything anymore. 
 
Another example. "Clement Vincent" writes "those degrees do not give you a professional competency to teach our classes, even in this interdisciplinary age". However, I'm certain the internet site of his institution (whatever it is, because they are all the same) shows long, lavish and flowery examples of interdisciplinary works, how it is important, how it must be done, how it is the center of the innovative teaching that said institution offers. I'm ready to bet his ad also talks about interdisciplinary work (they all do).

So, you send your application and.... you're wrong : "interdisciplinary" was just an empty buzzword, that everyone uses in order to sound trendy but that nobody actually takes seriously.

Such are slogans good for commercials on TV. You could sell used cars with them. However, you can't base an academic application, or a serious job talk, on them. For these purposes, they're meaningless. Universities print blurb, search committees write blurb, they get blurb in return. Why is "Clement Vincent" so surprised about that ?

Bravo. 

[santommaso]

all jobs offer are written the same way. They all say the same things.

In my field, job postings state areas of specialization and areas of competency, with some statement of research and teaching obligations, along with some description of the institution.

[pandora]

I found that column pretty interesting, and confirmation of many comments offered in discussions we've had here on these pages.  It provides an interesting footnote to our thread about where and how to list articles still under review, and tells us that yes, "the google" might be a factor (I didn't realize that was a John McCain joke).  I didn't agree with all of it, and it's disheartening to see that someone who was so recently a job applicant has developed such a snide attitude towards applicants on the other side of the table so quickly.  And I'm not sure why the columnist seems to be so put out by the completely inappropriate applications.  When I've reviewed job files, I've always been grateful for those!  Just cross that puppy off the list.  But if I were advising grad students going on the job market, I would definitely send them a copy of the column -- it has plenty of good, solid advice.

[sonny_b]

French doctor, you might want to take a vacation.  Being that bitter and pessimistic is self destructive.  Also, you are referring to job ads/descriptions, not job offers.

Of course schools, even mediocre ones, want innovative and excellent faculty.  Why wouldn't they try to hire the best they can attract?  I don't understand why you would expect an ad like this: "Seeking below-average faculty to teach unprepared students.  Lack of enthusiasm and a negative outlook on life would be a plus."

True, not everyone can be innovative, but schools can recognize and hire innovative candidates.  So yes, all faculty members at a given institution can be innovative, each in their own way. 

As a job seeker, I believe I can often spot the really bad institutions before applying.  Their ads and department websites let me know they don't care about their programs and expect the bare minimum.  I don't apply to these.

Being an interdisciplinary scholar means you can work productively with people in other fields, it doesn't mean you can automatically teach in other fields.  The author is correct.

I thought the article had some useful information for those on the job market, such as myself.  For me, the most useful part was the request to include in my cover letter why I am interested in that specific position.  I will start doing this.  The CV advice was also quite good.

[betterslac]

For me, the most useful part was the request to include in my cover letter why I am interested in that specific position.  I will start doing this.  The CV advice was also quite good.

If you needed this column to tell you this, then you do need every ounce of help you can get.

[pandora]

For me, the most useful part was the request to include in my cover letter why I am interested in that specific position.  I will start doing this.  The CV advice was also quite good.

If you needed this column to tell you this, then you do need every ounce of help you can get.

Ok, let's try a different sort of response to this:  For those who are in large humanities fields (history, lit), we are advised to send out as many applications as we can, and some of us are lucky to be able to send out to 40+ job postings.  It is actually not a great idea to spend hours and hours tailoring your cover letter to every single institution -- researching their dept. website, campus website, institutional mission, etc.  That's not good use of your time.  When I went out on the job market, I was advised to have two versions of the letter, one pitched to R1 or research-emphasis schools, and another for schools that put greater emphasis on teaching. 

Other than that basic breakdown, you can tailor each letter just a bit -- not necessarily by saying why you are interested in them, but why you are a good fit for their department and why they should be interested in you.  (Exceptions are spelled out in the original column.)  One rather efficient way to do this is simply to look at their course listings for the major, figure out the courses they will likely need you to teach, and in your letter, address your interest and preparation to teach those courses in one or two sentences.  Those two sentences in your letter tell the SC that you bothered to look at their department web site and that you can spell out in practical terms why you would be a good fit. 

[sonny_b]

For me, the most useful part was the request to include in my cover letter why I am interested in that specific position.  I will start doing this.  The CV advice was also quite good.

If you needed this column to tell you this, then you do need every ounce of help you can get.

No need to be insulting.

I always have included my reasoning for why I believe I'm a good fit for the job description.  This advice was more specific than I've seen elsewhere and goes beyond that.  For example, I am from the US but whenever the opportunity arises, I apply for positions in another country.  Why?  Because my spouse is from that country and we would both like to live there.  But I have made my focus on how I fit the position, and missed the opportunity to tell the search committee that I am not just applying to any and every position worldwide, but that I have specific additional reasons to be interested in that specific position.  If that makes me dense to betterslac, so be it.  My point is that the article did have some useful advice that job seekers may not have been aware of.

[robert_smithson]

 

I've yet to find a job offer looking for a conservative, timid scholar, too humble to call himself "excellent" and who favors lectures in his teaching.

Who wants to learn from this person? A timid lecturer (probably a little disorganized, wears a tweed jacket, definitely a white male schooled in the sacred traditions of western white maledom)?

You don't think every university already has its full plate of these sorts???

[morgen]

As a job seeker, I believe I can often spot the really bad institutions before applying.  Their ads and department websites let me know they don't care about their programs and expect the bare minimum.  I don't apply to these.

Good luck being so selective. I hope you're still very happy with your current job, if you have one.

Regarding the article: it seems obvious to me that Mr. "Vincent" has dramatized his examples just so they are more intriguing, and interesting for us to read... it's like exaggerating facts of a true story in order to make the plot of a movie more exciting. Hard for me to believe that someone wrote "Extra support for African Americans" just like that... we would need to consider the context in which this was said. 

It's amazing what search committees can do these days. Rather than bothering to google each of the candidates' names, discover if whether or not they have a Mypace page, or typing their names into Google Images to see if they have photos online, committees could invest this time instead reading the candidates' publications, perhaps? Taking a look at their dissertations? This is time well invested.

I am of the opinion "student-focused," and "teaching-oriented" are one of the most bogus concepts I have come across in academe. The quality of an institution is given by its faculty and how productive faculty members are in their own disciplines. To begin with, many of us (the vast majority, I would say) earn doctorate degrees without going through a single class that teach us how to teach--how are we supposed to know? Innate talent? So how do we learn? I have been to retreats put together by (names vary from institution to institution) the "Academy of the Art of Teaching," "Academic Teaching Center" and I must say that I have never been more bored in my life. I have come to the conclusion: the content of what you teach is what matters. If you have a solid content, figuring out how to deliver it is something, although not entirely easy, you will eventually figure out. One thing helps: experience; and someone who has gone through years of training to get a PhD and also through a rigorous selective process to get a hold of a position in academe will definitely be intelligent enough to grasp the basics of being an adequate instructor. Sometimes, however, effectiveness in teaching is measured based on the superficial aspects of teaching, all related to how the instructor communicates in the classroom, grading and testing, and, last but definitely not least—don’t we love this dearly!--student evaluations.

I would say: forget the teaching and hire a good scholar. And--to follow up on one of the colleagues' post here in this forum--yes, there MUST be space for the shy, quiet scholar. Let's just think for a moment. Were all Nobel-prize winners considered "good" teachers? Did they communicate well, were they like Obama at pubic speaking? Certainly not. If we're going to make teaching the primary aspect weighing in the decision to hire someone, then let's measure quality teaching adequately. 

[sonny_b]

As a job seeker, I believe I can often spot the really bad institutions before applying.  Their ads and department websites let me know they don't care about their programs and expect the bare minimum.  I don't apply to these.

Good luck being so selective. I hope you're still very happy with your current job, if you have one.

I don't know why you are being sarcastic. 

If you can tell it is a bad department in a lower 20% school, and want to apply anyway, be my guest.  I would rather not.  Why do you have a problem with that?

[doctor_torrseal]

Another example. "Clement Vincent" writes "those degrees do not give you a professional competency to teach our classes, even in this interdisciplinary age". However, I'm certain the internet site of his institution (whatever it is, because they are all the same) shows long, lavish and flowery examples of interdisciplinary works, how it is important, how it must be done, how it is the center of the innovative teaching that said institution offers. I'm ready to bet his ad also talks about interdisciplinary work (they all do).

So, you send your application and.... you're wrong : "interdisciplinary" was just an empty buzzword, that everyone uses in order to sound trendy but that nobody actually takes seriously.

You've misread the article.  His point is that "even in an interdisciplinary age," they want to hire someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy, not in literature, religion, or political science.  In a philosophy department, interdisciplinary means a philosopher who is interested in lit/poli sci/whatever, not a political scientist who is interested in philosophy.  This shouldn't be a surprise.

Most of this article seemed to me to be about the applicants who are quite unsuited for the job - no PhD, PhD in the wrong field, tenured person applying for junior-level job, clumsy handling of the university's religious and minority issues.  (The last is more questionable, but people who make a gaffe in a cover letter might do the same on campus.)

Ultimately, I don't find this as interesting as the author does.  I sort of assume that in any search, there will be a lot of applications, of which some large fraction (30%?) are totally unsuited, some are okay, and then there are some large fraction (10-40%?) who probably could do the job, but you can only invite a few of them on-campus and hire just one.  The difficulty of the search is in picking among these people, not in weeding out the totally-unsuited.

[frenchdoctor]

French doctor, you might want to take a vacation.  Being that bitter and pessimistic is self destructive.

Actually, I consider that being bitter, sarcastic and conservative (*), very critical about "innovative," "excellence," "inter-trans-meta" kind of blurb, and also full of doubt about modern theories (especially in education) is part of my work as a scholar.

In ancient times, when academia still cherished a little bit of intellectual independence, we used to call this principle "freedom". I know, this concept is long forgotten now, but sometimes I like to remember it, like an old sepia picture kept safe in a creaky drawer.


------------
(*) I mean conservative only academically speaking, not political, wacko-style, hateful conservatism. Hannah Arendt, yes. Ann Coulter, certainly not.