next »

[robert_smithson]

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.

You could come to my campus and find quite a few much like you. The ones I have to work with are constantly complaining and resistant to doing anything different--it's part of the reason my dept has no website.

Maybe we could find a creaky wardrobe to stuff the lot of you, where you could ruminate on the good old days out of sight. out of mind. You get one vote...

[frenchdoctor]

Maybe we could find a creaky wardrobe to stuff the lot of you, where you could ruminate on the good old days out of sight. out of mind. You get one vote...

Ha, progressive open-mindedness... Thanks for illustrating my point.

[robert_smithson]

Ha, progressive open-mindedness... Thanks for illustrating my point.

No thanks for not getting mine. Perhaps it's a lack of perspective. Your ilk still runs the show at a lot of places, no matter what the ads ask for. Your whining about being marginalized sounds a lot like white men complaining about reverse discrimination.

[kaysixteen]

A SC can always get rid of the totally unqualified applicants, but how do the qualified ones deal with silly ad statements such as 'dedicated/ committed to excellence in teaching'?  How do I demonstrate such excellence/ committment thereto?  There are numerous of these sorts of statements that lend themselves to no competent response, and often more or less require applicants to tell the SC what they want to hear, parrot back language, etc., and, vice-verse, obligate the SC either to believe them or disbelieve them without much evidence either way.

[robert_smithson]

A SC can always get rid of the totally unqualified applicants, but how do the qualified ones deal with silly ad statements such as 'dedicated/ committed to excellence in teaching'? 

My department would expect this to be demonstrated in the initial application through recommendation letters, quality of syllabi, sample assignments, and teaching record. In preliminary interviews, it would be assessed through SC questions and candidate articulation and knowledge of the issues; in on-campus interviews it would be assessed in articulation/quality of lecture and ability to communicate with varied audiences, q & a sessions with faculty, q & a sessions with students, and informal conversations with a variety of audiences--with feedback taken by the SC at each juncture.

Considering how many times and ways the topic is covered, it is imperative to include it in the ad, no matter how ambiguous it may come across.

[sonny_b]

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.

I partially agree with you.  Being critical and skeptical are important parts of being a scholar, absolutely.  But you must distinguish critical thinking from the habit of automatically dismissing every different viewpoint as rubbish from an inferior mind.

I disagree that bitterness, sarcasm, and cynicism are necessary, and would re-state my argument that these attitudes are self-destructive.  At least in my academic career, I have found that I'm a better scholar, more creative, and open to new ideas, when my mind is not clouded with negativity.  Yes, it is a hard life and it is very easy to fall into bitterness and cynicism, but no matter how much fault you find in the system, it will not change.  You (in the generic sense) are the one who has to adapt.

[chrisames]

I think folks are a little too hard on this author.  Having chaired numerous searches and then spent the last nine years as a CAO interviewing finalists and making hiring decisions, I sympathize not with the rant side of this article but with two related things: 1) legal worries keep us from giving misguided job applicants honest advice about why they weren't finalists; and 2) job seekers can really benefit from some of the advice in this article.

In particular, applicants who have a full-time academic position need to address why they are seeking to leave their home institution.  It's stunning to me how few do so.  The committee is left thinking that this is someone who is about to be denied tenure or is a malcontent.  That the candidate might have personal reasons to move, might prefer a different sort of institution, might have encountered an unusually difficult situation in his or her department--all of those kinds of things can help contextualize the cv.

Yes, job ads are written in a bland, familiar style.  But the savvy applicant reads them carefully and discerns what the major and minor disciplinary sub-field needs are and does enough research to understand what kind of institution is advertising.

The Chronicle is pretty good at providing job seekers with sound advice, and I think this article (in its rant-like way) achieves that as well.