next »

[summoner2009]

I'm a member of a "traditionally underrepresented minority group" in my field, but what does it avail me if the only thing that indicates it in my application are two fellowships I've won--both buried in the last page of my CV?  Mentioning the fact in my cover letter strikes me as gauche; should I include a photograph on my CV?  Any other ideas?  Thanks.

[sciencephd]

What is your goal ?

[concordancia]

Well, the way most of us would like to see the system work, is you get an interview based on the strength of your application. They see you. Then, when the vote is split between you and Mr. Whitey, they take you.

[jackalope]

Your letters of recommendation should mention it.

See that they do.

[tuxedo_cat]

There are a bunch of threads on this issue in the Job Seeking Forum.  I think the general wisdom (ok, maybe just my wisdom) is that if issues about diversity are important in your academic career, it's likely to show up in your research, mentoring activities, teaching interests, etc. and a SC member who is interested in noticing that will notice it in your profile.  If it's not visible except for those two fellowships, then do these issues really matter to you that much?  There are underrepresented candidates who are active on these issues already in their careers, and if I were on a SC committee, those are the candidates who would get my attention -- not just those who can check the identity box but those who take an active, thoughtful approach to the issue professionally.  

You're right that saying in your cover letter, "Oh, by the way, I'm from ethnic group X" with no other context will likely be a turn-off to nearly everyone looking at your file, including those who actually want to bring in more diverse faculty.

[concordancia]

There are a bunch of threads on this issue in the Job Seeking Forum.  I think the general wisdom (ok, maybe just my wisdom) is that if issues about diversity are important in your academic career, it's likely to show up in your research, mentoring activities, teaching interests, etc. and a SC member who is interested in noticing that will notice it in your profile.  If it's not visible except for those two fellowships, then do these issues really matter to you that much?  There are underrepresented candidates who are active on these issues already in their careers, and if I were on a SC committee, those are the candidates who would get my attention -- not just those who can check the identity box but those who take an active, thoughtful approach to the issue professionally.  

Now wait, you are suggesting the Plaid Studies = Plaid faculty approach. I could be a woman with a name like Leslie in the sciences. I don't have to study girly stuff. OK, your LORs will probably mention gender, but I worry about this over generalization. Now, if it is a question of hiring someone to provide a role model for similar minorities, then yes, I would give bonus points to the CV of the one who has joined My Minority in My Field mentoring groups or otherwise shown a professional interest. But there are plenty of cases where someone could be doing informal mentoring or otherwise have a stake in the question without it necessarily showing up on the CV. Ideally, it would show up in at least one LOR.

[summoner2009]

After posting my question, I found the pertinent thread.  The most helpful observation concerned the matter of making the final cut, etc.  I raised the question just because of that line, but now won't concern myself with explicitly identifying myself.

Thanks for the replies. 

[tuxedo_cat]

There are a bunch of threads on this issue in the Job Seeking Forum.  I think the general wisdom (ok, maybe just my wisdom) is that if issues about diversity are important in your academic career, it's likely to show up in your research, mentoring activities, teaching interests, etc. and a SC member who is interested in noticing that will notice it in your profile.  If it's not visible except for those two fellowships, then do these issues really matter to you that much?  There are underrepresented candidates who are active on these issues already in their careers, and if I were on a SC committee, those are the candidates who would get my attention -- not just those who can check the identity box but those who take an active, thoughtful approach to the issue professionally.  

Now wait, you are suggesting the Plaid Studies = Plaid faculty approach. 

No, it doesn't need to be that essentialist.  And I definitely realize that this is a more complicated issue for folks in the sciences who are less likely to research anything related to race or ethnicity.  I'm just saying that if my department were seeking to hire an underrepresented candidate, someone who actually engages with the school or local community on diversity issues -- regardless of whether that work directly relates to their own racial/ethnic group -- would be far more appealing to me than someone who seems to be taking a crassly opportunistic view of his or her identity in the job search.

Being a role model (and I do take that old-fashioned idea quite seriously) needs to involve more than showing up to work and being [fill in identity label of your choice].

[concordancia]

There are a bunch of threads on this issue in the Job Seeking Forum.  I think the general wisdom (ok, maybe just my wisdom) is that if issues about diversity are important in your academic career, it's likely to show up in your research, mentoring activities, teaching interests, etc. and a SC member who is interested in noticing that will notice it in your profile.  If it's not visible except for those two fellowships, then do these issues really matter to you that much?  There are underrepresented candidates who are active on these issues already in their careers, and if I were on a SC committee, those are the candidates who would get my attention -- not just those who can check the identity box but those who take an active, thoughtful approach to the issue professionally.  

Now wait, you are suggesting the Plaid Studies = Plaid faculty approach. 

No, it doesn't need to be that essentialist.  And I definitely realize that this is a more complicated issue for folks in the sciences who are less likely to research anything related to race or ethnicity.  I'm just saying that if my department were seeking to hire an underrepresented candidate, someone who actually engages with the school or local community on diversity issues -- regardless of whether that work directly relates to their own racial/ethnic group -- would be far more appealing to me than someone who seems to be taking a crassly opportunistic view of his or her identity in the job search.

Being a role model (and I do take that old-fashioned idea quite seriously) needs to involve more than showing up to work and being [fill in identity label of your choice].

Oh, well yeah. I agree with that. I guess I misread (or more likely misread into) your previous comments.

[prytania3]

Be gauche and put it in the cover letter. As an African American, Latino, Native American, whatever, I would serve as an excellent role model for minority students.

Or you know, something along those lines.

If you have an advantage, use it.

[dr_mcmom]

Be gauche and put it in the cover letter. As an African American, Latino, Native American, whatever, I would serve as an excellent role model for minority students.

Or you know, something along those lines.

If you have an advantage, use it.

YES, use it - for too long it has been used against folks, so if it help you get a chance, then use it.

NOTE, however, that it might you in the door for the interview.  However, in all the searches I've been involved in, it will not help you make the final cut.  It might even help you get the additional benefit of doubt and get an interview.  It will NOT help you if you don't demonstrate that you have what it takes.

So when you get that advantage, PLEASE don't squander it.  Furthermore, don't make it harder for the rest of us if you really are not prepared.  It makes it that much harder for the next "similar" person to make a case if the one ahead crashes and burns.

[drannmaria]

If you think this is an advantage, you have been sadly misinformed. I am female, Latina in a quantitative field. In the 20 years since I graduated with my Ph.D., I have met exactly two other Hispanic women in my field. One is about to graduate and one is about 10 years younger than me. So, yes, I am a pretty definite minority. Being married, I don't have a Spanish surname. My research has been broad, some on Latinos, some on Native Americans, some on the general population. At the two universities where I held tenure track positions, both told me after I was hired that they had no idea I was Latina until I showed up for the interview. Both said they had pretty much decided to hire me already and ethnicity had no bearing. I believed them. I worked at both institutions for years and I can't imagine they had any real incentive to maintain a falsehood for years.

In my current position, I am pretty certain that they had no clue I was Latina until I showed up. However,  I do think it played a factor in this case only because the internal candidate they were considering was FAR less qualified, e.g., I have a Ph.D., he did not, I have over 20 years of experience, he has less than five. I think they were probably worried about being sued if they chose him over me. There is also an ENORMOUS under-representation of Hispanics in the entire university and a disproportionate number of women at the lower vs upper ranks. So, I think they had some reason to be nervous.

In my experience - being a minority helps zero in getting an interview, regardless of what you hear. Being a minority only helps in getting the job if you are the most qualified candidate by a LONG shot and the institution has reason to be concerned about their hiring history. My current employer is all right, but they do have issues. So, even when it helps you might be just as well off somewhere else.

[mouseman]

If you think this is an advantage, you have been sadly misinformed. I am female, Latina in a quantitative field. In the 20 years since I graduated with my Ph.D., I have met exactly two other Hispanic women in my field. One is about to graduate and one is about 10 years younger than me. So, yes, I am a pretty definite minority. Being married, I don't have a Spanish surname. My research has been broad, some on Latinos, some on Native Americans, some on the general population. At the two universities where I held tenure track positions, both told me after I was hired that they had no idea I was Latina until I showed up for the interview. Both said they had pretty much decided to hire me already and ethnicity had no bearing. I believed them. I worked at both institutions for years and I can't imagine they had any real incentive to maintain a falsehood for years.

In my current position, I am pretty certain that they had no clue I was Latina until I showed up. However,  I do think it played a factor in this case only because the internal candidate they were considering was FAR less qualified, e.g., I have a Ph.D., he did not, I have over 20 years of experience, he has less than five. I think they were probably worried about being sued if they chose him over me. There is also an ENORMOUS under-representation of Hispanics in the entire university and a disproportionate number of women at the lower vs upper ranks. So, I think they had some reason to be nervous.

In my experience - being a minority helps zero in getting an interview, regardless of what you hear. Being a minority only helps in getting the job if you are the most qualified candidate by a LONG shot and the institution has reason to be concerned about their hiring history. My current employer is all right, but they do have issues. So, even when it helps you might be just as well off somewhere else.

 Ummmm... you first say that it doesn't help, and then proceed to demonstrate that it did help you.

[drannmaria]

I said that it did not help me to get an interview, which was the original question.

I don't think it helped me being a minority nearly as much as it helped having a Ph.D., publications, years of experience when the other person did not.

My speculation is that if there was anyway they could have hired the internal candidate, they probably would have if we had anywhere close to to the same qualifications.

So, my advice to anyone starting out is to try to be objectively better. Then you might have a chance. Guess I am old and cynical.

[mouseman]

I said that it did not help me to get an interview, which was the original question.

I don't think it helped me being a minority nearly as much as it helped having a Ph.D., publications, years of experience when the other person did not.

My speculation is that if there was anyway they could have hired the internal candidate, they probably would have if we had anywhere close to to the same qualifications.

So, my advice to anyone starting out is to try to be objectively better. Then you might have a chance. Guess I am old and cynical.

No question that, overall, having a more and publications/grants/teaching evals/LoR's is the primary reason behind hiring in the majority of cases.  However, in many cases, all other things being equal, your ethnic background or gender can be a deciding factor for a hire or interview (or, in rare cases, against).
As for old and cynical - welcome to the club ;-)