My advice is apply for everything that you can reasonably apply to. (That is, don’t stretch yourself to apply for jobs for which you’re not exactly qualified, but apply for everthing for which you are qualified–Princeton, Big State U., Reginal State U., Tiny Sectarian College, communitiy colleges, FancyPants College, etc.) Your job is to present yourself effectively as a candidate–it’s the search committees’ jobs to decide if you warrant a second or third look.

That is: don’t do the search committee’s job for them. You really don’t know what they’re looking for, and neither do they until they see the range of applications. You should be encouraged by all of the scholars here–many of whom are historians as well as people in many other disciplines–who think that Lou Marinoff’s approach is bad faith, illegal, and just stupid, and are just as offended as you are.

This is my first year on the job market, and I spoke with my advisor last week about whether or not I should even apply for a position at Princeton. My thought is that, coming from a state school located west of the Appalachians, there really isn’t much of a point. He concurred. My committee members all think that I have a solid CV, writing sample, etc., so it is discouraging to know that even a great record like mine (great, but not stellar) likely won’t get me past the first round of eliminations. This is especially true in the crappy market we have now thanks to the recession.

Because, of course, if you are a person of color whose perspective would benefit academia as a whole, you *must* have been “good” enough to get into an ivy and demonstrate your merit that way, right? right?

It seems like a more reasonable use of faculty time to read the entire dossiers of 10-20 serious applicants who fit the job description. (And in my experience as a job-seeker, unfortunately, I wonder whether anyone in an interviewing ever reads anything, including the cover letter!)

I want to stand up for the usefulness of job application letters, though. I think it’s a sign of a thoughtful and attentive person who gives us a letter that indicates ze 1) read the job description carefully, 2) took the time to explain to us in great detail why ze’s the exact right person for the job, by 3) walking us through hir CV, showing us all the ways in which the only next logical step in hir career is to join our faculty. People who are able and willing to do that honestly, and with real achievement on the CV to back it up, stand out for good reason in a job search. I always read the cover letter first to see how the applicant explains hirself, without regard to institutions or letters of recommendations. If someone can’t explain hirself effectively in a letter of application, the supposed prestige of hir degrees or letters of recommendation don’t do anything for me, as a search committee member.

A department chair called up his advisor or another professor at his graduate institution (or an old grad school friend) and asked, “who do you have coming along in X field?” Names were proffered, and invitations to apply for a job were issued. It was all very non-competitive and clubby.

Although it’s expensive and complicated and fraught, I much prefer the current system. It’s opened up employment to a much wider range of straight, white men than the old system.

It makes sense that affirmative action was really designed to counteract this and open up higher positions to more than a tiny percentage of the population. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t see it that way.

Janice–would you agree that the institution where a person trained tells us almost nothing about how that person will interview or what kind of a teacher, scholar, or colleague that person will be? All of that comes down to personality, not institutional imprimatur, and personality is almost infinitely variable. Maybe this is even less “superscientific” than the “good university” test, but I think I trust my gut more than the name-brand on the diploma.

This isn’t just places like CCNY — the philosophy job market is so terrible that even places IN Nebraska get to pick from a wide assortment of Ivy League Ph.Ds. Of course, some of those departments get what they deserve as their golden boys use them for a while — teaching poorly and writing a lot so they can get out of there. The departments seem to keep hiring the type of person over and over again, so clearly they see no reason to change.

What did surprise me was the amount of candor in the IHE piece. I’m sure they’ve broken a bunch of confidentiality rules and probably some hiring practice guidelines… I’d never admit it.