Comments on: Moving beyond the grad committee

By: Historiann

Historiann — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:59:54 +0000

Wow–that’s great, Janice.

My department will run a search too–one of about SEVEN lines we’ve lost over the past 5 years or so, and the first search in 4 years.

By: Janice

Janice — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:43:05 +0000

Good to hear, Spanish Prof! I didn’t think you were in such a situation, mind you, but this can be useful for other applications such as fellowship funding.

Good luck with the hiring. We’re hoping to hire two full-time positions this year, having lost four in the last two years, but it’s a faint hope. If we do get lucky, it will be hiring outside of my subfield, so I especially appreciate candidates who write application letters that are as comprehensible for a premodern history as a contemporary scholar!

By: Spanish Prof

Spanish Prof — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:41:21 +0000

Janice:
Thanks for the advice. My department will be hiring this year, but it is in linguistics (I am in literature) and not in Spanish. Therefore, although I will have some input, it will not be decisive.

I am happy in my job, I go up for tenure next year and hope to get it. But I your suggestions are great for fellowship applications (which I am sure I will apply to more than once in the future).

By: Janice

Janice — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:18:56 +0000

Spanish Prof, the situation you outline where someone is applying to get out of a toxic department can also apply to the newly minted Ph.D. who comes away from a committee or supervisor who’s not the best support. In both those cases, I find what’s worked well is the candidate explaining the positive reasons behind the people they’re naming to write their letters.

Too often, candidates play it coy or assume that name recognition will be obvious in their letters. (Hint; for those of us in smaller departments hiring in specialties far afield from our own, we don’t always know your subfield’s big names!) I’ve also seen letters of reference that assume the author’s relationship with the candidate is clearly known when the committee’s wondering how the two know each other.

As a candidate, you can’t tweak the letters that support your file, but you can ensure that anyone writing letters on your behalf has copies of your recent publications, and up-to-date version of the CV and any statements about teaching and research you’d think might be useful. Then you can briefly explain how each of your references knows your work in your cover letter for the application. That, much more than star power, impresses me at search time!

By: Spanish Prof

Spanish Prof — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:32:39 +0000

When I’ve witnesses the behavior, it didn’t apply to all candidates but to those who made the short cut. Whether it’s ethical or not, I don’t know. But it’s commonplace at many top universities. I would agree, in abstract, that it is not fair. On the other hand, I saw another humanities department in my grad school find out why a certain candidate they couldn’t believe their luck had said yes to their offer was in such a hurry to leave hir old job: they found out when the story made the front page of the LA Times. And it wasn’t pretty.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:24:13 +0000

I have commented on this before, but reading “between the lines” of a letter, then calling around to one’s buddies, pals, or colleagues to seek out info on a job candidate seems to me like a recipe for not treating all candidates equally. If a committee wishes to seek additional knowledge about a candidate or candidates, there’s a right way to do that. But being “suspicious” of a glowing letter? Seeking out a reason for distrusting a letter? Seeking out a reason to rank a highly recommended candidate lowly? These sound like ways search committees act in bad faith.

Aren’t we supposed to call out that bad behavior, rather than allowing it to go on?

By: Shelley

Shelley — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:19:44 +0000

Love the picture. Wouldn’t be the same if she had a Kindle in her hand….

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:03:27 +0000

“Keep in mind that the fact that the candidate doesn’t get along with hir current colleagues may just mean it’s a toxic department or that the candidate really is a bad fit there).”

I second Ruth’s comment. That was me in my first job–and I’m not (that much of) a jerk. I’d say trust your instincts, Spanish Prof. Too often I think faculty delegate these judgments to others, instead of reading the application & writing sample themselves, and taking job applicants at their word.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:53:21 +0000

There are indeed many people who are a bad fit with one department and an excellent fit with another. If the chair of the former writes a glowing letter, it’s not necessarily just to get rid of the person–ze may be bendign over backwards to be fair.

By: Spanish Prof

Spanish Prof — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:45:35 +0000

I’ve only been in one job, which I intend to keep. As a grad student, I’ve served as the student representative for a search twice, and I’ve witnessed the following in a few occasions: candidate that is already on a TT job, applying for the position. Glowing letter from current Chair. Since this is a small world and stories circulate fast, somebody in the search committe calls friend X, who then calls a friend who works in the current department of the candidate, and the story changes slightly. The candidate is a “bad fit”, doesn’t get along with many of hir colleagues. Ze wants to leave, and the Chair is more than happy to get rid of him/her, and helps hir with a great letter (candidate would have probably gotten tenure because of publications).

So my question is: have you ever encountered this? What would raise a red flag in a letter? What do you do about it? (Keep in mind that the fact that the candidate doesn’t get along with hir current colleagues may just mean it’s a toxic department or that the candidate really is a bad fit there)