Rejection Rules

Telling people (by letter, e-mail, or voice) that they are not getting a position for which they applied, or are not even being considered (at all/any more), is difficult. Do I even need to bother to say that I understand that it is not as difficult as being the one getting that information? (Probably, so I just did.)

I have written about rejection letters before, and have a blog label for posts on "criticism, rejection, or failure" (22 posts, including this one). I still stand by the approach I described two years ago regarding how to go about rejecting applicants:

(1) just do it -- once a decision has been made, it's better to let an unselected applicant know where they stand than to leave them unnecessarily uninformed and wondering;

(2) be respectful and professional; the rejectee likely does not care to hear that rejecting them is painful for you;

(3) if possible, be informative with relevant data (number of applicants, where the applicant ended up in the process etc.); this is also part of being professional and respectful, even if there are a very large number of applicants to reject.

I am sure that there is a lot of variation in how and when different departments/units inform unselected applicants of their status. For much of the process in my department, I leave communication with unselected candidates to the search committee chair and/or the department administrator, depending on the situation. My personal role as the bearer of good or bad news comes near the end of the process and involves only the candidates who made it to the very-last stages of consideration.

When a search is still underway, my only contribution to the rejection process is to make sure that  someone is informing applicants of their status in a timely way.

Rejection may occur at any one of many points in the process:

First: rejection of those who reflexively submit applications for positions for which they are not qualified -- for example, those who are in a completely different field with zero experience in the research/teaching topics of the open position. I wonder why these applicants even bother. These applications typically arrive soon after an ad is posted, even if this is months before the deadline or target date for submitting applications (not a good sign if you are applying to a research university with expectations of continuing research activity).

Then: those applicants who meet the basic qualifications for the position but, owing to something about their record or field of expertise, are not selected for further consideration.

Then: those applicants who make it to the long-list but not the medium- or short/est-lists. The reasons for non-selection at these points range widely.

Then: those who interviewed but who are not offered a position -- there may be various subdivisions of these depending on how many are interviewed and what goes on in terms of discussions among faculty, administrators etc., so the timing and mode of rejection may vary.

That's a lot of rejecting. In my experience, departments are encouraged to conduct at least some very broad searches rather than narrow searches in the hopes that broader searches will increase diversity. Broader searchers result in larger numbers of applicants and therefore larger numbers of rejections. If the ultimate goal is noble, I think it is preferable to have a larger number of applicants (and therefore rejections) than to have fewer applicants/fewer rejections.

Agree or disagree?

Ask Not?

The tale of a rescinded-offer of a faculty position, owing to an email from the woman offered the job to the department re. the terms of her offer, has been widely strewn about the internet. I will reprint the email and department/college response below in case anyone hasn't seen these, and then will give my take on the matter (joining the thousands who have already commented online elsewhere).

The apparently dangerous email:

As you know, I am very enthusiastic about the possibility of coming to Nazareth. Granting some of the following provisions would make my decision easier.

1) An increase of my starting salary to $65,000, which is more in line with what assistant professors in philosophy have been getting in the last few years.
2) An official semester of maternity leave.
3) A pre-tenure sabbatical at some point during the bottom half of my tenure clock.
4) No more than three new class preps per year for the first three years.
5) A start date of academic year 2015 so I can complete my postdoc.

I know that some of these might be easier to grant than others. Let me know what you think.

And the harsh reply:

Thank you for your email. The search committee discussed your provisions. They were also reviewed by the Dean and the VPAA. It was determined that on the whole these provisions indicate an interest in teaching at a research university and not at a college, like ours, that is both teaching and student centered. Thus, the institution has decided to withdraw its offer of employment to you.

Thank you very much for your interest in Nazareth College. We wish you the best in finding a suitable position.

This unfortunate event has been seen by some as a cautionary tale for what can happen when a woman tries to negotiate for better pay and working conditions. She is seen as asking for 'too much'. In this case, a woman attempted to "lean in" and was severely punished for it.

I don't know if there is a gender angle to this incident or not, but speaking as someone at a research university, there is nothing in the candidate's email that surprises or offends me. I have been asked for many of the same or similar things by candidates; some of these requests are routine, some of them require discussion. I say 'yes' when I can, and 'no' when that is the appropriate response for my department/university. Negotiations can be constructive and interesting discussions.

I know nothing about Nazareth College's research expectations for faculty and why the email apparently revealed an inappropriate level of research focus that was not detected during the interview. Maybe the moderate number of requests, none of which the college was going to accommodate, was the problem. Whatever the case, it is puzzling why the college didn't simply say no to some or all of those requests and let the offer/decision process proceed. If there were concerns, the department head or other faculty could have had a serious talk with the candidate about teaching expectations and criteria for tenure, so that as much as possible was clear during the candidate's decision-making process. Maybe there is more to the story than just these emails.

I don't want to speculate more about that particular case. My main point is that it would be very unfortunate if well publicized situations like that one made faculty candidates reluctant to ask for what they realistically feel that they need to succeed in the challenging job for which they are potentially being hired.

Even though I don't think anything in the polite list of requests is unreasonable, perhaps a bit more asking around of faculty in the department or institution, or other general digging around, could reveal important information that would avert an 'unreasonable' request before it is asked. Some strategic questions such as "So, is it possible/typical to get a term (or two) off prior to the tenure evaluation year?" or "How many new classes did you prepare in your first few years here? Is that typical?" (etc.) could indicate how requests about leaves and new class preps might be viewed by administrators.

It might also be possible to find out how firm the start date is, and whether the department has a track record of pushing back the start date to accommodate postdocs or other commitments. In my experience at a research university, the asking and granting of delayed start dates is routine. At a smaller institution, however, it might be more difficult for a department to cover essential courses for an extra year; they may want their new hire to show up in time for the next academic year. They might expect a candidate to understand this.

I think the request about salary is entirely reasonable. Candidates for faculty positions should be well informed about salary averages and ranges and should be able to discuss salary with the department head.

In summary:

- I would not have sent that particular list of requests pertaining to a job at a teaching-focused college, but
- I think that anyone (male or female) should be able to do just that as a starting point for discussions (even if the answers are no, no, no, no, no), and
- I would not blink if I saw that same list submitted by a candidate for a faculty position at my institution, and
- in fact, I am interested to know what a candidate thinks is important for succeeding in the job. This is a good basis for discussion and negotiation.

Depending on what your situation is, what, if anything, do you think the 'take home' message of this saga is, in particular regarding the question of whether/how to negotiate after receiving an offer of a faculty position?

Postdoc Prestige

Question from a reader:

In your experience in faculty search committees, with respect to hiring an assistant professor, are postdoc positions at national laboratories (e.g. Sandia) viewed with higher regard, equal regard, or lower regard when compared with a postdoc at Prestigious University?

In my experience, all other things being equal (even though they never are), these postdocs would be held in equal regard. I say that mostly because national lab postdocs are certainly not held in lower regard, and I can't think of why they would be held in higher regard.

Unchosen

A reader asks the perennial painful questions about why others were interviewed for a tenure-track faculty position and not them, despite their PhD from an excellent university and their apparently better* publication record compared to some being interviewed. There are no satisfying answers to these questions, of course, mostly because there is so much variability in the process, but in case it helps to have one (more) person's perspective on this much-discussed topic, here are some of my current thoughts on the situation.

(*"better" could indicate quantity or quality: more publications or publications in journals with higher impact factors)

Here are the reader's hypotheses, sent in an e-mail to me, for discussion:

1) Doesn't matter how much you have published, they will only look for Nature or Science in your CV;

2) You must have a PhD from a fancy US university, maybe Oxford and Cambridge are accepted too;

3) You got to suggest something really similar (almost overlapping) to what the people are doing in the department, even if they say that the search is broad and open to any topic.

My responses:

1) There may be a kernel of truth to this, but the statement is too extreme (the part about nothing else mattering). Having a Nature/Science paper is typically seen as a very good thing if the candidate has apparently been a major player in the published research, but the absence of such a paper doesn't mean a candidate will not get an interview.

The likelihood of a Nature/Science (N/S) paper depends in part on the subfield (topic) of the research, so in some cases the absence of such a paper is meaningless. Even within a single search, if the search is broad, there will be candidates in subfields that at least have a chance of publishing in N/S, and others that probably do not.

I can say unambiguously that indicating in an application that a manuscript has been (or, worse, will soon be) "submitted" to Nature or Science does not impress.

In my department, we do look at number of publications and journal quality, but we have interviewed some candidates on the basis of a high level of interest in the research and our optimism that important papers would be forthcoming. Some non-interviewed candidates may have more publications than some of those we invite to interview; there are many factors other than number of publications and journal prestige.

2) Faculty with PhDs from the "fancy" US universities are very well represented in STEM departments at US universities, but "must" is too strong a word in this hypothesis. We do look closely at successful and highly recommended graduates of particular research groups, but such research groups can be found at a wide range of institutions in the US and beyond.

I have seen numerous examples of pedigree-worship over the years, as well as the syndrome in which it is assumed that all students of Famous Professors must somehow have absorbed their advisor's awesomeness and must therefore be highly creative individuals as well. I am definitely not alone, however, in being interested in searching broadly and looking at each application carefully to try to get a good sense for the individual's accomplishments and potential.

Even if you apply to a pedigree-worshiping department and you got your PhD at a "non-fancy" university, any disadvantage that this may cause in some searches can be overcome by doing a postdoc in a top research group (in the US or in another country) and/or by working with collaborators at top-ranked departments (especially if they will write strong letters for you).

3) I also don't agree with this one, at least not based on my own experience. You may have to work harder to explain why your research is interesting and significant if there is no one with closely related expertise in the department to which you are applying, but I have seen great interest in candidates who can explain convincingly why we might want to go in a new (for us) direction in a field in which we have advertised broadly.

So, why didn't you get an interview (yet)? I don't know. The individual who wrote to me has an extremely strong academic record and has put together an impressive application (though I would lose the "in prep" part of the CV, keeping "submitted/in review" manuscripts in a separate list from those published or in press). The research statement in particular is excellent. There is no obvious reason why this person would not be seriously considered for a tenure-track position at any research university that advertises in their field, other than that the field is crowded with excellent candidates.

In that case, it may well be that a high-profile paper in a high-impact journal would make a big difference (especially if other candidates have this, but you do not). Perhaps at this high level of accomplishment, anything you can do to stand slightly ahead of your excellent peers makes all the difference.

My only advice (of admittedly limited use) is to keep doing what you're doing: interesting research, publishing in high-quality journals, attending conferences, giving talks. Stay visible, meet people, network, collaborate. I hope your various advisors/mentors are helping you, and I hope something good happens for you soon.

Inside Job

And speaking of job ads (as I was in some posts last week), have you ever seen an ad for a faculty position, research scientist, or postdoc and been suspicious that the type or level of detail in the job description indicated that the department had an "inside candidate"?

I have found that this topic comes up quite often in discussions about particular jobs, based on reading (between the lines of) the job description in the advertisement.

Another suspicious aspect of some ads, leading some to wonder about inside candidates, is an application deadline very close to the appearance of the ad.

There are many possible explanations for unusually detailed ads and imminent application deadlines, and I think the existence of an inside candidate is one of the least likely of these explanations (at least in North America, the system with which I am most familiar).  (agree/disagree with this assessment?)

And yet, I know they do exist. I have written about this before, and described my own (now ancient) experiences with applying for jobs that real, not just inferred, inside candidates.

What I am interested in is: how common it is for someone to infer (without specific information) the existence of an inside candidate, based only on the job ad, and then not apply for the job?

Or: how common is it to know that there is an inside candidate, and have that piece of information affect your decision to apply (specifically: not apply because you think it is pointless)?

It's The Thought That Counts

This is a title I have used before (in 2007!) for a totally unrelated post, but I am going to make use of it again today for another post about job ads.

Years ago, back when some science departments realized they needed to show that they were not obviously discriminating against female applicants even if very few (or none) were interviewed or hired, the preferred mode of proving a theoretical interest in hiring women was to place a job ad in the newsletter of an organization for women in the relevant field.

Of course the ad was also placed in the major venues for such ads as well, but advertising in the women's newsletter was given as evidence that "we tried" by many departments. According to my experience and that of colleagues at other universities, this evidence was always accepted by the various university offices responsible for seeing that hiring procedures followed the university's equal opportunity policies, even if no women were interviewed.

It didn't matter that there was no potential applicant on the planet who would only see the ad in the newsletter and not also in the major job-ad venues of our field.

I see it as a sign of progress that many (most?) departments don't do this anymore. They don't do it anymore because they don't have to make this meaningless gesture to show that they are theoretically willing to consider applications from women because many actually do consider applications from women, and invite them to interview, and offer them jobs. 

Does anyone disagree with that and think that it is a good thing for a department to place such an ad in a newsletter for women or other underrepresented group? (whether or not it is backed up by a record of non-discrimination?)

Do any departments still place ads for tenure-track faculty positions in newsletters of women-in-science organizations? I have not done a systematic survey.

And does anyone know of a human resources/equal opportunity office that has rejected this as the sole evidence of a non-discriminatory hiring process?

I Can See Myself

If you have ever applied for a faculty position or postdoc, or at least looked at the ads and thought about possible future applications, how closely did the ad need to describe your research expertise and interests for you to consider applying? I am ignoring other factors here, such as type and location of institution etc. I am just interested in the point at which you 'saw yourself' in the job description:

- in the first-order, big-picture title, which presumably lists the field or subfield? or

-in the more detailed text in the ad; that is, did you need to see a more specific description of your research expertise/interests before you decided to apply?

In some cases, ads have a list of research specializations under the umbrella of the general field/subfield. Does it matter whether this list is prefaced by words indicating that these are just examples, or, without this information, do you assume that what is listed is what the hiring committee wants and therefore if you don't see your research specialty listed, they aren't going to consider your application?

I am asking in part because of the hypothesis (not mine) that men are more likely to apply for jobs that might sort of be relevant to their expertise but women tend to apply for jobs that describe closely their expertise. According to this same hypothesis, posed to me in an email from a reader who also applies it to postdoctoral applicants, the reason relates to confidence level. According to this person, if they advertise for a postdoc who works on bandicoots, there will be some male applicants with expertise in wombat studies, but all the female applicants will have specific bandicoot research experience.

Of course there is some variation in terms of culture of a field in terms of ads/hiring, and also in how detailed ads are; some places cast a broad net and some have very specific needs in terms of specialty. Even so, these questions are still of interest (at least to me).

• Did you ever apply for a job that had only a very vague description of the research specialty desired? Or did you only apply for those that described your specialty more closely?
• Did you ever apply for a job that didn't really describe what you do, but you thought the hiring committee might be intrigued by your research anyway, perhaps because you are a bit interdisciplinary and/or in an emerging field that they might not have considered (but should)? or
• Did you ever not apply for a job that didn't list your very specific field of expertise even if the ad was related to your research field in a broader way?

Why/why not? (and specify male/female, if you wish to provide this information)

The Ask

In Scientopia, I discuss (and, as always, invite comments, hoping for a wide variety of them) a reader's question about whether/how to ask a search committee chair why you were not interviewed for a position for which you applied.

One More

This late entry delves into an academic niche that was not explored in the recent Cover Letter Contest. It did not make it into yesterday's poll, but the letter makes the important point that some CLs are written by people who already have a faculty position but would like a different one. 

In real life, of course, you could just send in your application; there is no need to explain the CL why you are thinking of leaving your current job, unless you want to explain it.

Dear FSP,

Sorry for the late application.  I am currently, in my 4th year of tenure-track at University X (have to submit my tenure app at the beginning of my 5th year here), and I was working on journal papers and proposals all through the break that I didn't realize it was Christmas or even 2012 yet.  I am interested in applying to your University Y, preferably to obtain a tenured position, but in reality, I'll take anything you have.

To make a long story short, I am DESPERATE.... did you hear me -- DESPERATE to get out of this male-dominated, chauvinist ****hole department at University X.  I am decently funded.  I have slews of low-quality journal papers because my university emphasizes quantity for tenure, and I can't focus.  Please... get me out-of-here.  I specially chose your university because it's near me, and we can't move because of my husband's job and our underwater mortgage.  I'll work for pennies if you just treat me with some respect.

Yours truly,
burned-out neurotic prof

I Really Really Want To Work For You Now

One more Cover Letter entry (I think), and then the voting will commence, tomorrowish. Apparently this is a slightly modified version of a real letter.

Female,

 

I do not understand why you did not reply to my email yesterday.

 

You interviewed me last spring for a postdoc position.  Before you could offer me a position I told you that I did not want to work for you because I wanted to work with BigNameProf  instead and he had offered me an interview too.  It turns out that BigNameProf did not hire me.  I do not understand this either.

 

Anyway, I really, really want to work for you now. I promise to be an amazing postdoc.  I attached my CV in case you do not remember how amazing I am.

 

Sincerely,

I do good research but have no idea how to communicate grad student

The Time Is Now Ripe For Me To Ascend

Submitted by longtime reader Eli, with a link to a blog that posted this before:

This one was "sent"

http://volokh.com/posts/1229436347.shtml

December 16, 2008

Jerry MacArthur Hultin

President, Polytechnic Institute of New York

Dear Pres. Hultin:

I am writing to inform you that I have decided to offer myself for consideration for the Chaired Professorship in Physics and Chemistry at your distinguished institution. As you are no doubt aware, my father, Benjamin Post (1911-1994), held this position for many years (when the institution was known as "Brooklyn Polytechnic," or more familiarly, "Brooklyn Poly") and was an important part of the x-ray crystallography unit that helped establish Poly's pre-eminence in that field. Though I have chosen a different career path up to this point, I believe that, for many reasons I would be happy to discuss with you in person, the time is now ripe for me to ascend to the position that has been waiting for me, and I for it, all these years. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues as we embark down this new road together.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Post

Your Research is Systematic and Penetrating

The strange thing is, I think I got this same e-mail, or one very much like it, and I think I am in a different field from Mark P, the person who submitted this to the Cover Letter contest as a slightly modified version of an actual e-mail.

Dear Mark P,

You must be enjoying your Merry Christmas at the moment. My best wishes to you and your family, and Happy New Year!

I am an international student applying for Ph. D program in your department, and I am very interested in your area of study， [fill in two sentences from my website, with the grammar connecting them in error]. Besides I have read your paper entitled [Title of a recent paper from our lab], the research is systemic and penetrating. You can't imagine how I crave for being a member of your group and do further research under your guide. Could I be one of your potential students next year? Archimedes once said, “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.” But I say that given the opportunity, I will perform miracles.

The following is my resume which may be helpful for your consideration.I would be grateful if early reply is given.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Mr. cut and paste

Sent from my iPhone

My favorite part of this Cover Letter entry is the very last line, below the signature, but there are other gems in here.

Dear Ms. Female S. Professor,

Sorry my cover letter is arriving so late.  I would have gotten it in earlier, but you know, I just couldn't get to it because my schedule was really booked the last two weeks.  I've been working on my work/life balance lately and my therapist encouraged me to prioritize work less, which I decided meant focusing my energy for all of December on decorating my apartment for a raging holiday party.

I'd really like to do a postdoc at your university, and you seem like you'd be pretty cool to work with (BTW, I heard about your blog!  Don't worry, your real identity is on the DL).  I haven't seen any announcements that you have any interest in hiring postdocs, and I know your research isn't really in my area, so I figured since you're a professor and all you could probably just write a grant for me.  I can just hang out at my PhD institution leeching my advisor's funding until your grant gets accepted.  I don't really know how to write grants yet so I don't think I should help.  Plus, I know from your blog that you're a really great writer!  So I'll leave the writing to you. 

So anyway, attached are my application materials.  I'm sure you'll gather from this that I have a promising academic career ahead of me.  I have enough teaching experience that I'm sure I'll get a faculty job as soon as I apply, which I intend to start working on full time as soon as I get settled in at your university.  Also, I have a ton of publications and research skills that will also look good on those applications. I won't bore you with the details since you aren't in my subfield anyway. Be sure not to overlook the Science paper that I'm third author on.  The first author is a labmate of mine who is way more ambitious than I am.  The only thing that's really missing from my CV is a postdoc position at your university, so I can't wait for you to round that out for me.

Getting back to my work/life balance, I'd definitely take a postdoc at your university because I'm really excited about all the opportunities to get outside in your area.  I can't wait to spend all my winters skiing only a multiple hour drive away and my summers in the nice warm water that's a few hours drive in a different direction!  I should be able to stop by the university at least once a week in order to do laundry and check my mail for those faculty job offers.

XOXO and TTYS,
Millennium generation grad student

*Sent from my iPhone*

I Can Tell You About My Vision

The competition continues to be fierce for the Most Obnoxious Cover Letter possible. Here is another contender:

Dear Search Committee,

I am pleased to inform you that I am hereby applying for the Faculty Position in the Department of Chemistry which I saw listed in the latest issue of Science.  My work is centered on the role of physiogenomic and synchochrotomic control of heritable patterning.  Mostly I do computer modeling but I also know a lot of Chemistry.  I am currently a PhD candidate at ReallyFamous School, and I plan to defend this Spring (although I haven’t told my advisor and my committee yet, so I’d appreciate your discretion on this point).  Recently I read that the NIH has started a new award called the “Pathway to Independence” award where you can skip your postdoc, so I decided that I’ll do that since I’m very talented and I don’t really need to do a postdoc.   I will apply for this award next month and expect that I will receive the Notice of Award by the time I begin my new position at your University. 

Furthermore, I’m glad to tell you that I will be in YourCity on the second weekend in February for my cousin’s wedding!  Therefore, I would be glad to extend my trip and stay in the city for an extra day or two so that we can meet and I can tell you about my vision for my Research Team and we can begin to negotiate.  I have planned my schedule so that I can stay in your city on Monday and Tuesday of that week to meet with you (please find the receipt for my plane tickets attached; I’d appreciate being reimbursed at your earliest convince).

I look forward to meeting you in person in February!

Best,

PhD Candidate

I Am Exactly What You Are Looking For

How many different ways are there to write an obnoxious Cover Letter? There are an infinite variety of ways, but some themes are becoming apparent. Here is another entry in the CL letter contest.

Dear Mrs. Wrong Name:

I saw the ad for computational science postdoctoral research associate, and immediately realized that I was exactly what you are looking for: a physicist with the right mix of computing and science expertise.

I've had a lot of experience answering fundamental questions of the universe with Visual Basic and Excel.  My mom always asks me to fix her computer when something goes wrong with it.  Although I have never used a supercomputer, I've skimmed some of the slides from your supercomputing course, and it looks to be foundational.  I am sure that I will catch on quickly.

The atomic nucleus consists of protons and neutrons.  The proton has a positive charge, and the neutron has no charge.  I've solved Schrodinger's equation on nuclear configurations all the way up to Uranium, using my spreadsheet model, but I'll probably need a supercomputer to get more digits of accuracy.

I am applying for your postdoc position because I am currently unemployed and living with my sister. I did have a postdoc before, but I had to resign because the winters were too cold and I hated all the deadlines.  There's also a guy I met once, a fellow alum of my undergraduate institution (admittedly, 10 years my senior) who works at your institution in a different department and should be able to provide a good recommendation.

I've heard that you pay really well, especially compared to other institutions, but I hope you'll be able to afford to reward someone with my level of experience.  I can't wait to hear from you.

Sincerely,
E. Gomaniac

I Would Consider Being A Postdoc In Your Lab

Has anyone else gotten one like this? I have, unfortunately, although it wasn't in the cover letter, it was in follow-up correspondence. This is, of course, another entry in the Cover Letter contest.

Professor Female,

You may remember that we met at the X Conference last year when my advisor, Professor Bigname, introduced us at the Z Inc. cocktail party. At the time, I mentioned that I would be finishing my PhD in May 2012, and I am on track to do so. I am therefore in the process of looking for a tenure-track faculty position, but would also consider being a postdoc in your lab.

As you know, I have a lot of expertise in A, B, and C. I have read a few of your papers, and think that my background would be a great asset to you.

Since I am also applying for tenure-track faculty positions and other postdocs, I can’t commit to coming to work with you until I know all of my options. Ideally, I will be offered a faculty position for the coming academic year, but if that doesn’t happen this year, and particularly if no other postdoc positions are available when I finish my PhD, I would be very pleased to join your research group as early as June 2012. My wife and I are planning on starting a family as soon as possible, and I think it would work out quite well if that difficult first year, when our child is an infant, coincided with time spent working with your research group, before I move on to a more challenging and time-consuming tenure-track faculty position.

We should talk soon about my options for a postdoc with you. I will be visiting family in your area over the upcoming holidays, and I will call or e-mail to let you know when I am available to meet with you.

Cheers,

A postdoctoral applicant whose assumption that I, a female professor, would be sympathetic to his plans to start a family was incorrect, not because he planned to start a family soon (that is fine with me) but because he managed to turn it into an insult to me.

I Plan to Collaborate with You

Another entry in the Cover Letter contest; this one nicely captures the phenomenon of "I am going to collaborate with Professors X, Z, and You" in such letters, crossing the line between noting points of mutual research interests to a specific announcement of future collaboration.

Dear Search Committee:

I am writing to apply for the position of Postdoctoral Fellow/Instructor/Assistant Professor at your Liberal Arts College/Large University. I am currently a grad student of Professor X at Prestigious University, working in algebraic geometry. My adviser said that I will probably defend this spring if I get my act together.

I first learned about your Large University/Liberal Arts College when I stood in line next to Professor Big Name at Huge Conference, and she mentioned that my talk looked ``interesting'' and that she even might come to it.

I am passionate about research! Enclosed you will find my research statement. I am certain that Professor Big Name will find my work fascinating, and I have contacted her to let her know that I plan to collaborate with her when I arrive at your institution.

I am also passionate about teaching (but not too passionate if that's not your thing)! I consistently receive above average student evaluations. One student once told me that I am ``the best,'' but unfortunately did not mention this on the evaluations. Her email address is available upon request.

While I did have to check the ``Yes'' box next to your question ``Have you ever been convicted of a felony?'' I just want you to know that I have since returned all of the merchandise.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration! I will check back soon.

Warmest regards,

Alex Awesome

Clueless Cover Letter

Another Cover Letter contest entry:

Dear Miss FSP and members of the search committee;

I am writing to apply for your tenure-track, postdoctoral, or other temporary full-time or part-time position in Physics.  My advisor Professor Famous says I am finishing my Ph.D. this year since I am running out of funding.

My research is in theoretical physics.  Specifically in my dissertation I study the homotopy type of moduli of IIB plane-wave 19-dimensional hyperelliptic Clebsch-Gordon coefficients of holonomic Kontsevich correspondences on Artin stacks of strings.  I am also interested in the homotopy type of moduli of IIA plane-wave 19-dimensional hyperelliptic Gordon-Clebsch coefficients of holonomic Kontsevich correspondences on Artin stacks of strings.  My research statement is enclosed.

I am wildly excited by the possibility of indoctrinating young undergraduate minds on the absolutely marvelous wonders of the fascinating subject of Physics and in particular about my research.  I believe in student-centered learning, continuous assessment, and the integration of research and education.  My teaching statement is enclosed.

I am particularly interested in working at your college or university because my girlfriend's cousin's former roommate says the skiing is great.

I plan to attend the March meeting of the American Physical Society and would like a chance to chat with you then.  You can get in touch by drawing on my Facebook wall.

Sincerely yours,

Clueless once-promising slacker physics grad student

Herewith a Kool Kover Letter

Another entry in The Cover Letter contest:

Dear Search Committee:

My name is Dr. Joseph von Kool and I am applying for the open position in your Department.

Herewith I submit to you my application materials thereof for the aforementioned tenure-track position. Whereas my address is listed as Prestige University, henceforth I will be located at the Uber-Institute until such time as a tenure-track position is proffered and forthcoming.

Most sincerely yours,

J. von Kool, Ph.D.

Dear Search Committee Chair

Another entry in The Cover Letter contest. 

Dear Search Committee Chair,

I know these letters are usually addressed to a person, but the job market is so terrible these days that I hope you’ll excuse me for using your title instead, since I have to write 93 letters this week. 

As you no doubt have figured out already, I am an applicant for your position in Molecular Biology.  I am well trained in (Biology  Chemistry) because of both my undergraduate and graduate training at MIT, and I’ve had experience as a teaching assistant in (organic introductory biology) as noted in my teaching statement, so I am completely prepared to teach the course you mentioned in the position advertisement. 

My research is on the reversal of aging in female fruit flies by the polyphenolic compound, resveratrol, a component of red wine, and I anticipate considerable student interest in working with me in this area.  My PhD was with Famous Scientist, a foremost researcher on molecular gerontology, and we have three papers published and four in press resulting from my graduate work and two years of postdoctoral fellowship.  I have been funded by Major Private Foundation, the US Wine Institute, and the National Institutes of Health during my postdoctoral research period and I anticipate future funding from all three agencies to support my research at   ____  university.

In order to set up my laboratory properly, I will require a startup fund of $600,000 for equipment, supplies, personnel, and travel, to be spent over a four-year period, after which I expect my laboratory to be self-sufficient.  I need to have a release from all teaching and committee work for the first year and a light load of teaching and committee work for the entire pre-tenure period if I come to your school.  It is essential for the development of my research in a highly competitive area that I not be distracted by these other elements while I am setting up my research endeavor.  I am sure you understand this situation well, since there is lots of research in your department of (chemistry biology).

Please examine my CV, research plans, teaching statement, and letters of recommendation carefully.  I look forward to visiting your department, in fact I may be in the area and if so, will call to arrange a visit soon.

Sincerely,

An Outstanding Candidate