Behind the Scenes with a Search Committee

On October 15, John Bowman (Professor of Political Science, Queens College and the Graduate Center), David Humphries (Associate Professor and Chair, Department of English, Queensborough Community College) and David Waldstreicher (Distinguished Professor of History at the Graduate Center) spoke on the topic of “Behind the Scenes with a Search Committee.”

Together, our three panelists have been search committee chairs and search committee members at both their current and previous institutions. They have read thousands of CV’s, cover letters, and additional materials. They all feel strongly that those on the academic job market can improve their chances to get an interview by knowing how search committees work.

We are very grateful that they took the time out of their busy schedules to share their expertise with us. What follows is a summary of the conversation that took place.

– Jenny Furlong

On the committee itself

Search committees are made up of a well-intentioned group of people who will read your letters and CV’s, but may not read additional materials unless your letter and CV really engage them.

Search committees are made up of people who are not necessarily specialists in your field and might not know the debates in your particular area. Your materials, particularly your letter, should fill in these gaps. Make sure what you write about your research is understandable to a range of scholars in your field.

Everyone wants a colleague who’s going to do good scholarship and be a good teacher. But, this means different things to different people. And, everyone wants you to be interested in them as well. What you say in your materials may strike people differently—don’t worry about that, but be as broad as you can.

Knowing the institution

When researching a department, there is only so much one can learn from the outside. Do your best. You will want to balance interest and presumption. You don’t want your letter to sounds as though you will sweep in and do the job better than the current faculty members. You do, however, want to sound as though you’ve thought about how you might fit.

Read the job description carefully, and make sure your letter and CV show that you fulfill what they are looking for. Some institutions have more bureaucratic, HR-driven hiring requirements and the committee may need to report on how exactly you fit the job posting.

Mentioning working with specific people can sound a bit superficial, but it’s unlikely that a search committee will find this offensive.

It’s very expensive to run a search. At some point, committee members will wonder: “Will this candidate actually come here?” (particularly since you are currently based in NYC). Your materials should attempt to alleviate that concern.

The big difference between the letter and the interview(s) is that for the interview, you should really do your homework concerning the department. You can’t “read the tea leaves” and know exactly what everyone wants. But, you can know the landscape of the department/institution and have a sense of the research of the individual faculty there.

Writing/tailoring your materials

Get a lot of feedback on your materials, as hearing the opinions of others is very important. These opinions will often be in conflict. So, you must then decide how to frame your teaching and research in the best light given what you’ve heard. Do not send anything out before your advisor reads it. S/he knows your research best and can help you to make sure you’re properly expressed its implications and impact. This is harder for you to do, particularly if you are still writing.

Many people will start with two base letters: one focused on teaching and the other on research. Your writing on teaching should explain what you bring to the table as an educator. And, anything you writing on teaching should be student focused. It should include examples, and you should go the extra step to talk about what you have to offer. Search committees are interested in knowing that you’ll do what the job requires.

Once you have these base letters, you should be willing to change them for different institutions. This is a lot of work, as those extra sentences can be very tough to write, maybe even the hardest thing you’ve ever written. If you are in a field where you will apply for 30+ jobs, this may be particularly difficult. But, there may be a subset of those jobs for which you’d like to make this effort.   You need to answer the question, “Why College X?”

What do you need to explain about yourself? If you seem like a stretch for a given position, you can apply, but explain (right up front) why you happen to be perfect for the job.

If you have a prior connection to a region, an institution, or type of institution (you did your undergraduate degree at a liberals arts college and are applying to one, for example), it may be advantageous for you to mention this. But, this would go at the end of your letter, and your research and teaching would absolutely take precedence. Your goal here would be to offer an institution another reason why you are (truly) interested in them.

Your writing style

Reading hundreds of letters and CV’s can be mind-numbing. Too often, the advice that people receive, either from faculty or even the internet, makes their materials look too similar to others’ materials. Avoid repetitive sentence structure (I did this, I did that) and kill the passive voice—use it as little as possible.

Tell your story in a narrative way.

Bad writing and/or bland writing will almost automatically get your letter tossed. And, the blandest writing is often about teaching. Be concrete about your teaching. Give examples.

Letters of recommendation

You will of course have a letter from your advisor.

The committee needs your letters of recommendation at their first search committee meeting. This is why it’s so important for you to ask for them early and to meet your deadlines in a timely fashion. If you look interesting to the committee, they may contact you and let you know if your letters haven’t made it (but that’s a big “if”).

Committees are looking for recommenders who can explain the context of your research and the significance thereof.

You should have a variety of reference letters that can speak to different claims you make in your CV and letters. But, it’s also very persuasive when a claim (for example, this student’s research is groundbreaking) is repeated by several recommenders.

It’s also impressive to have a recommender from outside your home institution. This could be an undergraduate faculty member whom you’ve kept up-to-date on your graduate career. This could be a more senior colleague in your field of research with whom you’ve presented at conferences.

Not all letter writers are of the same profile. You want to look for someone who is able to impress different kinds of people.

You will need three letters of recommendation. Should you submit more? The only downside is that all might be read a bit more quickly, or that doing so may have a diluting effect. Perhaps you have more than three recommenders, but select only three letters based on the institution to which you are sending the letters (i.e. you know that one person can speak to a certain aspect of your work that makes you a good fit for institution X, so you make sure to send this one, rather than one that might be more general).

Interviewing

Academe is a peculiar environment. Where else would you hire someone who might spend the next thirty years working down the hall from you? This means that even someone who isn’t a “people person” cares about the search, because they will have to live with the result (and they know this from prior experience). You want to come across as someone who will be a good colleague.

Each institution considers itself to be unique and the faculty there want you to be interested in them. This is why you must have questions for the search committee during both your preliminary and on-campus interview. When given the chance to ask questions, do not respond: “No, I think I’ve heard what I need to know” or anything along those lines. Go in with three or four questions that show your interest in the program.

Look up department faculty before interviewing with them. Knowing their names and research areas in advance is important.

Don’t spend your campus visit trying to negotiate the terms of your offer (or asking questions that seem like you are doing this, for example, about the possibility of course releases). Instead, take the time to listen, learn, and behave as though you want to the job. If you get an offer, then you can negotiate.

Take notes during the preliminary interview, be it via Skype, phone, or at a conference. This will provide you with material for questions and follow up if you are invited for a campus interview. And, be sure to remember the names of those you first met with.

Your job talk is crucial. If you are afraid that someone won’t understand something in your job talk, you’ll have to change it. The talk has to be comprehensible to all members of the department, regardless of their area of specialty. Ask who will be in the audience. Will students attend? You should learn this in advance and think carefully about how to contextualize your work.

Concerning teaching, by the interview stage you should have thought through syllabi of courses you might propose teaching (i.e. the ones you may have mentioned in your letter). You should also be excited about teaching entry-level or required courses too. Departments will want to know that you are ready to do your share of the departmental work—and be excited and engaged while doing so. What twist might you add to these courses? What’s distinctive about the way you might approach a gen ed course? Also, be sure you can talk about how you translate your research into teaching.

Should you call people by first name? This is always a tough one (and perhaps a bit generational). The panelists suggested erring on the side of formality, and then using first names when invited to do so (i.e., “Let me introduce you to Bill and Denise.” or “Please, call me Grace.”).

“Evidence of teaching excellence”

Even if you are not asked directly for this, you might offer it. How would you do so? Construct a professional-looking website that includes teaching material and make the URL available to those who want to look.

If you are asked directly for “evidence of teaching excellence”, you will want to send something that testifies to your work in the classroom.   A committee will not want a pdf copy of 300 individual student evaluations from the teaching you’ve done over the past five years. They will likely be interested in something that looks more like a teaching portfolio, which might include a cover sheet summarizing and contextualizing your teaching evaluations and experience throughout your career, sample syllabi, sample student assignments, and evaluations from only the most recent course(s) you’ve taught.

Writing samples

This should be your very best writing. Show yourself as someone with a strong quality of mind.

Your advisor is really the best sounding board as to what your writing sample should be. Most committees will want to see something that is connected to your dissertation. Some of you will have previously published articles that may seem as though they are better writing samples. If they are related to your dissertation, these may be viable options. If they are unrelated to your dissertation (i.e. your current work), these may be of less interest to search committees. Again, talk to your advisor about what is the best writing sample given the state of your dissertation and prior research.

Online presence

Our panelists don’t make a habit of Googling candidates, though they noted others might. It’s important, however, that you as a job candidate know what’s out on the internet about you, and perhaps clean it up a bit before going on the market.

A well-constructed professional website that highlights your research and teaching can serve you well on the job market. For some fields, presence on Twitter, Academia.edu, ResearchGate, or LinkedIn may also be important.

Turning your dissertation into a book—should you mention it?  

This is perhaps a questions that is most relevant for the humanities and some social sciences.

Many of you will be able to say “I am in discussions with the University of XYZ Press as to the publication of my dissertation.” The fact is, university presses have become much more entrepreneurial, and many people are “in discussion” with them. This is not a book contract. Many committee members will not take this kind of statement seriously. Better to have your recommenders say in a letter, “So-and-so’s dissertation will make an excellent book.” This is much more credible and is the best way of signaling that your work is advanced.

Committee members will be more interested in hearing about current publications. That you have been published in a journal shows your work has achieved a certain standard. If you don’t have any publications, make getting at least one a priority before going on the market, if you can.