An interesting question just arose in the comments section of our job-market discussion thread. Tenured wrote, "The killer for most people's application is their letter of application…People put very odd things in the letters. They go on and on about their research and nothing else…and often quite silly emotional things."
Having served on two search committees and mentored several job-candidates, I wholeheartedly agree. As I mentioned a while back in our Job-Market Boot Camp's entry on cover letters (see also here), my experience on both sides of the market–both as a candidate and search-committee member–has been that truly effective cover letters, teaching statements, and research statements are understated, simply laying out one's qualifications, accomplishments, teaching methods, and research as descriptively as possible, without "selling oneself" or self-aggrandizement (e.g. "I have published in the highest-ranked journals in my field", "I am a passionate teacher" etc.). I was given this advice by a job-market consultant I hired, who claimed (on the basis of serving on many search committees) that this is one of the biggest errors job-candidates make. I know several people who did much better on the market (getting permanent jobs) immediately after following this advice, and the same happened to me: I got a lot more interviews, and ultimately a tenure-track job.
My experience on the other side of the market has also suggested to me that self-aggrandizement in materials does not tend to come off well. Indeed, my sense is that people on the hiring side of things care not only about publications, teaching, etc., but also about the kind of people they are hiring. If all goes well, a tenure-track hire will be a job for life (if the person goes on to get tenure). However, that means the person you hire may be your colleague for life. And here's the thing: because arrogant, self-involved people can seriously negatively affect the climate of a department and university, that may provide incentive for people on the hiring side of things to try to determine what kind of person a candidate is through the tone of their application materials. Notice that I'm not saying this is how things should be, or even that people on the hiring side may even be consciously aware that they engage in these kinds of judgments. All it is to say is that it may be wise for candidates to avoid the risk of search committee members judging their materials negatively on these grounds.
However, these are just my impressions, and may be inaccurate. Postdoc writes:
I’ve been told that given search committees are having to go through hundreds of apps that the more self aggrandizement the better (I guess up to some point?). You have to stand out. But here lies the problem: there is little agreement on what makes a good application. I’ve heard x and not x so many times as to make it impossible to know what to do exactly. My hunch is just as is the case with publishing that there is little aggreement on what is good. I agree there are different job markets (teaching, research, etc), so might make sense to have different cover letters for teaching vs. research schools.
Because institutions are different, and different people on search committees have different priorities, I thought it might be helpful to hear from past or present search-committee members on this: is self-aggrandizement (or "selling yourself") a good idea or bad idea in application materials? If you are a search committee member weighing in and are willing to do so, please consider sharing what type of institution you hired at (R1?, liberal arts university, etc.).
Leave a Reply