I have talked about teaching statements and teaching portfolios several times in two previous series. I still stand by the things I wrote there, particularly about how important it is for teaching statements to use concrete examples of teaching practices rather than broad generalizations and emotive language. However, my recent experiences on search committees and discussion with other people who have served on search committees elsewhere have driven home a few other important things I think candidates should know:
Too many teaching portfolios are indistinguishable: As I mentioned here and here, one of the most important things candidates need to do is "stand out" from the crowd. Your dossier is one of dozens or even hundreds of others the search committee is looking at. Particularly if you are applying for a job at a teaching school, the committee is looking for something that distinguishes you as a teacher – something that makes you "jump off the page" as someone particularly worth interviewing. Alas, in my experience, roughly 8 in 10 teaching portfolios are more or less indistinguishable from one another, saying similar things (such as stating that they diagram arguments, have students do group work, engage in Socratic dialogue, etc.), having similar teaching evaluations (basically, fairly happy students), similar looking syllabi, and so on. Unfortunately, it's a simple fact: if you're doing what everyone else is doing, you're going to have a hard time standing out. So, either you need to develop a more original pedagogy, or you have to show in some clear way how you are particularly good at what you do. In the teaching statement, concrete examples of in-class discussions, assignments, etc. are helpful, as in my experience hardly anyone actually does things the same way in the classroom (even those who do Socratic dialogue typically do so in distinct ways). On a similar note, I think it's important to not only include syllabi in the teaching portfolio, but also examples of term-paper assignments, rubrics, etc.
Programs are under-training teachers: I've said this before recently, but it bears saying again. My sense is that many programs are seriously under-training candidates as teachers for jobs at institutions like mine. It's not just about the amount of teaching experience that's an issue (though it is). Another problem is that too many teaching statements boil down to something like this: "I stand in front of the classroom and talk about philosophy with students." I suspect there's a reason for this. In all of my years in grad school (in two PhD programs), we had proseminars and even a "professionalization" seminar (where we practiced presenting our research, crafting dossier materials, etc.). However, to the best of my recollection I never once had a teaching seminar – i.e. any kind of formal or informal setting to discuss or experiment with pedagogy. From what I can tell, many programs "train" their candidates to teach by sticking them in front of the classroom and maybe having a faculty member sit in and observe them on occasion. The end result is candidates on the market who are not only under-experienced but also under-trained with the experience they do have. People at institutions like many take pedagogy very seriously. Grad programs and candidates need to do so too if they want to be competitive for jobs at teaching schools.
Teaching statements should be one page: I was first told this by the job-market consultant I used, have heard more than a few other people who have served on search committees say the same thing…and having served on three search committees, I agree. Search committee members have hundreds of applications to read, constituting literally thousands of pages. It is exhausting work, and there are few things worse than reading a teaching statement that takes forever to get to the point. If your teaching statement is two or three dense pages long, but some other candidate has a pristine one page succinctly demonstrating what makes them unique and interesting as a teacher, they will almost certainly have an advantage. A beautiful one-page teaching statement in a pile of verbose 2-3 page ones is a real breath of fresh air. It's hard work condensing a teaching statement into one page, but it can be done.
Too many teaching portfolios appear thrown together: I'll be honest. I've looked at a lot of teaching portfolios, both as a search committee member and as a mentor. Far too many of them look thrown together haphazardly, like a teaching statement followed by photocopies of a set of course evaluations, followed by maybe a syllabus. This looks bad for a number of reasons. First, it can just come off lazy. As I've mentioned before, people at teaching schools are looking to hire "professionals" – people who really have their act together, showing polish and conscientiousness. There are many reasons why this is important, not the least of which is that people eventually have to put tenure files together, reports for deans and committees, and so on. A candidate who has put together a well-0rganized and presented portfolio (with an actual table of contents, concise summary of quantitative data, etc.) is going to look better, all things being equal, than one who doesn't. Second, haphazard teaching portfolios obscure more than they illuminate, and can irritate a reader by making their job difficult. Take for example raw student evaluations: I assume we all know how cluttered those things can be, with tons of questions, department and college means, and so on. Having to read through raw photocopies of student evaluations (including illegible student handwriting) is not only irritating but confusing. Wise candidates should instead provide summaries of student evaluations and typed student comments.
Don't provide "select" student comments or course evaluations: I've had a number of friends who have served on search committees complain about this. As one of my acquaintances said (I paraphrase), "If I come across a teaching portfolio with 'select' student comments, I immediately wonder what the candidate is trying to hide. So I may look up their ratemyprofessors page to find out their students think they are the Worst Teacher Ever. And, all too often, that's exactly what I find: a litany of wretched RMP ratings that make the candidate look really bad. The same is true if the person only includes course evaluations from years ago, like 2012 or 2014. Once again, I think to myself, why didn't they provide more recent evaluations…"
Look, regardless of whatever qualms one may have with search committees looking up ratemyprofessors pages, my sense is that it happens, and is far more likely to happen if you try to hide negative student comments or courses with poor quantitative data. Further, I've heard a few search committee members say that just trying to hide these things reflects poorly. Given that one cannot hide from negative student reviews once one is hired, trying to hide them in the application process can look deceptive or at least out of touch with the fact that one cannot hide from inconvenient things as a professional.
So, then, what's a candidate to do? Fortunately, here's my other sense: there's an increasing number of people who doubt the value of student evaluations, and for good reason. My advice, then, is: don't try to hide from negative comments or evals. You're better off including stuff in your portfolio so the person reading it at least gets a balanced view of what your students think. I think this is especially true if you're a challenging instructor. The person reading your application may know that negative student evaluations are strongly predicted by difficulty, not anything wrong with one as a teacher. For what it is worth, this may be my favorite scatterplot ever:
Difficulty matters: Following up on my point above about student evaluations, my sense is that people on the hiring side of things at teaching schools are not just looking for teachers who are well-liked. Although a high level of student enmity may be off-putting to search committees (who at teaching schools often depend on majors numbers for their department to remain viable), they can also be put off by the "easy teacher." I don't know anyone who has served on a search committee at a teaching school who would say they want to hire someone whose students like them because they are easy. No, my clear sense is that people at teaching schools tend to be looking for people who have the integrity and courage to be challenging instructors who nevertheless know how to engage students. Consequently, the questions in your student evals that might actually mean the most are the questions on course difficulty and assignment difficulty.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Perhaps my experience, and the people I've spoken to whose thoughts informed these comments, are idiosyncratic. I'd be curious to hear what others who have served on hiring committees think, but hope you all find these thoughts helpful!
Leave a Reply to Marcus ArvanCancel reply