In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Tom writes:
This question is for those folks who care to see ye olde `I want to be at your specific school because X' thing in the cover letter.
Do you care where in the letter it happens? Should it be first? Right after the stuff about my research but before stuff about teaching? Last? Have I completely misunderstood what a cover letter should look like?
I will be curious to hear what other search-committee members think. Having served on three search committees at a liberal arts university, my sense is that at schools like doesn't matter precisely where you tailor a cover letter to the school. What matters is that you do it and how you do it. Let me explain.
I cannot overstate how important, in my experience, it can be to tailor cover letters to individual schools. I once knew a search committee member who indicated the sole reason they did not include a candidate on their interview list was that the candidate's letter did not demonstrate any knowledge of or interest in the institution. Because decisions of who to interview are make collectively by committees–and individual committee members can have very strong views–my sense is that in at least some cases, not tailoring a cover letter might actually make the deciding difference in whether you're interviewed. Maybe it won't be the deciding factor very often. However, the possibility that it could is one that candidates should take seriously.
That being said, I think it is important to discuss what search-committee members are looking for here. Tom's comment (which may admittedly be off the cuff) suggests that he is thinking of tailoring letters in terms of stating why you want to work at the school in question. Although in my experience search committee members can care very much about whether a candidate really wants to work at their school, my sense is also that–as in other parts of the dossier–it is more advantageous to show that you are enthusiastic about the school rather than tell the committee this. What's the difference? Saying things is easy. You can say you want to work at school S for reasons X, Y, and Z. But why should the committee believe you? Suppose you are applying to a small liberal-arts college with a high-teaching load but your dossier screams "Big Time Researcher, Not a Teacher." The bare claim that you really want to work at the teaching school you're applying to might ring hollow.
How, then, can you show that you're interested in working at a given school? My sense is that search committee members are likely to look favorably on letters that (1) show you've done research on the institution, and (2) indicate fit. For instance, search around on the institution's website. Are there particular initiatives currently taking place, such as a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)? Indicating knowledge of this in your letter, and ways your courses or teaching methods might advance it, might be helpful. So, I think, is doing research on courses offered in the department. Which specific courses in the curriculum could you teach, given your background? These are the kinds of things that I think are likely to be looked upon favorably. In sum, at a bare minimum, you should say something that shows you are enthusiastic about working at the specific institution–and my sense is that it probably doesn't matter much where in the letter you do so. That being said, my sense is showing you've done your research on the institution and thought about fit may be the best ways to do so.
But these are just my thoughts, and could be totally wrong or unrepresentative. What do other search committee members think? (Note: it may be helpful to mention which kind of institution you work at!)
Leave a Reply to Derek BowmanCancel reply