The fact that the academic job market is grim is not news: one has only to look at the data on the history profession collected by the American Historical Association to know that a secure, stable position is vanishingly unlikely for the majority of hopefuls who enter the academic job market. Research on the effects of the coronavirus on the higher education sector in the UK paints a similarly depressing picture. The longer one reads, the more hopeless it seems: US universities prefer to hire faculty who earned PhDs at a shockingly small number of schools. Both anecdata and the studies linked above show that success on the academic job market must occur relatively quickly if it is to be achieved at all.
As far as I can tell, there are no similar studies about the UK, and professional organisations such as the Royal Historical Society do not seem to track career outcomes for PhDs (if I am wrong about that, please let me know!) Anecdotally, Oxbridge PhDs seem to make up the majority of permanently employed history faculty in this country, as well as the holders of prestigious early career fellowships such as those from the Leverhulme Trust and British Academy. One might argue that these institutions simply produce the majority of PhD graduates; it would be interesting to see research on this.
With these things in mind, applying for an academic position can feel like a fool's errand. Some applications are more torturous than others and as Zeb Larson pointed out in a 2020 thinkpiece on academic job applications:
Even 70-page applications -- with their requisite cover letter, CV,
teaching philosophy, research statement, writing sample, student
evaluations, references and sample syllabi -- are unkind things to ask
for when most applicants will never proceed to the interview stage.
I've just had the rare experience of doing an application that was clear and relatively reasonable in what it requested from applicants and it made me think about what makes for a good academic job application from the perspective of someone applying. So, here are things I wish search committees would do to make the experience better for applicants.
1) Ask for reference letters only from candidates who reach the interview stage.
My heart sinks whenever I see a job ad that asks for reference letters upfront. I find it difficult to ask for reference letters on the general principle that asking other people to do favours for me is hard, and knowing that the current state of the job market means that it's likely this effort will be for naught makes it even harder. Thus, I'm always grateful when I see a job ad which announces that references will only be sought at the longlisting or interview stage.
Where letters are needed upfront, the systems used to collect them can often make the process even more torturous. Recruitment systems which only allows letter-writers to submit after the main application has been submitted are particularly bad. Hiring committees whose institutions use these antiquated and cumbersome products should ideally set the deadline for references at least a week after the application deadline, but very few of them do. Perhaps some systems don't allow it but in the twenty-first century 'computer says no' seems like a flimsy excuse.
Better than these, but less preferable to the references at interview stage, are those systems where the applicant controls when the system sends letter-writers a link to upload their references. The advantage these have over applications where recommenders are asked to submit their letters by email is that the applicant can see when a reference has been uploaded.
2) Specify the length of application materials.
Different countries and disciplines have different standards for what academic job materials should look like. Most UK applications ask for a cover letter and a CV; possibly also a research statement or writing sample. Length requirements or requests are given for some but not all of these documents. Length requirements for documents as a standard feature of applications reassures applicants that they are producing materials that will actually be read by the committee. It is also more humane for the committee themselves.
Knowing the length requirements for application materials also helps applicants plan the time they will spend on their application and allows them to customise any materials they have already written to the requirements of the position for which they are applying.
3) Specify the modules the successful candidate will teach.
While this is fairly common in fixed-term teaching posts, it is very rare in longer-term or permanent jobs. I've never been able to tell if this is because search committees expect the applicant to use the website to determine what modules the department needs covered, if applicants are expected to ask the academic contact for the job about it, or if applicants are supposed to be proposing new modules they would develop if appointed.
Where specific modules are mentioned, departments who have taken the time to give the full titles of modules as listed in recent course catalogues are especially helpful to applicants, as this means that applicants can look these courses up in said catalogues and make focused comments regarding the relevance and utility of their teaching experience to these specific modules.
4) Think carefully about requiring applicants to be x-years out from their PhD.
This is a complicated one and let me be clear: I absolutely support fellowships which are reserved for applicants who are just finishing their PhDs, or are a year or two out from them.
In the UK it seems increasingly common that fixed-term early career research posts specify that applicants can only be 1-3 years out from their PhD (and whether this means submission date, viva date, date any corrections were approved, or graduation date varies widely). The implication is that if an applicant hasn't made it within a relatively short period, they won't. Given that a string of fixed-term contracts
or periods of working outside the academy has become the norm for many scholars early in their careers, a flexible definition of early career status seems fairer to applicants.
Increasingly, early career research fellowship applications seem to be taking steps in this direction by acknowledging that career breaks, maternity or paternity, illness, or caring responsibilities, etc should not count in towards the 1-3 year period, which is welcome. But it's rare to see all four of these listed (illness, in particular, seems to be frequently omitted), definitions of 'career break' can be arbitrary or unclear, and it is often not stated how any sensitive or protected information disclosed in an application would be handled or referenced in further stages of the application process, such as at interview.
5) Just don't: 'Time spent working outside academia does not count as a career break.'
This implies certain assumptions about the time and resources available to people working outside academia. Access to research libraries after normal working hours and at weekends is not evenly available. Many applicants employed outside academia do not live and work in situations where they are able research and write regularly in the morning and evening and weekend in order to keep up a competitive publication profile.
A flexible definition of early career status that takes into account current circumstances of precarity and the wide range of reasons applicants may choose to take a non-academic position would allow search committees to consider a wider range of applicants.
6) Be aware of how restrictions on work permissions may affect your applicant pool.
The legal aspects of work permissions and hiring are in the hands of HR professionals, not in the hands of the search committee, so I fully appreciate that these concerns are out of search committees' hands. However, asking HR to include specific language about any eligibility restrictions in the job ad seems eminently possible. A
large population of international students do PhDs in the UK, so search committees should be aware of how work permissions will affect their applicant pool.
As an example, a 22-month position in a country (not the UK) where the threshold for earning a work visa is a job lasts for 24 months restricts the applicant pool. A basic knowledge of immigration law would allow the search committee to argue that the position should be extended to 24 months in the interests of allowing them to consider international applicants. At the very least, this knowledge would allow them to argue that HR should include language about eligibility in the job ad as well as a right-to-work check in the online application.
This would prevent international applicants for receiving a quick automated rejection on the basis of something that has nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
7) Correspond with applicants by name and in a timely manner.
Where possible, I always appreciate it when universities use recruitment systems which address me by name, rather than as 'dear applicant'. Everyone I know who has applied for academic jobs has a story of a form letter sent out to applicants with mistakes, omissions, or misspellings. We are all human, and as Universal Supreme Ruler of Typos, I recognise that mistakes happen, but they should be avoided wherever possible. And for the love of heaven, double, triple, quadruple check that any correspondence that should be bbc'd, is.
A number of legal, institutional, and administrative factors can get in the way of timely correspondence, but updating applicants where the process is taking longer than expected is respectful and appreciated.
8) Share interview dates where possible.
Where possible, it always good to see search committees sharing these in the initial job ad, even if they are not definite. This gives applicants a sense of the timeline of the application process and the option for forward planning.
9) Be aware of conflicts of interest in the selection process.
If one of the candidates for interview did their doctorate at the institution that is hiring, managing conflicts of interest can be exceptionally tricky and a good solution may not be available. Workloading and staff availability will restrict who is able to be on an interview panel, and last minute emergencies or changes in availability may further complicate matters. However, in the interests of fairness to all applicants, institutions should make every effort to ensure that an interviewee's PhD supervisor is not one of the members of the selection panel.
10) 'This was an exceptionally difficult decision for our faculty.'
Search committees should send their decision letter in as timely a fashion as possible. Some academic applicants, even those who reach the final stages of the application process, will never hear back at all from the institution where they applied. This is discourteous and unkind. Search committees should ensure it never happens.
Where search committees have the option to customise their reject-o-grams, it is always gracious to thank the applicant for their interest in the role and the effort they put into their application. Rhetoric regarding the difficulty of the decision for the committee is standard but acknowledging the applicant's hard work is rarer than it should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment