Hiring an academic job consultant

[Guest]

I was wondering if anyone here had ever hired Karen Kelsky, aka The Professor Is In, to help with job materials. How did it work for you?

[rising_star]

I haven't but I've heard mixed things from people who have. One friend said it was useless while another said it was helpful.

[fuzzylogician]

I haven't and don't know anyone who has, but if you do decide to hire her services, I'd be curious to hear how it went. 

[Eigen]

I'm guessing the response would be highly field specific- I know a lot of her advice draws myriad opinions, mostly along the lines of different fields and subfields. She seems to over-generalize her experience (take her recent piece on research statement vs research philosophy). 

As an example, probably half of her advice would get someone in my field tossed out in the first round from the criticisms I've seen.

You're in English, however, which is a lot closer to her wheelhouse, so I'd assume it would fit you much better.

There are some great discussions of her and her advice in the Chronicle Job-Seeking forums, and I think there are a few past reviews of people who have paid for her service as well. If I have time, I'll look them up.

[Eigen]

Here are a couple of threads from the CHE discussing her work, including some anecdotes of people who've used her services:

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,187243.0.html

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,158259.0.html

[dr. t]

That second thread is infuriating.

[Eigen]

How so? I've found it quite helpful. 

[Guest]

I'd also be interested to know too, Telkanaru. 

I thought the second thread had a lot of useful information, but it was buried between accusations of bottom-feeding and gender politics. I just want to know if she works. I have a friend who used her and doesn't recommend her. But I'd be interested in other people's experiences. Thanks for the links, Eigen. 

[dr. t]

41 minutes ago, my_muse said:

I'd also be interested to know too, Telkanaru. 

I thought the second thread had a lot of useful information, but it was buried between accusations of bottom-feeding and gender politics. I just want to know if she works. I have a friend who used her and doesn't recommend her. But I'd be interested in other people's experiences. Thanks for the links, Eigen. 

Looks like you've solved that there mystery your own self  Although it wasn't so much the accusations of misogyny that bothered me so much as it was the actual misogyny.

Edited November 21, 2015 by telkanuru

[amolang]

Have you read her book or blog postings?

I first read her blog posts and bought her book. also subscribing her newsletter.
She advised her prospective clients to first have a look at her book and then make it clear that you need further service.

Her book covers a wide range of academic life and yeah, beside whether you take her advice or not, it is helpful to hear from former director of department.
 

[Bronte1985]

I hired her and would recommend her with some serious reservations. First, I'll say that my documents were better after working with her. That said, for what she does, she overcharges. She charges by the hour--4 drafts, an hour on each. It's clear, however, that she doesn't spend anywhere near that amount of time on them. For the first draft, she sends a form letter telling you to read her book/blog posts more carefully, with maybe a sentence pointing to some problems areas in your document (e.g., your letter needs to be better organized; it's emotional, self-aggrandizing, etc.) She does line edits on the subsequent drafts, but they are mostly cosmetic, and, not surprisingly, geared to making your document hew more closely to her template. In any case, I found it hard to believe she spent more than a half hour on any of the drafts. On top of that, she is needlessly brusque and condescending (I realize she's being "real," but for what she charges I think a kinder approach is not too much to ask for). But her advice is solid, and, as I said, the documents came out better--not much better, but better all the same. The problem is that she charges a lot of money for what she does. And she can, because what she's selling is a (false) sense of control to scared grad students at the mercy of a baffling system. The reality, though, is that, while there are certain rhetorical tricks out there that are helpful, the system is finally opaque and variable. I've read cover letters and statements from a number of friends who are now employed at top universities, and a shocking number of them break Karen's most sacred "rules," sometimes, it seems, all of them. In the end, the decisions of search committees come down to so many factors that are out of your control: do they like your topic, do they like your advisor, have you published enough? What Karen offers can help, but only a little bit. So, if you've got the money, then sure, go for it, but don't get your hopes too high.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Bronte1985

[Eigen]

I don't like the idea of "rules" in job applications, personally. And maybe that's something that is hurting me on the job market- I can't tell yet, since this is my first year. 

But one thing I've noticed from obsessively reading the "notes from search committee" threads on the CHE forums yearly and talking to heads of search committees is that every single thing you can possibly do in your application materials, someone will hate. And someone else will love. 

Some people hate formal introductions (i.e., a traditional application letter with the snail mail address of the institution). Some people think leaving it off is tacky. 

Some people think discussing collaborations in a cover letter makes you come across as weak and like you just want to leech off of someone else's work. Some people think that without discussing collaborations, you can't show that you'll be a good fit into a department. 

In short, I learned that I needed to carefully consider the advice that was out there in my discipline, and then decide how *I* wanted to present myself. I have a writing style, a personality, and an approach to research. And that's what I want to show search committees. 

I also learned to send them out to a bunch of people, and ask them to do a quick look. I had friends that helped me do in depth revisions, but what was more telling was what people saw or stood out to them in a 2 minute read of something. It actually led me to start a "short perusal" group of people currently on the market to swap materials. Even across disciplines, getting the impressions of 10 or 15 people of your materials is immensely helpful. 

[Bumblebea]

Would not recommend. 

I worked with Kelsky, and I found the experience disappointing. A lot of people complain about her bedside manner (which is indeed atrocious), but that wasn't my main concern. Rather, I was dismayed by her poor work ethic. I could tell she wasn't actually reading my material closely, or she was passing it to different people through different rounds. Thus, I would get completely different advice from one draft to the next. Like, I would be told to mention X in a certain paragraph, so I would mention X and send it back. Then I would get feedback like, "WHY would you mention X in this paragraph? THIS DOESN'T GO HERE!" It's a bit like telling a dog to sit and then roll over and then screaming NO NO I SAID SIT when they start to roll over. 

(And I'm not joking about the all caps thing. That's how she writes a lot of her marginal feedback, no exaggeration.)

The experience basically works like this. You contact her, and she'll put you on the calendar for about six or ten weeks later, depending on her schedule. She makes you pay far in advance for editing three documents, and it's usually around $400 to $500. She'll take you through four drafts of these documents but no more. She also won't answer any questions you have about her feedback.

You send her the first draft of the first document, usually your cover letter. She gets back to you and tells you it's terrible. You're doing everything wrong--you're being a "liberal arts mush" or writing a "weepy teaching paragraph." Sound familiar? Yeah, because these are the points on her blog, and apparently they’re mistakes that everyone makes. Even if you’re absolutely sure you don’t make them, guess what, you do. She then tells you to go read her blog posts and rewrite your letter. 

You make some changes. For draft 2, she'll praise you for taking her suggestions. Then she'll make really vague and minor suggestions like "cut this," "para too long, cut 20 words," "don't put your contact info in your final paragraph." If she doesn't like things, she'll seriously write NO NO in the margins or STOP THAT. I thought that was sort of hilarious. Imagine giving that kind of feedback to a student! And my students don't pay me $500 to look at 8 pages of writing.

About halfway through working with her, I got nervous with some of her suggestions, because they were so at odds with the advice I’d gotten from my department, so I ran some of them by my advisor. Advisor was like, "Who is giving you this terrible advice?" (And my advisor sits on job search committees every year. Is not exactly out of touch.)

When I gave Kelsky my next draft, I made a marginal note in my letter that, after consulting my advisor, I decided not to follow some of the advice she was giving. Big mistake. When I got the next draft back, she basically unloaded with both barrels, saying that my letter was embarrassing and would insult the intelligence of any search committee I sent it to, and then she implied that my advisor was an idiot. (Those were the words she used: “embarrassing,” “an insult,” and “cliched.”) That was the end of our time together. 

Aside from her interpersonal communication skills (which suck), her inattention to detail was incredibly disappointing. In one draft, certain things would be fine. But then, in the next draft, there'd be all these ~problems. Like, for two rounds, all with certain paragraphs would be hunky dory; then, in the final round, every word of a particular paragraph would be WRONG or NO NO NO.

She claims to be good for the humanities, but I don’t feel like she really knows what’s up in my discipline. She's an ex-anthropologist. She kept criticizing my dissertation paragraph and telling me that no one in my field would have any idea what I was talking about. She also said that my claims were too large and ridiculous. But I don’t know how she would know such a thing because she isn’t in my discipline—not even close. I wouldn’t presume to know the first thing about what makes an anthropology dissertation compelling. But Karen supposedly knows the humanities inside and out. She knows all fields. She knows more than your dissertation advisor about the current trends in your field—even though she left academia 6+ years ago.  

But like I said, it wasn't the personality issue that bothered me so much; it was that her advice was unpredictable, inconsistent, and way too generalized. She clearly was phoning it in, and I think that people deserve better for $500. For $500, I want my documents edited and worked over. I don't want to be told that "this is fine" in one draft and then "WTF is THIS?" in the next.

I’m also pretty sure that she’s not actually doing most of the consulting. I mean—think about it. She told me she has “thousands” of clients. She also just published a book and writes a weekly column for the Chronicle Vitae. I don’t know anyone who consult with an enormous number of clients all while writing a book and cranking out weekly columns. Either someone else wrote the book or someone else is doing the consulting. Or she’s just doing the consulting really badly these days. In any case, I would not pay her for her services now, knowing what I know.

Like the above poster, I’ve seen a lot of people from my program get jobs, and I have their letters. Their letters break all of Kelsky's sacrosanct rules. They have dissertation paragraphs that are too long; they combine their second project paragraph with their professionalization paragraph; they tailor in really bland ways. They even write letters that are more than 2 pages! And yet, they got good jobs. So I really have no idea.

I don’t have any problem with the way Kelsky makes a living. Like, I read those threads on the CHE forums, and it seems like a lot of people accuse of her profiteering off a bad job market and preying on graduate students’ insecurities. I don’t care about that; in the free world I think she has a right to make a living any way she sees fit. I also don’t care that she’s bullying or insensitive. I mean, yeah, it's unprofessional and immature as hell (and "keeping it real" doesn't mean being a jerk), but if she's a bully who still provides a quality service that gets you shortlisted, then who cares. But she doesn’t provide a quality service. She doesn’t hold up her end of the bargain. And that’s what’s truly egregious about her whole operation, at least from my perspective. She took my money and gave me a crappy service in return. I’m $500 poorer with very little to show for it. Like the previous poster, my letter did get *better*—but it’s difficult to say if this is Kelsky’s doing or if this is because I ran it by a ton of people after Kelsky spooked me with her advice. If that’s the case, then she inadvertently made it better by forcing me to crosscheck her recommendations. Really, my own legwork made it better; Kelsky didn’t even do any line edits.

[Bronte1985]

3 hours ago, Bumblebea said:

Would not recommend. 

I worked with Kelsky, and I found the experience disappointing. A lot of people complain about her bedside manner (which is indeed atrocious), but that wasn't my main concern. Rather, I was dismayed by her poor work ethic. I could tell she wasn't actually reading my material closely, or she was passing it to different people through different rounds. Thus, I would get completely different advice from one draft to the next. Like, I would be told to mention X in a certain paragraph, so I would mention X and send it back. Then I would get feedback like, "WHY would you mention X in this paragraph? THIS DOESN'T GO HERE!" It's a bit like telling a dog to sit and then roll over and then screaming NO NO I SAID SIT when they start to roll over. 

 

(And I'm not joking about the all caps thing. That's how she writes a lot of her marginal feedback, no exaggeration.)

 

The experience basically works like this. You contact her, and she'll put you on the calendar for about six or ten weeks later, depending on her schedule. She makes you pay far in advance for editing three documents, and it's usually around $400 to $500. She'll take you through four drafts of these documents but no more. She also won't answer any questions you have about her feedback.

 

You send her the first draft of the first document, usually your cover letter. She gets back to you and tells you it's terrible. You're doing everything wrong--you're being a "liberal arts mush" or writing a "weepy teaching paragraph." Sound familiar? Yeah, because these are the points on her blog, and apparently they’re mistakes that everyone makes. Even if you’re absolutely sure you don’t make them, guess what, you do. She then tells you to go read her blog posts and rewrite your letter. 

 

You make some changes. For draft 2, she'll praise you for taking her suggestions. Then she'll make really vague and minor suggestions like "cut this," "para too long, cut 20 words," "don't put your contact info in your final paragraph." If she doesn't like things, she'll seriously write NO NO in the margins or STOP THAT. I thought that was sort of hilarious. Imagine giving that kind of feedback to a student! And my students don't pay me $500 to look at 8 pages of writing.

 

About halfway through working with her, I got nervous with some of her suggestions, because they were so at odds with the advice I’d gotten from my department, so I ran some of them by my advisor. Advisor was like, "Who is giving you this terrible advice?" (And my advisor sits on job search committees every year. Is not exactly out of touch.)

 

When I gave Kelsky my next draft, I made a marginal note in my letter that, after consulting my advisor, I decided not to follow some of the advice she was giving. Big mistake. When I got the next draft back, she basically unloaded with both barrels, saying that my letter was embarrassing and would insult the intelligence of any search committee I sent it to, and then she implied that my advisor was an idiot. (Those were the words she used: “embarrassing,” “an insult,” and “cliched.”) That was the end of our time together. 

 

Aside from her interpersonal communication skills (which suck), her inattention to detail was incredibly disappointing. In one draft, certain things would be fine. But then, in the next draft, there'd be all these ~problems. Like, for two rounds, all with certain paragraphs would be hunky dory; then, in the final round, every word of a particular paragraph would be WRONG or NO NO NO.

 

She claims to be good for the humanities, but I don’t feel like she really knows what’s up in my discipline. She's an ex-anthropologist. She kept criticizing my dissertation paragraph and telling me that no one in my field would have any idea what I was talking about. She also said that my claims were too large and ridiculous. But I don’t know how she would know such a thing because she isn’t in my discipline—not even close. I wouldn’t presume to know the first thing about what makes an anthropology dissertation compelling. But Karen supposedly knows the humanities inside and out. She knows all fields. She knows more than your dissertation advisor about the current trends in your field—even though she left academia 6+ years ago.  

 

But like I said, it wasn't the personality issue that bothered me so much; it was that her advice was unpredictable, inconsistent, and way too generalized. She clearly was phoning it in, and I think that people deserve better for $500. For $500, I want my documents edited and worked over. I don't want to be told that "this is fine" in one draft and then "WTF is THIS?" in the next.

 

I’m also pretty sure that she’s not actually doing most of the consulting. I mean—think about it. She told me she has “thousands” of clients. She also just published a book and writes a weekly column for the Chronicle Vitae. I don’t know anyone who consult with an enormous number of clients all while writing a book and cranking out weekly columns. Either someone else wrote the book or someone else is doing the consulting. Or she’s just doing the consulting really badly these days. In any case, I would not pay her for her services now, knowing what I know.

 

Like the above poster, I’ve seen a lot of people from my program get jobs, and I have their letters. Their letters break all of Kelsky's sacrosanct rules. They have dissertation paragraphs that are too long; they combine their second project paragraph with their professionalization paragraph; they tailor in really bland ways. They even write letters that are more than 2 pages! And yet, they got good jobs. So I really have no idea.

 

I don’t have any problem with the way Kelsky makes a living. Like, I read those threads on the CHE forums, and it seems like a lot of people accuse of her profiteering off a bad job market and preying on graduate students’ insecurities. I don’t care about that; in the free world I think she has a right to make a living any way she sees fit. I also don’t care that she’s bullying or insensitive. I mean, yeah, it's unprofessional and immature as hell (and "keeping it real" doesn't mean being a jerk), but if she's a bully who still provides a quality service that gets you shortlisted, then who cares. But she doesn’t provide a quality service. She doesn’t hold up her end of the bargain. And that’s what’s truly egregious about her whole operation, at least from my perspective. She took my money and gave me a crappy service in return. I’m $500 poorer with very little to show for it. Like the previous poster, my letter did get *better*—but it’s difficult to say if this is Kelsky’s doing or if this is because I ran it by a ton of people after Kelsky spooked me with her advice. If that’s the case, then she inadvertently made it better by forcing me to crosscheck her recommendations. Really, my own legwork made it better; Kelsky didn’t even do any line edits.

 

All of this is very accurate. I perhaps wasn't strong enough in my last post; I really wouldn't recommend her, unless you have $500 you don't mind wasting. For what she gives you--minor, cosmetic, sometimes contradictory advice that fits everything to a pre-determined template--$50 AT MOST would be a fair price. Her work is lazy and disengaged. The whole experience was disappointing and frustrating, and the more I think about it the more frustrated and disappointed I get. I wish there were some way to hold her accountable. She's got a monopoly on this editing thing, and she's managed to established herself as some kind of academic career guru (because her advice in the book is solid) and has acquired an authority that allows her to behave this way. What really bugs me is the way she preaches about how unethical the university system is and yet has profited from it in the most exploitative ways, feeding off grad student's anxieties and charging enormous fees to do very minor work. Makes you wish there was Yelp for job document editors. I can't imagine anyone who's used her feels they got their money's worth. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Bronte1985

[Bumblebea]

6 hours ago, Bronte1985 said:

All of this is very accurate. I perhaps wasn't strong enough in my last post; I really wouldn't recommend her, unless you have $500 you don't mind wasting. For what she gives you--minor, cosmetic, sometimes contradictory advice that fits everything to a pre-determined template--$50 AT MOST would be a fair price. Her work is lazy and disengaged. The whole experience was disappointing and frustrating, and the more I think about it the more frustrated and disappointed I get. I wish there were some way to hold her accountable. She's got a monopoly on this editing thing, and she's managed to established herself as some kind of academic career guru (because her advice in the book is solid) and has acquired an authority that allows her to behave this way. What really bugs me is the way she preaches about how unethical the university system is and yet has profited from it in the most exploitative ways, feeding off grad student's anxieties and charging enormous fees to do very minor work. Makes you wish there was Yelp for job document editors. I can't imagine anyone who's used her feels they got their money's worth. 

It's actually a huge relief to know that other people have had similar experiences. Before working with Kelsky, I had been told that her manner could be "off putting" but that she otherwise did good work. Well, I have thick skin (you have to in order to survive in this job market!), so I felt I could probably handle whatever was coming my way. What I COULDN'T handle was the sloppy work on her end. That part I felt was borderline unethical, considering what she charges. Like, it's wrong to take that kind of money and then say "go read my blog" or "cut 20 words." And indeed, it's a shame that there is no one else with an alternative editing service to challenge the monopoly she has on this business. Because yes, I do think that there's a need for it: it's useful to have someone outside of this profession--a professional editor, for instance--look over your writing to really make sure the sentences are clicking and everything's moving from one point to the next. Even people with great advisors can stand to have someone else pick apart their writing. 

The other major caveat that I'd mention to the OP is that apparently SCs now recognize a "Kelsky letter" from a mile away. (I just read this somewhere, can't remember where.) Her template is so particular--and she insists that everyone follow it because in her world if you don't you'll get tossed from the pile--that SCs are now complaining that the stuff they're receiving is formulaic and cookie cutter. I mean, she has just the most ridiculous rules for what goes in each paragraph, what order to follow, and how many words should be in each paragraph. That stuff is nonsense. While it's smart to streamline your dissertation paragraph as much as you possibly can (more to make it exciting than to satisfying some arbitrary rule), you don't want to sacrifice some of your more important claims. And some of her rules about mentioning second book projects can be disregarded entirely if you're applying for a teaching-focused position.

All I basically learned from Kelsky was that I am glad I was not a job seeker when she was doing the hiring at her university. Because apparently doing one wrong thing in front of her would seal your fate as not only a losing job candidate but also an inept human being. You wore a skirt to the interview and ate spaghetti when you were out to dinner with the committee--bad you. You mentioned that you "love teaching." Pack your bags now, because you are never getting an academic job. I understand that the university has become as neoliberal as any other aspect of society, but I also don't think it's as nasty and capricious as Karen makes it out to be, with people sneering at candidates because they wore the wrong shoes and brought an ugly briefcase to an MLA interview. 

For the OP: I would advise hiring Kelsky ONLY if you feel so poorly served by your committee and grad program that you're sure your materials aren't articulating your full potential. In that case, her advice might be worth it to some extent. I think that if you're writing a terrible cover letter and a bad teaching statement, she might be able to offer a few nuggets that pull you out of the fire. 

In the end, this is what I did that made my letter better: 

1. I took a hard copy of it to my advisor and stood over him while he picked it apart. Previously, I'd done that sort of thing with him, but only over email. Getting him to look at it in person--in hard copy while I stood there--made a world of difference.

2. I ran the letter by my JPO, another committee member who is young and had been on the market 5 years ago, and a friend of mine who got a job. Their advice was not as sharp as my advisor's, but they provided good feedback. I also did a mock interview with people in my department, and they also gave me feedback. 

3. I got the letter of a guy my department hired two cycles ago--a real rising super star whose cover letter was a thing of beauty. I studied his letter and tried to do what he did. 

4. I studied all the letters my department had on file and "stole" the bits I thought worked well.

5. I wrote and rewrote my letter over the course of several months.

The last thing was what really helped, I think. These letters are freaking hard to write and the only way to do them is to evolve them over several drafts and the course of a month or a year. 

Having said all that, a graceful cover letter is not going to land you a job. It might not even get you an interview. As Bronte85 pointed out upthread, your marketability comes down to your degree, your advisor, you publications, and other factors out of your control. A poorly written letter might get you removed from the pile, but a well-written letter will not work a miracle in this job market. Like, if your school is currently placing people at small branch campuses and teaching colleges, then an artful cover letter will not get you a job at U of Michigan. That's not to say that you shouldn't work to polish your letter as much as possible--you want to think of every letter as a persuasive essay about why you're the best person for this job--but it's not going to make or break your application, and Kelsky is wrong to assert that bad job materials are why people can't get jobs.  

[Bronte1985]

1 hour ago, Bumblebea said:

It's actually a huge relief to know that other people have had similar experiences. Before working with Kelsky, I had been told that her manner could be "off putting" but that she otherwise did good work. Well, I have thick skin (you have to in order to survive in this job market!), so I felt I could probably handle whatever was coming my way. What I COULDN'T handle was the sloppy work on her end. That part I felt was borderline unethical, considering what she charges. Like, it's wrong to take that kind of money and then say "go read my blog" or "cut 20 words." And indeed, it's a shame that there is no one else with an alternative editing service to challenge the monopoly she has on this business. Because yes, I do think that there's a need for it: it's useful to have someone outside of this profession--a professional editor, for instance--look over your writing to really make sure the sentences are clicking and everything's moving from one point to the next. Even people with great advisors can stand to have someone else pick apart their writing. 

The other major caveat that I'd mention to the OP is that apparently SCs now recognize a "Kelsky letter" from a mile away. (I just read this somewhere, can't remember where.) Her template is so particular--and she insists that everyone follow it because in her world if you don't you'll get tossed from the pile--that SCs are now complaining that the stuff they're receiving is formulaic and cookie cutter. I mean, she has just the most ridiculous rules for what goes in each paragraph, what order to follow, and how many words should be in each paragraph. That stuff is nonsense. While it's smart to streamline your dissertation paragraph as much as you possibly can (more to make it exciting than to satisfying some arbitrary rule), you don't want to sacrifice some of your more important claims. And some of her rules about mentioning second book projects can be disregarded entirely if you're applying for a teaching-focused position.

All I basically learned from Kelsky was that I am glad I was not a job seeker when she was doing the hiring at her university. Because apparently doing one wrong thing in front of her would seal your fate as not only a losing job candidate but also an inept human being. You wore a skirt to the interview and ate spaghetti when you were out to dinner with the committee--bad you. You mentioned that you "love teaching." Pack your bags now, because you are never getting an academic job. I understand that the university has become as neoliberal as any other aspect of society, but I also don't think it's as nasty and capricious as Karen makes it out to be, with people sneering at candidates because they wore the wrong shoes and brought an ugly briefcase to an MLA interview. 

For the OP: I would advise hiring Kelsky ONLY if you feel so poorly served by your committee and grad program that you're sure your materials aren't articulating your full potential. In that case, her advice might be worth it to some extent. I think that if you're writing a terrible cover letter and a bad teaching statement, she might be able to offer a few nuggets that pull you out of the fire. 

In the end, this is what I did that made my letter better: 

1. I took a hard copy of it to my advisor and stood over him while he picked it apart. Previously, I'd done that sort of thing with him, but only over email. Getting him to look at it in person--in hard copy while I stood there--made a world of difference.

2. I ran the letter by my JPO, another committee member who is young and had been on the market 5 years ago, and a friend of mine who got a job. Their advice was not as sharp as my advisor's, but they provided good feedback. I also did a mock interview with people in my department, and they also gave me feedback. 

3. I got the letter of a guy my department hired two cycles ago--a real rising super star whose cover letter was a thing of beauty. I studied his letter and tried to do what he did. 

4. I studied all the letters my department had on file and "stole" the bits I thought worked well.

5. I wrote and rewrote my letter over the course of several months.

The last thing was what really helped, I think. These letters are freaking hard to write and the only way to do them is to evolve them over several drafts and the course of a month or a year. 

Having said all that, a graceful cover letter is not going to land you a job. It might not even get you an interview. As Bronte85 pointed out upthread, your marketability comes down to your degree, your advisor, you publications, and other factors out of your control. A poorly written letter might get you removed from the pile, but a well-written letter will not work a miracle in this job market. Like, if your school is currently placing people at small branch campuses and teaching colleges, then an artful cover letter will not get you a job at U of Michigan. That's not to say that you shouldn't work to polish your letter as much as possible--you want to think of every letter as a persuasive essay about why you're the best person for this job--but it's not going to make or break your application, and Kelsky is wrong to assert that bad job materials are why people can't get jobs.  

AMEN

[rising_star]

8 hours ago, Bumblebea said:

5. I wrote and rewrote my letter over the course of several months.

The last thing was what really helped, I think. These letters are freaking hard to write and the only way to do them is to evolve them over several drafts and the course of a month or a year. 

Having said all that, a graceful cover letter is not going to land you a job. It might not even get you an interview. As Bronte85 pointed out upthread, your marketability comes down to your degree, your advisor, you publications, and other factors out of your control. A poorly written letter might get you removed from the pile, but a well-written letter will not work a miracle in this job market. Like, if your school is currently placing people at small branch campuses and teaching colleges, then an artful cover letter will not get you a job at U of Michigan. That's not to say that you shouldn't work to polish your letter as much as possible--you want to think of every letter as a persuasive essay about why you're the best person for this job--but it's not going to make or break your application, and Kelsky is wrong to assert that bad job materials are why people can't get jobs.  

THIS. 100%. The cover letters I sent out in my second year on the market were much better than the ones I sent out my first year. It probably helped that I entirely scrapped the letter from the first year and started fresh with brainstorming how best to present myself. I also got friends who had been on the market and landed TT jobs in other social science fields (I'm in the social sciences) to read and pick apart my cover letter, which helped tremendously. Because they knew me well, they could also point out important things about me and my background that were either not well conveyed or were buried too late in the letter to catch someone's attention. I trust them and their feedback because they have recently (in the last 3-4 years) gotten hired at the very types of institutions I want to work at (I've never aspired to be at a R1 or RU/VH). 

A good cover letter can help though. I've had a number of phone/Skype (so first round) interviews where someone on the search committee has explicitly asked me about something that's in my cover letter. So, to me at least, it's clear that you can do some signaling in your cover letter about your potential to do the job they want by thinking about the gaps/weaknesses in their program/department, how you'd fit into the school's culture/mission (more important outside of R1s, trust me), and the classes you'd teach. It helps to make sure you explicitly address the courses they list in the job ad, not just the fancy fun electives that you want to design and teach in the future. Showing that you're willing and able to teach the gen ed or core departmental courses can go a long way at a teaching-focused institution (whether that's a regional comprehensive or a LAC).

[juilletmercredi]

I used Kelsky's services once - a "quick" review of my cover letter for $125. Given that I've priced editing services before, I think $125 for an hour or two's worth of work is pretty reasonable. I can't say that I would necessarily recommend her services - I think it depends on what you're looking for. I think I got out of it what I paid for, and were I launching a full academic search I'd probably have paid for the 3-document review. But I will say that my overarching advice is that you can't expect it to be something that it's not. If you read her blog, you know how she interacts with people: her tone and manner is blunt, straightforward, sometimes abrasive. Moreover, no one can guarantee you results: you still probably won't get the job. (I didn't, although that's a good thing in my case, and I only applied to 2 institutions.)

Probably my biggest problem with her is that she has rigid rules about writing materials. First of all, there aren't really any hard-and-fast rules about writing materials. All kinds of formats can work depending on who's doing the writing and who the audience is. And second of all, some of her rules are simply wrong. For example, I think most of what she has to say about applying to LACs is wrong, because it flies in the face of actual recommendations from actual LAC professors. (Why would you discuss research first at an LAC that has a 4/4 load? Why would you not describe how much you love teaching and mentoring, with proof, at a school that explicitly says that's important for professors?)

But that's true of everyone you consult with. Your R1 professor may have some really wrong or outdated ideas about how to write a letter for an LAC. Your dissertation committee member may not know how to spell himself and thus misses all your typos. Your PI may be a great resource for materials but their method of improvement is berating you mercilessly. Basically, what you are paying for with Kelsky is another set of eyes on your work from the perspective of an academic who's hired people before, albeit in her own field at two R1 departments. No more, no less. You can take or leave the advice that she gives you. A lot of it is good, some of it is bad. In my case, after I finished my quick edit service with her, I went back and added some stuff I knew she would disagree with (I was applying to a small liberal arts college, and everything I had read and heard about applying to LACs from actual LAC professors themselves was at odds with what she says in her blog.)

That said, I will say that she most definitely does not overcharge. She does charge by the hour, but she does not promise to spend an hour per draft. She says that she will spend an hour per document, and she charges accordingly.

 Most people ask me to work on 3 or 4 documents–job letter, cv, and teaching statement, and/or research statement. One document is one hour of work. 3 hours of work at $150/hour, with the 10% discount for 3-4 hours, comes to $405.

If her work includes 4 drafts and she promises 1 hour per document, then theoretically she's spending around 15 minutes per draft. However, having received back her work, I truly do believe she spends much more than 15 minutes on your draft. However, I will say that $150 for a back-and-forth review of your document until it's in short-list-worthy state (and really, it's $135 if you get the 10% discount), with someone at her level of education, who isn't just copyediting but is actually commenting on substantive topics, is actually pretty good. I priced editors when I was looking for a dissertation editor and most of them charge much more than that. And I know statistical consultants who charge that much and more for their work.

I will also say that I would disregard pretty much anything the CHE forums have to say about her work. She's not perfect, but the CHE commenters are just needlessly mean and vicious when it comes to talking about Kelsky. Notably, many of them seem to have a problem with her charging for her labor, while neglecting to realize that they themselves get paid to do the same thing (albeit more indirectly).

Edited December 20, 2015 by juilletmercredi

[knp]

Every post in this conversation is more helpful and informative than anything I've read on the topic on the CHE fora. Although I'm not in graduate school yet, an early thank you for writing!

[Guest]

I'd like to thank everyone for the input and information. I don't think I'll end up hiring Kelsky (paying $500 to be told to read blog posts seems like a bit much to me--I think I'll just spare myself her antics and go straight to her blog posts). 

I am curious about some of the things people have said about job letters, especially regarding liberal arts schools or teaching-intensive jobs (4/4). I have heard many mixed things about applying to these jobs. Some people say you should always lead with teaching. Others say that this advice is outdated because of the way the job market has become "more competitive" (at least in English), and even small teaching colleges want people with robust research profiles. And they can indeed "have it all"--the best teachers AND the best researchers--because each search generates so many applicants, and why not take the best people if you can get them? 

This perspective does indeed seem to be picking up speed. Just looking at one small teaching college on my radar--their last few hires have been out of Northwestern, Duke, and Brown. These new hires have articles and book projects, even if the senior professors in the department don't have those kinds of profiles. More relevantly, a friend of mine was hired at a 4/4 teaching job, and he shared his letter with me. Structurally, it was identical to the one he sent to R1 schools. He said that the "lead with teaching" stuff doesn't apply to the MLA job market. 

[rising_star]

I'm not in a MLA field so, take this with a grain of salt, @my_muse. When we recently read applications for a position in my department (teaching-focused institution), we all focused primarily on the person's teaching experience and then, from there, looked at their research to think about the courses they'd be able to teach easily and the types of electives they might offer. I will also say that applicants with scant teaching experience who didn't also put some serious thought into the paragraph(s) about teaching in their cover letter didn't make it very far in the review process. In fact, that was one of the easiest ways to weed people out.

I'll also note that it was super obvious who followed Kelsky's cover letter format and who didn't. On the one hand, following that format meant that I knew exactly where to look for certain information. On the other hand, knowing where to look for specific things led me to gloss over other parts of the cover letter. For my own letters, I did change the structure depending on the type of institution (I also change the order of categories on my CV) because I want to make sure that teaching-focused institutions understand me and why I'd want to work there, rather than somewhere research-intensive (and vice versa!). If you want to be thought of as a serious teacher for a job where teaching is 65+% of your job, I would make sure your cover letter reflects that. If teaching is an afterthought in your letter then, at least for my own department, I don't want to hire you because I already have enough teaching to do.

[juilletmercredi]

I think the fact that there's so much dissension on this topic is a clear sign that there are no hard and fast rules.

I mean, like resumes - conventional wisdom is that your resume should be one page long unless you have something like 7-10 years of full-time work experience, but I got considerable interest with a 2-page resume only a year out of graduate school (at which point I did have 7 years of work experience, but all part-time and internship positions). I've seen people with truly awful resumes and cover letters get hits, too.

The order that you write about it in probably doesn't matter as much as the way in which you write about it. As rising_star indicated, if you make it clear that you recognize that teaching is a priority for these positions (especially the non-elite SLACs that have loads of 3/2 or higher) in your writing and the way you write about both your research AND your teaching, you'll probably be okay.

That said, if I were writing to a teaching-focused institution I'd put the teaching first. The only exception might be if I were applying to some of the elite SLACs - Middlebury, Swarthmore, Wellesley, et al. - that have 2/2 loads and, in my field, hire people who would be competitive for R1 positions.

[rising_star]

11 hours ago, juilletmercredi said:

That said, if I were writing to a teaching-focused institution I'd put the teaching first. The only exception might be if I were applying to some of the elite SLACs - Middlebury, Swarthmore, Wellesley, et al. - that have 2/2 loads and, in my field, hire people who would be competitive for R1 positions.

I have a couple of friends at Wellesley and Middlebury and, at least in my field, they teach a 3/2, not a 2/2. Those schools are still all about the student experience and want to make sure you get their culture, their focus on undergrads, etc., so you'd want to make that clear in your letter. Some of that is likely in how you tailor your research statement, which should ideally talk about how you might involve undergraduate students in your research if you're applying to a teaching-focused institution. Similarly, you'll have to temper your expectations for getting major research awards (R01s, major NSF funding, etc.) and show that you know this when you apply, if you want to maximize your chances for success. SLACs, especially those in the top 100, don't want to be an obvious stepping stone on your way to another position.

[Bumblebea]

On 12/25/2015 at 9:18 PM, my_muse said:

I'd like to thank everyone for the input and information. I don't think I'll end up hiring Kelsky (paying $500 to be told to read blog posts seems like a bit much to me--I think I'll just spare myself her antics and go straight to her blog posts). 

I am curious about some of the things people have said about job letters, especially regarding liberal arts schools or teaching-intensive jobs (4/4). I have heard many mixed things about applying to these jobs. Some people say you should always lead with teaching. Others say that this advice is outdated because of the way the job market has become "more competitive" (at least in English), and even small teaching colleges want people with robust research profiles. And they can indeed "have it all"--the best teachers AND the best researchers--because each search generates so many applicants, and why not take the best people if you can get them? 

This perspective does indeed seem to be picking up speed. Just looking at one small teaching college on my radar--their last few hires have been out of Northwestern, Duke, and Brown. These new hires have articles and book projects, even if the senior professors in the department don't have those kinds of profiles. More relevantly, a friend of mine was hired at a 4/4 teaching job, and he shared his letter with me. Structurally, it was identical to the one he sent to R1 schools. He said that the "lead with teaching" stuff doesn't apply to the MLA job market. 

My own experience is that, for pre-MLA deadlines and for jobs that were looking exclusively for an expert in my field (even 4/4 loads), I sent letters that led with research. This perspective is a little iffy and controversial, but I'll explain my reasoning:

1. I attended a program where I taught A LOT. Therefore, I had a CV with a diverse course list, letters of recommendation that talked about my teaching abilities, and a very specific and well-developed (IMO) teaching statement. Had I attended a school where I was the sole instructor of only one or two courses, I might have presented myself differently to teaching colleges.

2. I was told to lead with what makes you interesting. For many of us, that's our research interests. Teaching paragraphs, though they can be interesting, often times don't have the same memorable "it factor" of a well-written research paragraph. And you can always retool your research paragraph to talk about how your research appeals to undergrads, or how it informs your teaching.

3. I tailored every letter, mentioning specifically what courses I could teach and what initiatives I wanted to be involved with. For teaching colleges I talked very specifically about how I could act as a "generalist" and teach things outside of my field. 

As far as how my search went this year ... well, it's too early to tell, but in a rough year (20 jobs or so for my particular concentration) I got four interviews, all from very different schools. One is at an R1 with a 2/2 load, another is at a liberal arts college with a 3/3 load, and the last two are at very small and teaching-oriented LACs with 4/4 loads. Is it possible that I turned off more of the small teaching colleges with my research? Sure. Maybe I could have gotten 8 interviews if I'd structured my letter differently. It's also possible that I turned them off with my undergrad institution, or that they were looking for someone 6 years younger or 10 years older, or that they were looking for someone who already had a job, or that they were looking for someone who could also teach cooking classes on the side. The point is that in this cutthroat market you'll never know, and I think the "no way to know" thing is the big consensus emerging from this discussion. 

[Eigen]

Again, not in an MLA field, but I'm applying for similar jobs this cycle. Or have already applied for some, since we're mostly done with the season. 

What I did, after compiling advice, was to start and end my cover letter with teaching. 

My intro paragraph has the position I want to apply for, where I am now, and what I want to teach. Then I have a paragraph on my teaching background and interests. This leads into my paragraph on research interests, which leads into a paragraph on success with grants and publications that ends with a discussion on mentoring undergrads. This leads into a paragraph on involvement with students (advising clubs) and teaching "outside of class", which leads to my summary paragraph. It just barely fits in two pages. 

I also have a 2 page teaching philosophy that takes a more unique format, and a ~ 15 page statement of research (basically, 3 research proposals with a preceding executive summary and an attached budget/startup costs for those schools that want it). 

Some schools also requested a statement of teaching interests, that I wrote as a half-page appended to my teaching philosophy with more discussion of exactly what I'd want to teach and how. 

Things changed a lot from school to school- SelectiveLACs that wanted more student involvement and research but lower teaching (2/2, 3/3 loads) to a program with small MS (a section on mentoring graduate students) to state comprehensives with 4/4 or 5/5 loads. 

I always put teaching first in my CV, because I figure everyone will flip to my publications either way, and if my teaching is after that it might get lost. I use clearly delineated sections so it's easy to flip from Teaching to Research to Service.

I've only heard from one school (that went to an inside hire), and the Jobs Wiki this year is dead in my area, so I'm getting very little scuttlebutt at the moment. We'll see soon how successful my approach was this year, but I went into the market being exceptionally selective. I'm ABD at the moment, and have plans to do a post-doc or teaching fellowship next, but figured trying out the market was a good thing.