WMST-L logo

Applying for an Academic Job

The following messages offer advice about the academic search process and about 
applying for an academic job.  They appeared on WMST-L in August 1994.  The
following year, WMST-L carried a lengthy, related discussion of 
The Academic Job Market .  For additional WMST-L files available on the Web,
see the WMST-L File List.
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 10:40:32 -0400
From: Iana Pattatucci <luciana%bchem.dnet @ DXI.NIH.GOV>
Subject: Academic Search Committees
I need help!  As someone who is in the academic job market ( and complained
vehemently about it on this list in the past - *smile*), I have derived a
great deal of benefit from advice and support offered by WMST-L members.
However, I am back with two specific questions for those of you who have
served on academic search committees in the past.
    1.  I have been told that the cover letter may be the most important
        part of one's package.  Could any of you give examples of BAD
        cover letters?  For example, a package that otherwise might have
        been fine, but the cover letter "killed" the applicant's chances?
        My hope is that if I can get input on what constitutes a bad
        cover letter, I can derive what a good one would entail.  What
        annoys you about cover letters that applicants send?
    2.  I have received mixed directions from people regarding the general
        application process.  Some advise to stick to published ads only,
        while others say to send applications to schools even though they
        may not have advertised for a given position.  The rationale of the
        first group is that unsolicited applications are simply tossed in
        the trash, and thus are a waste of time, money and resources.  The
        second group state that it is almost impossible to be aware of
        every advertised search, AND a department may be in the process of
        considering to hire someone but has not yet formulated what type of
        person that they want.  The rationale is that my application might
        in some way get me in on the "ground floor" so to speak.
        My question is, what does your department do with unsolicited
        applications?  Do they wind up in the trash, or do you file them
        for future reference?  If the latter, is this tanamount to throwing
        them in the trash? :-)
    Your help, as always is well-appreciated.  There may be others on the
list in a similar position as me (bewildered by the process) that could benefit
from your response.  Thus, if you think that your advice is generally
applicable, please post it to the list.
    Thank you again,
    Iana Pattatucci
    "luciana%bchem.dnet  @  dxi.nih.gov"
    "iana  @  glib.org"
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 13:06:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Academic Search Committees
Here's my two cents, having served on a few search committees and having spent
lots of time applying for jobs (5 years before my first tenure-track job).
1. Don't waste your time applying for a job that isn't advertised.  The letter
will certainly get tossed.  No one hires for jobs that aren't advertised. You'd
be wiser spending your time combing every possible source for ads to find jobs
that are advertised.  In addition, should a position crop up in a department
you've already applied to, it's possible that your application will not be
taken as seriously since it may not be viewed as a serious response to an ad.
In my experience no department looking for applicants goes back to a file of
candidates who have already applied and said "now let's see who we have on
2. In my experience the cover letter is not the most important document.  Let
me suggest to you how I read files when I was on a search committee.  a) no one
reads long cover letters so keep it short and to the point. More than one page
and it won't be read I assure you.  The more advanced in my career I've gotten,
the shorter my cover letter has gotten. When I was finishing grad school my
letter was two pages long, now it's about 1/2 page.
b) your vita is very important.  What the committee will look for is
1) publications 2) publications 3)publications 4)conference papers and
teaching.  Don't clutter your vita with useless details. No one is impressed by
a long vita unless the length is taken up with publications, papers given
(especially invited lectures) etc.   You should list teaching experience along
with the kinds of courses you've taught.  That will be looked at.  Awards can
help, but avoid to much appearance of padding.
c) In my experience the key stage is the stage of sorting dossiers and writing
samples. If you get to this stage, in my experience, the dossier and writing
sample are crucial documents. When I am on a search committee that is where I
spend most of my time.  I read the writing samples for signs of intellectual
vitality etc.  The dossier is very important, not so much for what the letters
say (they mostly say the same thing, "so and so is the best grad student I ever
had), but for who wrote them. When I was on a search committee hiring a
Renaissance specialist the candidates we interviewed (for better or worse,
believe me I'm not proud of this) had letters from Stephen Greenblatt, Jonathan
Goldberg, Louis Montrose, and other heavy Renaissance notables.
d) as was suggested in an earlier post, sometimes (although it seems
counterintuitive) someone with a lot of temporary teaching experience can be at
a disadvantage over a newly minted PhD.  During my lean years looking for a job
my theory was that no one wanted a "deflowered" phd. They wanted a virginal one
who was all potential, whom no one else had touched.  (This could be my
cynicism speaking, but I stand by it).  Still perserverance does pay sometimes.
When I was in my worst years I would just say to myself "in ten years there are
going to be a bunch of tenured professors sitting around and one of them might
as well be me."  In other words look at the long run and not the immediate
Sorry to go on, but I hope this helps those of you who are looking. (I feel
like I have a lifetime of job hunting experience to share).
Laurie Finke
finkel  @  kenyon.edu
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 16:14:45 -0700
From: Marilyn Edelstein <MEDELSTEIN @ SCU.BITNET>
Subject: Academic Search Committees
My experience on search committees isn't as extensive as Laurie Finke's, but,
since I'm at a different kind of institution (Jesuit "comprehensive university"
but with a mostly liberal arts college nested inside, but not of the quality
of Kenyon), my 2 cents might also be useful in answering Iana's questions.
First, here (and at a previous smaller state university I taught, as I recall),
a cover letter is very important.  Most important is some sense that the applicant 
is familiar with our institution and is applying SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ADVERTISED 
JOB.  Letters that seems like "blanket" applications or not in the field
of the particular job are more common than one would think, and get put in the
"no" pile immediately.  I agree with Laurie that brevity is a virtue in cover
letters, but a well-written letter that clearly conveys how one's particular
teaching and scholarly talents would enable one to contribute to our dept.
and institution is the crucial thing.  Grammatical errors are anoither
"killer" (as would be my typo in the last line!), esp. since I'm in an
English Dept.  Here, we tend to like letters that say something useful
about teaching and don't go on forever about dissertation, but other schools
may be different.  And I concur with Laurie that it's important for the vita
to show at least some publication(s), as it is for the letter to give some
sense of one's future scholarly activity.
As far as sending applications to institutions that don't advertise (and
I agree it's important to look at all published sources for academic jobs),
it may work if all you want is part-time teaching.  We do, for example,
keep applications for part-time jobs on file in case we need someone in
the future.  But we wouldn't go into that file for a tenure-track job.
And it's unlikely a letter would have been targeted right for a particular
job we have in the future if it had merely been sent as a generic application.
Tailoring descriptions of one's real qualifications and background to the
particulars of the job is important, at least in my experience.  Perhaps
at major research institutions the mere fact of lots of grad. student
publications and letters from "biggies" will get one an interview.  Even
here, we do pay attention--unfortunate as that may be--to who letters
come from as well as what they can say about the candidate's unique
virtues.  And we like to see at least 1-3 publications already, even if
someone is just getting out of grad. school (more if the person's been
out a while).
Hope this is helpful; sorry it's so long, but I imagine many list readers
are about to gear up for the fall job hunt and would like a variety of
advice.  As a now-tenured faculty member who had 2 jobs before this one
and hunted for jobs while in the previous 2 as well as when I was finishing
grad. work, I know how agonizing (and arbitrary) the search process can
be.  But the function of the initial application in securing one the all-
important convention and/or on-campus interview (where one's humanity
has a better chance of coming across) is what makes writing a cover
letter and vita carefully so crucial.  Marilyn Edelstein, English,
Santa Clara U, California
medelstein  @  scuacc.scu.edu
medelstein  @  scu.bitnet
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 23:56:06 -0700
From: Susan Ervin-Tripp <ervin-tr @ COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: searches
You should use a very short search word or words that you are sure will
be in the letters you want. For example, I sent a reply to the marxist
list inquiry that did not anywhere have the words "marxist list" so that
search phrase would not have retrieved my note about the various locations
of the Women's History Library collection. But it could be found under
the word marxist or socialist.
Susan Ervin-Tripp
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 11:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marjanne Gooze' <MGOOZE @ UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Academic Search Committees
  I know this may sound obvious, but since I have seen plenty of evidence to the 
contrary, I will stress here the need for a well-prepared vita.  Sometimes they 
are read before cover letters.  All job candidates should contact previous 
graduates who were successful in their searchs and copy the format of their vita.
Placement offices on large campuses also can be helpful.  Both the vita and
cover letter should be printed clearly (laser printer is now the standard, I'm
afraid) on _quality white or beige paper_.  Do not use stationary to show your
personality.  Colored paper, italic print, colored ink, etc. send your application 
directly to the discard file.  Make sure to be specific about your teaching
experience; list course titles, not numbers (this is a common mistake--the numbers 
mean nothing to people at other institutions), and be sure to indicate
the level of the courses taught.  If you have publications, get them on the first
page of the vita.
   Also, if you can, try to stress to your reviewers the need to speak very 
specifically about you and your work.  A few anecdotes speak volumes.  If you also
 have anything to "explain away," such as an extended leave from studies for 
medical, family, or other reasons, it is best to let your dissertation director 
provide the detailed explanation.  It will then have credence and you won't have
 to use valuable space in your cover letter for a lengthy explanation.
Marjanne E. Gooze'
Dept. of Germanic and Slavic Langs.
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
Telephone: Office: (706) 542-2450; Home: (706) 549-2831
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:42:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re[2]: Academic Search Committees
Cover letters do count!!! Check the grammar and spelling, sculpt them
to the job description advertised.  Show why YOU are the best fit,
emphasis how/why...when you are sorting through hundreds of letters
for one opening, a good cover letter gets the rest of the package read.
Also, make sure your references are really going to say something
about you, your work, not something vague and half hearted!
I sugest responding to ads or word of mouth unless you are in the
market for adjunct work...
Hope this helps.  Gotta sign off before the linespersons outside
finish their lunch break and bop me off like they were doing all
morning!  ciao.JAM
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:47:00 -0700 (MST)
From: Karla Walters <KWALTERS @ BOOTES.UNM.EDU>
Subject: Academic Search Committees
Marjanne Gooze has suggested letting one's references (such as
a dissertation director) explain when one has taken leave from
study or work for family reasons.  This is not always easy to
achieve in letter form, (for reasons I shall explain shortly)
and unless a search committee telephones the dissertation
chair or reference, these facts may not come to light unless
they ARE in a reference letter somewhere.
Let me explain the difficulty:  one of my references did insert
in his letter an explanation that I had changed institutions and
academic jobs a number of times because I was married and my
husband moved and changed jobs.  My university placement service
notified him that these statements were not allowed!  I haven't
seen his letter, because it is a confidential file, but he told
me this happened.  So how does one explain that family obligations
(by choice, of course) have shaped the course of ones "career"?
My own suspicion is making career choices because of family
commitments is still held against women in ways it is not held
against male candidates.   However, I also imagine that it is
even more difficult for male candidates to explain or admit
that family commitments have shaped THEIR careers.
Karla Walters    kwalters  @  bootes.unm.edu
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 11:38:34 -0700
From: Susan Ervin-Tripp <ervin-tr @ COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: letters of recommendation
I am in the middle of research on gender differences in 850 letters of
recommendation. To people soliciting letters, I would recommend that they
(a) always supply a vita which foregrounds what they want the letter
writer to know about and talk about, (b) provide relevant publications so
the writer can speak knowledgeably, (c) remind the letter writer of
information they want included (and maybe NOT included) and any
particular attributes of the job. You can almost write the letter
yourself and let them recast it in their own words.
I have encouraged my students (and sometimes
do it myself) to call up and find out what the advertisers are really after,
what teaching they want, etc. so as to tailor the letter to the job.
I could write a good deal about what is wrong with most letters, but you
can't control that very well. The best letters give very concrete and
vivid evidence on the research, writing, teaching performance, whatever
is most important for the position. The weak letters are vague and
general as if they didn't know or can't remember. That is why it is important
for candidates to jog the memory of the letter writer. Remind them of
what you did on their project, show them the comments they wrote you, etc etc.
I think as a letter writer most people like to be helped to write an
informed letter.
How can you tell someone to avoid cliches, empty intensifiers,
personal anecdotes (I will miss her smile at picnics.), and reflections
on personal lives (she has worked hard despite having 6 children)?
Susan Ervin-Tripp
University of California, Berkeley
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 15:53:39 -0400
From: Karen Ruhleder <ruhleder @ WPI.EDU>
Subject: letters of recommendation
I'm appending something my advisor wrote about putting together a
tenure packet cover letter, which he sent me the first time I had to
prepare a letter for a formal review packet.  It's also the general
format which he had advised me to follow when sending out job letters.
On that occasion, I also stated **why I would be a good fit** for the
institution offering the position, how my dissertation interests would
lead to a long stream of work (since I didn't have journal pubs yet),
and how much I loved teaching introductory courses.
Karen Ruhleder
[The writer is in a CS department, does interdisciplinary work, is
male, and is now a tenured full professor in his late 40's.]
_Some Thoughts on Tenure Statements, from One Who Made It_
There are three things the Academy wants to see in people, as a
general rule.  (There are exceptions; if you cannot tell whether
your institution is an exception, either it is exceedingly strange,
or you are doomed and should start looking for another job.)  These
1.  Evidence of ABILITY to do "serious" scholarship.
2.  Suggestion of PROMISE to do "serious" scholarship that has "impact."
3.  Evidence of teaching ability that, at minimum, doesn't drive
      students screaming from the campus, and hopefully encourages them
      to stay and get an education.
These might be in any order of priority; it's best not to worry about
the priority very much beyond the broad biases of the institution
involved.  If it's a hard-assed research place (like MIT or the
University of Illinois at Urbana), put 1 and 2 first.  If it is a
top teaching school with a requirement for research (like Dartmouth
or Brown), put 3 first and the other two after.
Key caveat: know if your school has "upward mobility" for all FTE
lines on the faculty.  That is, can anyone get tenure if they are
good?  Or are there separate FTE lines for tenured and untenured
slots?  If the former, then you are racing against the "standard."
If the latter, you are racing at minimum against the untenured
faculty around you, and conceivably against everyone in your field!
(Some elite schools selects tenured faculty by making a list of the top
people in the world, and going down the list asking "are they here?"
and "if not, can we get them?"  If they get to your name before
they go out and get someone, you get tenure...)  Most state supported
schools, and less powerful private schools, aren't this
extreme.  This note is written for those in less extreme places,
where everyone has at least a chance to get tenure.
Rules of thumb:
1.  Always organize the statement according to the conventional listing
of criteria.  For example, although UC rewards research more than
teaching, they LIST teaching first, research second, and "public service"
third.  Do it the way your place does it and you can't screw it up.
2.  Lead with the facts:  "Since coming to Euphoria State in the Fall of
1989, I have taught ten regular undergraduate sections and five
regular graduate sections [see table of courses and enrollments below].
I have published 5 refereed journal articles, 7 refereed conference
papers, two book chapters, and 3 reviews.  I have received the
Faculty Research Support Award in the amount of $10,000 for my
work on S*T=Y/2^3.  I have been appointed as associate editor of
The Journal Of Excellent Papers for Tenure, and have been invited
to serve as Program Chair for the 199X Conference on My Field.
I have served the department as a member of the budget committee,
and the campus as a member of the expenditure committee."
3.  Tell a story.  You are a junior person.  You didn't spring full-
grown from the brow of Zeus.  You came in good, full of promise, but
you are GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME.  Tell the story of progression.
For example, on research, say something like, "For the past three
years I have been working on the relationship between X and Y,
especially as regards Z.  I first became involved in this research
[explain circumstance] and recognized [explain how vital it is].
Since beginning this work, I have made several original contributions
to the understanding of the subject.   In my research on X I was
able to show that only 5% of Y is attributable to Z, in contradiction
to Jones' widely accepted hypothesis [ME, 1990].  Further analysis
of these data showed that Jones' conjectures about the relationship
between Y and Q were supported, but only after controlling for R and
T (ME, 1991).  This work led me to the focused study of S and T
in the context of Y, where preliminary field work has suggested
that S*T=Y/2^3 [ME, 1992].  My current research is devoted to
testing the S*T=Y/2^3 hypothesis rigorously so even God himself
can't refute it [Me, working paper, 1993].
This is much preferable alternative to the litany of papers
model.  Of course, chickenshit bean counters will want to know
how many hard pubs you have.  They'll be satisfied with the
info in #2 above.  More thoughtful people will want to know
what difference it makes that you've been doing research at all.
That's where your story comes in to play.  You need to convey
a sense that YOU know what you are doing, and that it IS right-on.
If you do this well, they will believe you, and you will win!
If you have two streams of work, be sure you establish the segue
from the one to the other so it all looks real logical and
clever.  DON'T let it appear that you are flitting from one thing
to another like some insect with the brain the size of a BB.  You
must look like all your moves have been deliberate, following
serious deliberation.  If you can possibly explain two streams
of work as two dimensions of an integrated, tractable stream
of work, DO IT.
The above model works for both teaching and research.  For teaching
you just need to recite your evolution as an instructor.  The
data [e.g., teaching evaluations] MUST back up what you say,
so state the case and the data carefully.  The key is to show
improvement on key indicators, if not across-the-board.
4.  Explain your plans for the future, on research and teaching.
It's a good idea to do this in the respective sections.  E.g.,
"I am currently extending my work on S*T=Y/2^3 to incorporate
the recent findings by Smith that S*T=Y/2^3/5(s^2), and I expect
to have results by [sometime after the tenure decision is made...].
Or, for teaching, "I am now preparing to teach the 139 seminar,
with a new syllabus based on [influential tenured faculty member's]
notes and suggestions."
5.  Service.  Every institution grades this differently.  Know
what your institution wants!  Some places want people who bring
in money.  Others want people who sit dutifully on N committees.
Others want people who appear at college parties and look bovine.
The point is, it doesn't matter WHAT your institution wants given
that they can't EXPECT much of it from a junior person.  Thus,
you need to know what KIND of thing they want, and give them
evidence that you've been doing the "right amount" of it.  What
is the "right amount?"  Find someone who got tenure who's got
a teaching/research record about like yours, and see how much THEY
did.  Ask them if they did too much.  Calibrate.
Special note to women and minorities: Academics have a quaint but
twisted notion that they are doing the "right thing" but putting women
and minorities on campus committees and jobs.  Remember that you are
likely to be not only in the population minority but proportionately
junior as well.  By being stuck on lots of committees and campus jobs,
you are GETTING SCREWED!  Service NEVER counts more than teaching or
research.  If it does at your school, you should LEAVE NOW. You should
do only enough service to keep people from being angry at you because
they think you are a freeloader.  Beyond that, it's all just a nice
contribution on your part.  After you get tenure you can give all the
time you desire.
On the other hand, service to your field and professional community
IS important because it shows that you are being recognized by
other folks who HAVE tenure!  So grub up all those journal associate
editorships (good journals only, by your school's standards) and
conference organizer slots you can afford to handle.  These are
markers of your presence in the "invisible college."  Moreover,
they show that other places know who you are.  What you want to
make VERY CLEAR is that you are making it in your FIELD, so if
your current institution doesn't appreciate you, others will
steal you away.  Remember: NOBODY loves a loser.  It's a sad, and
somewhat sickening, commentary on the academy.  But don't try to
prove it untrue with your case.  And again, don't overdo it.  Just
do enough of this to make the point.
REMEMBER:  You are being tried in abstentia.  There is no kinder
phrase to describe this barbaric rite.  YOU must be your strongest
advocate.  Throw away that cute notion that it's impolite to
tell people how great you are.  You MUST tell people how great
you are.  However, remember that the people you are talking to are
GREATER THAN YOU, and they know it.  So the trick is to land the missile
somewhere between how great they think you should be and how great they
are themselves.  The key is to get them to think that you have the
POTENTIAL and the PROMISE of being as great as they are.  It is equally
deadly to hang your head in shame as an also-ran or to puff yourself up
with pride at being better than those who judge you.
This assessment of the process is made to sting a bit. If you don't
feel somewhat cynical about the tenure process, you probably don't
belong in the academy.  It isn't a bad process, per se.  But it is
a human process, and that should be enough to warn you about the
downsides.  There are precious few organizations where individuals
are not judged by their superiors.  The academy is within the norm.
The processes are different -- more protracted, somewhat more
twisting and turning.  But basically, it all comes down to the same
thing: do what the people who'll judge you belive to be important.
No one can do everything well, so don't try.  Just make a strong
showing on the key dimensions.  The rest is pretty much a function
of fate.
Dr. Karen Ruhleder, Department of Management, Worcester Polytechnic Insitute,
Worcester, MA  01609; 508-831-5573 voice, 831-5720 fax, ruhleder  @  wpi.wpi.edu;
Editor, SIGOIS Bulletin; contact at above address for submission information.
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 16:06:49 LCL
Subject: Advice on Job Applications
It is interesting to see the info on How-To-Write cover letters, cv's,
letters of recommendation, etc.
However -- I think it is worth noting that there are HUGE variations
between fields, and this may not be clear from the advice being given.
Some time ago, I posted to this list that I applied to 206 academic
jobs (about 60-70/year for 3 years) before getting the one I have now.
I was immediately blasted by someone who informed me that anyone who
has to apply to that many positions in order to get one job simply
must not know how to write a cover letter and/or cv.  While that may
be true in SOME fields, I'd venture that my experience is more the
norm in MY field (philosophy). In my dept's last several searches, we
have received well over 200 applications for each position, and in one
case, nearly 400 applications.
...Which brings me to another point.  One of the recent suggestions
was that candidates CALL the dept and find out what they are looking
for in a cover letter.  Hmmmmmm.  Maybe in SOME fields, but not in
mine. I *guarantee* you that if the Dept received phone calls from
200-400 potential candidates asking what to put in the cover letter, 2
things would happen: (1) From then on the position announcements would
all say "NO PHONE CALLS", and (2) the Dept secretary, not a search
committee member, would field those phone calls, and as Fantastic as
she is, I'm not AT ALL sure that she'd have anything to say which
would actually help the candidate understand what the *Search
Committee* wants (on which the Dept secretary does not sit).
Just some thoughts on disciplinary differences.....
----------- Ruth Ginzberg (rginzberg  @  eagle.wesleyan.edu) ------------
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 11:31:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marjanne Gooze' <MGOOZE @ UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Academic Search Committees
Perhaps I should have been clearer when speaking about explanations for what co
uld be viewed as "uneven" career paths.  Obviously, inclusion of such explanati
ons of personal situations should only be included at the request of the person
 reviewed.  Also, if these explanations do not go on to stress that the candida
te is now ready to assume the position applied for, then the information is not
 an explanation at all, but highly biased and damaging material.  Hope this mak
es my position clearer.  I have been on a search committee where such explanato
ry information helped us clear up questions about a candidate later hired.
Marjanne E. Gooze'
Dept. of Germanic and Slavic Langs.
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
Telephone: Office: (706) 542-2450; Home: (706) 549-2831
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 16:43:55 -0400
From: Maureen McHugh <MCMCHUGH @ GROVE.IUP.EDU>
Subject: Academic Search Committees
Although I respect aall the advice given to date, it seems that for a group of
feminist activists we do not question the system very much.  There are as many
reasons why one would want to (and should) study in the same place they plan to
work, and maybe even in the same place they were themselves raised.  This is a
position respected within ecofeminism as a bioregional approach.  People who
stay put have more respect forthe local ecology, and that includes the local
citizenry also.  Many of my colleagues in the academy do not respect the people
who live in the community in which they work, and many of my colleagues suffer
from both homesickness and a regional form of ethnocentricity
(regiocentricity?).  Although it may not be possible to transform these
assumptions of the university that it is necessary to be mobile and to move
from location to location to be professional or educated, we might at least
question them in ourselves.  I see the current assumptions and practices
regarding mobility and not hiring one's own, or even any local person as both
classist and patriarchal in origin.
In my own case I was educated at a college and different university in the
Pittsburgh area, which is where I was raised.  Upon receiving my Ph.D. I took a
position, Visiting Assistant Professor, out of town.  I was very depressed
during that year.  I did write to every college and university in the
Pittsubrgh area.  It was a successful strategy.  I did call a university and
suggest that I would be in Pittsburgh for a visit in case they were interested
in my application but not able to fly me in from the Midwest.  I had a series
of jobs with different colleges andd universities in the Pittsburgh area that
positioned me for my current position as Director of Women's Studies.  It won't
always work, but it may be worth a try.  In the meantime we need to work for a
different view of the academy, and of what price we demand from ourselves.
Maureen McHugh, Director, Women's Studies, IUP, Indiana PA (outside Pittsburgh)
MCMCHUGH  @  grove.iup.edu
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:21:57 -0400
Subject: Academic Search Committees
the greater variety of people you meet, the greater variety experiences
you have, the broader exposure to ideas you have the more tolerant you
are, the more understanding you are, the more adaptable you are. all of
these are qualities we would like t\eachers to have. more importantly,
people who  never are exposed to those different from themselves become
convinced that their way is the only right way. profs are supposed to be
intellectually open to new ideas. t\alking to the same people over and
over doesn't expose us to new ideas.

For information about WMST-L

WMST-L File Collection

Top Of Page