Job Market Boot Camp, Part 8: The Cover Letter

Updated 5/4: see section on ordering teaching and research.

Now that we have examined building and composing CVs, obtaining recommendation letters, the European job market, job-market consultants, and developing a coherent research program, I would like to move onto the rest of the standard job-market dossier materials, beginning with cover letters.

Some readers might wonder why I'm going over dossier materials so early, given that it's only May and the main US job market doesn't heat up for several months for now. The answer is two-fold. First, foreign job markets are currently in full-swing. It seems like I'm receiving foreign job ads in my email box from the philos-l listserv on a daily basis. Second, even though the main US job season doesn't open for several months, it takes a long time to get one's dossier materials to get into the kind of shape they need to be in.

All of which brings me to my first point: don't underestimate the importance of having really polished dossier materials. Search committees look at hundreds of applications--and you want to knock their socks off. You want your cover letter, research statement, teaching statement, and teaching portfolio to sparkle. The question then is how to do it.

The single most interesting thing I learned from working with a job-market consultant (someone who, for the record, served on many academic search committees) is that job-candidates systematically misunderstand what search committees are looking for in job-market materials. When I sent my consultant my materials--my cover letter template, research statement, and teaching statement--I was pretty sure they would be impressed. I could not have been more wrong. They told me, in no uncertain term, that I was doing everything wrong, and that I'm not alone: candidate after candidate, they told me, writes their materials with the wrong aims in mind. How so?

Let me begin with the most general point I learned. The most natural thing to think as a job candidate is that you need to "talk yourself up" to search committees--going on about how novel your research is, how passionate of a teacher you are, and so on. However, while this seems perfectly reasonable on its face (how are you supposed to convince a search committee to hire you if you don't make it crystal clear how awesome your research and teaching are?), the problem--or so I was told, and I totally buy it now--is that talking yourself up in your materials actually has the opposite effect: instead of making you look awesome, it makes you look like someone who is trying to convince them you're awesome--whereas a really awesome person will just let their work do the talking. Let me explain by way of an analogy.

What's the best way to get a date? Should you come right out and profess your undying love to the object of your affections? Should you talk about all of your accomplishments? Of course not. These tactics will make you come across self-absorbed and/or desperate. You're far better off projecting a quiet air of confidence and nonchalance--of being comfortable in your own skin. Similarly, when it comes to job-marketeering, you want to come across to search committee members not as Someone Desperate to Belong, but rather as Someone Who Belongs.

Before I was introduced to the job-market consultant who taught me this--and who got me to take out just about every self-aggrandizing word or phrase out of my materials in favor of flatly descriptive accounts of my research, teaching, etc.--a couple of my friends who utilized the consultant (to incredibly positive effect) showed me their letters. I was unimpressed. They seemed so flat to me. Where was the "selling" one's research and teaching? It was nowhere to be found. And yet...once I worked with the consultant, I totally got it. I revamped my materials in line with their advice and got a ton more interviews than I had ever gotten before. And so I now firmly believe: your primary aim in composing your cover letter, research statement, and teaching statement should not be to "sell yourself." It should merely be to describe in detail to your reader--the search committee member--exactly what your research is about, exactly how you teach, and so on. No editorializing, mere description. Mere description will (1) show the reader who you are (as a researcher, teacher, etc.), and (2) give them the impression that you are Someone Who Belongs.

Now that we have this general point on the table, allow me to move onto specific parts of the cover letter (for reference, here is a link to my cover-letter template  from last year):

• Heading: unless you are in grad school (i.e. if you are in a temporary job or post-doc), do not use your school letterhead. I came across a blog last year where more than one academic search committee member said they considered this a form of theft (!). I have to admit that I was shocked that anyone would think this way--but I say: you don't want to run that risk. Instead, tell your reader where you're from in the return address section. Also, be sure to write in the complete address and correct addressee(s) for the position you are applying to, including street and zip code. Leaving stuff out can only make you look like someone who's too lazy to even fill in an address!
• Introductory paragraph: If there is a particular contact person in the job ad, introduce your letter, "Dear Prof. X"; otherwise, utilize "Dear Search Committee." Next, state the job you are applying for (noting the job ad code/# in parenthesis). Next, state in a sentence when and where you received your PhD from (or, if ABD, when degree conferral is expected). Next, if you have had full-time academic positions post-grad school (post-doc, VAP), state clearly where they were and what type(s) of job they are (note: I am not sure whether it is wise to say one is in an adjunct position. Thoughts from readers? Although I personally believe it is unfair and wrong to lower one's estimation of a candidate on such grounds, several readers have commented in the past that this may be a sad reality). Finally, end your intro paragraph stating your AOS, and only state AOC(s) if they line up directly with AOC(s) advertised in the job ad. Otherwise, just state your AOS.
• UPDATE on ordering teaching and research: when I went back and looked at some of the SLACs I received interviews from this year, I did put teaching before research in some of the cover letters--so I would suggest doing so for schools that are clearly teaching oriented.
• Research Paragraph(s): Your second paragraph should simply describe your main research program, no editorializing. Tell your reader, as clearly and concisely as you can, what you are working on (for me, it was a book manuscript). If your description is precise, it should be clear how your research advances philosophical discussion without you having to say so. Also, although I've heard people say you should put a teaching paragraph before research for teaching jobs (Update: ...and did so successfully with some of my applications to SLACs), (A) I had no trouble getting interviews with teaching schools putting my research first, and (B) my early research on this year's hires strongly suggests that even teaching schools care about research . Finally, if you have a bona fide second research program, you may describe it--again in flatly descriptive manner--in a third paragraph. Definitely don't do more than two paragraphs on research, though!
• Publication history and future research plans: After describing your research, your next paragraph should include a brief publishing history (i.e. a list of journals you have published in) and brief description of your research plans over the next several years. Be brief but specific!
• Teaching paragraph: Next, you should have a paragraph on teaching. Begin with a sentence or two listing courses you have taught--particularly courses they have advertised needs for--and then spend the rest of your paragraph showing your reader how you teach, giving a concrete example of some creative teaching exercise (Don't say "I utilize in-class group exercises"--give an actual example of an in-class exercise). We will come back to this with the teaching and research statements. Don't talk about your teaching in broad generalizations or wax poetic about how much you love teaching. Show your reader you are a committed, thoughtful teacher by giving a real, concrete example of something you do in class.
• Department/fit paragraph: Your final paragraph should show how you would fit into the department and/or college. Do this by stating that you would look forward to collaborating or co-teaching with particular members of the department, referring to them by last-name only (not 'Prof. X', just 'X'), and stating concisely how your work aligns in some way with theirs. This will show them that you know who they are, and took the time to look into their department. It will also project a quiet air of confidence, indicating that you see yourself as a peer who belongs in their department (rather than a desperate job seeker they have power over).
• Signoff/signature: I learned (rather late in the game) that it looks good to include a picture of your signature in your signoff. I created a quick one with my computer's Paint program.

Most letters should end there, with a quick "I look forward to hearing from you", or some such, as well as an invitation to visit your webpage (with a link) if they desire more information. Although you may be tempted to close your letter with a list of accomplishments--e.g. your work with students on-campus, etc.--avoid this temptation. They will see this stuff in your CV. 

Other stuff for non-standard letters:

• Religious institutions: If you're applying to a religious institution, my understanding is that you should once again simply describe how your research and teaching are consistent with or would advance the institution's (religious) mission. Be honest. Don't lie and say you're a Believer if you're not! But do try to address the institution's religious mission if you can.
• Special programs: Some jobs are associated with a special academic program, such as an Ethics Institute or some such. If so, you should have a separate paragraph in your letter showing how your research, teaching, and/or campus activities would add to the program (this, in my understanding, is the one place where it might make sense to refer to some campus involvement--but again, avoid the temptation of giving a list. Avoid lists at all costs!).

I guess that's all. Did I miss anything? Get anything wrong? Any thoughts or questions? Fire away! :)

Comments

[anon]

Marcus, thanks so much for this helpful post (and series).

I was surprised by your recommendation not to use letter-head at your current institution (assuming you're a post-doc or lecturer). I understand the reasoning behind it, and it's great to hear that some people consider that a form of theft (!) But how exactly do you create a nice-looking letterhead without that? Do you just use a cool font/size/proportion for your own address at the top? I'm really just talking about the visual design issue here (more a rhetorical question than anything, i'm sure there are loads of examples on the internet I can crib).

Also, as for the tailoring/fit paragraph: in my own cover letter last year, I included a few vague sentences that I anticipated that my research would complement the department's strength in X or Z. I did *not* list particular faculty members. Some people I asked thought even that vague statement was too presumptuous in a way... maybe it was TOO vague? And if I had specifically listed faculty members that would help? I'm fearful of somehow misinterpreting someone's current project (e.g., they've published a lot in X in the past but now no longer work on X at all), given how much publications can lag behind one's current interests..

Just thinking aloud--thanks again for all of these suggestions!

[Marcus Arvan]

Anon: Thanks for your comment, and for the kind words. I was as shocked as you seem to be that anyone would consider using letterhead a form of theft--but there it was: at the blog I visited, several different faculty members said that's how they saw it. Seems crazy to me, but it still seems to me not worth risking.

As you can see from my letter, I didn't use any special font: just my name, address, institution, etc--all in normal size, ordinary font. And it didn't seem to hurt me at all (in terms of interviews). Personally, I think that if I learned anything at all from my work with the consultant and my performance on the market, it is that "design" can only hurt you, not help. Fancy designs may give off the scent of "trying too hard." Just focus on content. That, at the end of the day, is what SCs are looking for. They're not looking to hire someone with a pretty-looking cover letter or CV. They're looking to someone who comes across in the *content* of the letter, CV, etc., as someone they want to hire.

In terms of the tailoring/fit paragraph, I would suggest that "fearing to look presumptuous" is the exact opposite of the attitude you want to convey. You want to convey that you Belong. You show you Belong by treating the search committee members as *peers*, not people who have power over you. This--in my view--is one of the most important things I think I learned from the market: namely, that our "instincts" as candidates tend to be systematically the opposite of what they should be. It is natural to operate out of fear--wanting to avoid looking presumptuous etc. But acting out of fear is anathema to Showing You Belong. You show you belong through quiet confidence--and saying that you would look forward to working with faculty X, Y, and Z shows them that you see yourself as their peer.

Does that make sense? Even if the faculty member is no longer working on the stuff mentioned on their webpage, showing them that you know what they are up to and would look forward to working with them shows them that you have *confidence*--which seems to work on the job market in much the same way that it works in the dating world. Also, you can always check individuals' philpapers profiles to see what they have worked on recently. I did this, and referred to some people's recent work in some of my cover letters--and suspect it may have worked to good effect. *I* would probably be impressed by a candidate who showed familiarity with what I've been working on!

[anon jtt]

Marcus: I got caught up in the mystery of "using letterhead is stealing" and did some internet searching. I've seen the various sites where people voice the opinion you mention. However, I've seen considerably more people denounce this as a ridiculous view point. My two cents: one is far less likely to face ethical criticism from search committee members who think use of letterhead is stealing (particularly when most cover letters are digital) than one is to face the implicit bias against a cover letter absent any visual institutional affiliation. There certainly seem to be people out there who think of letterhead use for job applications as illicit, but I'd be willing to bet that they are a slim minority rather than the general consensus. On the other hand, the unconscious positive bump your letter is likely to get from having an affiliation up front seems likely to be widespread rather than isolated. In a perfectly rational world I would advise that the safe choice is to submit without letterhead, but we all know that's not the world we live in. If one has an affiliation, I think the best bet is to use the letterhead and hope that you avoid the odd scholar here or there who thinks letterhead users are thieves.

Though perhaps you have more robust data than my 15 minutes of internet searching provides...

[Marcus Arvan]

anon jtt: Thanks for your comment. I think it's hard to say. Maybe if you're in a prestigious post-doc or VAP, letterhead may give you a "first-look bump." Maybe. But that information (your affiliation) will be in your address and second or third sentence without letterhead. So, I sort of doubt that letterhead provides a "bump" that wouldn't be there without it, and having letterhead runs a risk of turning that *one* search committee member you need to get on your side to consider you a thief. To me, this incredible possible downside more than outweighs any marginal upside letterhead might provide (again, your institution will be highlighted in your address anyway!). Given that every search committee member counts--and pissing just one of them off might tank your application--it just doesn't seem to me worth risking. At any rate, I didn't use letterhead at all this year and I got more interviews than when I did.

[sj]

I have never heard of the anti-letterhead bias! Having recently served on a search committee, I can say that it did not bother me in the least if an applicant used institutional letterhead. What did bug me was not bothering to use any kind of letterhead, and just launching into the letter. Perhaps my own bias, but it looks too informal. You're not writing a letter to your grandmother. If you want to look like a professional, it helps if your letter looks professional too.

Word and Pages both provide letterhead templates, any of which are fine, but just using a readable font and making your own works too.

[A.P. Taylor]

Thanks for the very helpful advice/information Marcus. I am curious about what you'd recommend re: the length of the cover letter. My current cover letter template is just a single page. I've read and been told that anything more than this is typically too long, unless the job asks the applicant to address specific non-standard areas (e.g. university mission, religious affiliation, experience teaching students of diverse backgrounds etc..). If I adopted your six paragraph schema, I don't see how the cover letter could avoid being to pages.

[GFA]

One note: for SLACs and other teaching-oriented places, I would consider have a longer teaching section, and perhaps a shorter research section -- and I would reverse the order of those sections in the letter (i.e. put teaching first).

I think that this is directly related to Marcus's main principle: to show that you Belong at a SLAC, you need to show the faculty there that you take teaching very seriously.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi GFA: I just took a second look at some of the SLACs I received interviews from this year, and lo and behold, I *did* invert the teaching and research sections for some of them! (I'll update the post to reflect this).

[Filippo Contesi]

Hi, Marcus, many thanks for once again a very kind and helpful post. Is the letterhead aversion you discuss here a philosophy-specific thing? Are these bloggers you mention averse to letterheads even in cases in which the institution approves of their use? I hadn't been using a letterhead except I was recently converted into using it (influenced by web advice written by _the_ academic job consultant). My postdoc institution has provided me with the letterhead file precisely for job cover letters purposes. This eliminates the stealing worry, doesn't it?

[Searched a few times and been on a committee once]

I think there is a risk to saying you want to collaborate etc with Prof. X. I had an on-campus interview and I specifically mentioned a particular professor's work that I was interested in. The other two faculty members I was with sort of looked at each other and then me and confessed that Prof. X was rarely available and they roughly transmitted that the dept doesn't get along with that person. It was awkward all around. I could see this happening in a letter as well. It came at little cost and I eventually got an offer, so this is minor, but I think it is worth thinking about. Here is an extreme case. Consider some of the now well known, ugly events in the discipline. Imagine you say 'I'd love to work with Prof. X'. Prof X, let's suppose, is a serious problem in the dept unbeknownst to you. A real shame if this were a deal breaker for an unknowing, well meaning job seeker, but it seems risky. Is it worth it?

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Filippo: Thanks for your kind words. The people in question, if I recall, were not necessarily from philosophy--but if some people in one discipline are apt to consider it theft, then I see no reason why the worry should carry over into others. In terms of getting permission, it may of course eliminate the stealing worry on your end--but the search committee member won't have that information available to them. They still could think it is stealing even if you got permission, simply because they don't know that.

Look, I know it's a crazy worry--but since there were at least a few SC members on the blogs I visited to voiced their view that it is theft, *I* didn't think it was worth running the risk. And again, not using letterhead certainly didn't seem to hurt my prospects on the market. (If my experience not using letterhead wasn't so unequivocal--it didn't seem to hurt me getting interviews in the slightest--I would be a bit more cautious about advocating not using it.)

[Marcus Arvan]

Searched a few times and been on a committee once:

I suppose there is that risk. But, to me, the likely benefits outweigh that risk. Empirical psychology strongly suggests that in order to get hired, you need to get people to (subconsciously) *like* you. Although we all like to think that we are "objective" or judge people on their merits, psychology indicates that hiring--like most things in human life--are much more driven by *affective* (i.e. emotional) components than rational ones.

So, I say, when it comes to mentioning faculty X, Y, and Z by name, here are the benefits and risk:

(A) Likely benefit: if X, Y, and Z are on the committee, you'll endear yourselves to them. If X, Y, and Z are merely friends of committee members, you'll also endear yourself.

(B) Unlikely risk: everyone in the department hates X, and will despise your application if you mention them.

Given that I think the likely benefits here are much greater than the unlikely risk, I say one should go for it. For the opposite tack--not mentioning faculty by name--has *greater* likely risk and unlikely benefits, namely:

(C) Likely risk of not mentioning faculty by name: you don't mention X, Y, or Z by name, but other candidates do--and those candidates endear themselves to the SC members whereas you don't.

(D) Unlikely benefit of not mentioning faculty by name: everyone hates X, and you benefit by not mentioning them.

In short, there are risks to just about everything. To me, the likely benefits of mentioning faculty by name outweigh the risks.

[Filippo Contesi]

Thanks very much for your thoughts, Marcus!

[Senior Prof]

I'm a senior professor at a non-Leiterific department with a modest PhD program. Even though the job market is a nightmare and a job at my school is, on the whole, pretty desirable, we also know that, mostly, the best people from the best places are not likely to take us too seriously, except perhaps as a fallback place to land for the short term. So, speaking for myself, if I'm reading a file from someone at a top-ranked school and the cover letter says nothing specific about our department, university, or town (other than a quick reference to the job number), I'm going to assume that the person isn't seriously interested (that doesn't mean I won't suggest we interview the person, however). So those letters that either note some kind of personal connection or that at least indicate that the applicant cared enough to look us up get my interest. And it can make a difference when push comes to shove at either the first or campus interview stage. Keep in mind that when you get hundreds of applications, you're looking for a reason to exclude people.

While I know that not all my colleagues view the matter as I do, I also know that I'm not alone. Furthermore, I think the point generalizes. If you're from a school with a good-but-not-great ranking and you are applying to, say, a small, regional state school with a 4-4 teaching load, and you are genuinely interested in teaching there, give the school a reason to think that's true.

[Karl]

Quick question. I know I am coming to this late, but say you are a member of a protected minority in the country you are applying to, how does one tactfully (but clearly) indicate this in a dossier? I would think in a cover letter. But how to fit it in?

[VAP]

I know this is an old thread, but I hope you won't mind me asking a related question here. Re: adopting a merely descriptive tone, is it worth even mentioning, say, teaching prizes in a cover letter if they are also on the CV? On the one hand, it seems like it could be useful to bring up evidence of one's commitment to/excellence in teaching by talking about these sorts of things, but it also seems hard to do so without coming off as too self-aggrandizing. Any advice would be very welcome - thank you!

[Marcus Arvan]

VAP: Yes, I would mention it in the cover letter. A teaching prize seems to me *very* likely to be a real advantage in applying to teaching jobs...and it's always possible that someone might miss if it's just in your CV.

[VAP]

Thanks for such a quick reply, Marcus!