A reader asked me the other day about suggestions for hiring departments during the academic job season--in particular, suggestions for how they might make things easier, less costly, etc., for applicants. I think this is a great (and very timely) question. I'll share a few thoughts, and then open things up for reader suggestions and discussion!
My first suggestion is that departments should use an online dossier/application service such as Academic Jobs Online or Interfolio, rather than their own Human Resources online application software. Academic Jobs Online and Interfolio are both a little wonky (in terms of user-friendliness), but on the whole they both streamline the application process immensely. I applied to over 100 jobs last year, and the vast majority of them were on universities' HR sites--sites which require you to fill out the same information over and over again (they often ask for a lot of information). Assuming it takes a half-hour or so to get through each HR application (which in my experience is about accurate), this means that I had to spend about 50 hours just applying to jobs. In contrast, online dossier services take maybe 2 minutes, since you only fill things out once and just upload new cover letters, etc., for each application. All things being equal, dossier services are way easier on applicants, who (as we all know) already have more than enough on their plates!
Unfortunately, whether departments can go the dossier-service route is probably up the HR department at their university, not the department itself. Still, I think departments should try to push for it, if they can--and that professional organizations, such as the APA or even AAUP might be able to put some useful pressure on universities to go this route. Finally, although Interfolio isn't free, I found their fees reasonable (if I recall correctly, there is only a fee for one-year membership, and then a fee for applications that are sent out to departments by paper, which most cases aren't [last year at least, most of my interfolio submissions were free, since they were submitted electronically. Is this still the case?]).
A second suggestion I would make for hiring departments is not to place a small limit on the number of recommendation letters candidates can submit (that is, don't limit applicants to three or four letters). There are several reasons for this suggestion. First, it puts applicants in a very hard position--as, if they have more than 3 or 4 letters, they may not be in a good position to know which ones they should send. I had a reader email me about this just the other day, saying she didn't know what to do, since she would either have to cut out a letter from a well-known person in her grad program (which might look weird to search committees), or else cut out an outside letter (which, as we discussed here, are widely-recognized to be important on the job market). Second, it puts applicants who have a good placement-director in their graduate program at an arbitrary advantage. Placement-directors can (and do) read candidates' recommendation-letters, and can give them a very good idea of which letters are stellar, and which are not so stellar. Other candidates--who do not have a placement-director to "vet" their letters--are not in the same position. They may not know which of their letters are stronger than which, and so, if they have to choose 3 letters (of, say, six or seven), they may have no idea if they are sending the three best letters, or the three least-impressive ones. Third, restricting candidates to three or four letters negates non-arbitrary advantages--that is, advantages that job candidates have plausibly earned. Being able to get strong recommendation letters from other people in the field is, all things being equal, evidence of a candidate's level of accomplishment and promise (yes, of course, it can also be evidence of good networking abilities, but [A] networking is a part of success in most fields, and [B] there are many other elements of a candidate's dossier which can give search committees a good idea of whether they are a good philosopher, or primarily just a good networker).
My third suggestion, some special cases aside, is for search committees not to ask or require candidates to compose and submit other, non-standard dossier materials, such as diversity-statements, statements of how the candidate's research would advance the university's values, etc. The way I see it (though I might be wrong), this is just another unnecessary "hoop" for candidates to jump through. Many applications presumably get tossed aside very quickly, which means that candidates who have to compose these extra materials may spend a significant amount of time on them, only to have their time essentially wasted. And it is, I think, wasted. For the kinds of things these statements ask for--demonstration of commitment to diversity, or coherence with the university's values--can ordinarily be reasonably inferred from the candidate's other materials (e.g. a candidate's cover-letter, CV, research statement, teaching materials [such as syllabi]).
Finally, I would like to suggest (as many people already have in years prior) that hiring departments abandon APA/conference interviews. Such interviews impose immense costs on applicants, and there are better alternatives: Skype interviews or, better yet, straight to on-campus visits (since the balance of evidence suggests that interviews are worse than useless, whereas structured job-demonstrations--e.g. teaching demos, etc.--are known to be useful).
Anyway, these are just some thoughts I had. Do you agree? Disagree? Have suggestions of your own? Fire away!
These are all good things to think about, Marcus. With respect to the use of a dossier service, you're absolutely right about the time that it saves. That said, there's a further consideration in favor of dossier services that's worth mentioning: it's far less expensive than applying through the university's HR website. Virtually every job candidate that I know has their letter writers upload letters to Interfolio in order to avoid having to ask them to send out 100 separate letters. As you mentioned, it's free to apply through Interfolio, but many hiring committees may not be aware that it's actually quite expensive to apply through the HR website when one's letters are distributed through Interfolio. The standard cost to email a dossier from Interfolio is $6, but the standard cost for Interfolio to upload a letter to an HR website is $4 PER LETTER. So, if you have 5 letters to upload, the cost per application through the HR website would be $20, via email $6, and via Interfolio $0 (not including the subscription fee). Thus, if, like you, a candidate applies to 100 jobs, hiring committees could save the candidate $2000 by using Interfolio across the board, but they could also save the candidate $1400 simply by accepting dossiers via email. So, if a department can't convince their university to use a dossier service, email applications would be the next best option for candidates.
Posted by: Nathan Stout | 09/19/2015 at 01:20 PM
I think that instead of asking letters as part of application, the Department should just ask for contact detail of referees. This is how it works in the UK and Europe. They would contact the referees for letters for those who are shortlisted.
Posted by: UK PhD | 09/19/2015 at 04:29 PM
Establishing one email address in which all reference letters can be sent is *one of the simplest ways* departments can minimize applicant costs. Of course some do not have flexibility and must use HR systems, but avoiding these systems would really help with incredibly wasteful costs sending letters.
As said above, departments can make applications free for job seekers when they use an application service to accept applications. Interfolio is one such paid service. Another is Academic Jobs Online. Additionally AJO also now has a *free eDelivery service* for both applicants and departments. On this service, it costs nothing to send or receive secure application items like reference letters. All you need to do is sign up. Not only do these services limit or eliminate costs, but also promote administrative ease in accepting and organizing documents. (Ironically, and I don't have time to do the math but I'm pretty sure this is right: it would be significantly cheaper for job applicants to get together and buy each hiring department on the market their own dossier account!)
On the applicant side, the Vitae service will send letters for free to an email address. It doesn't help with sending letters through HR systems, but it can reduce costs when applications can be submitted by email.
Posted by: Wesley Buckwalter | 09/29/2015 at 04:13 PM