In our ongoing job-market discussion thread, Cleverly Disguised Mule writes:
I have a job market question/issue that I suspect others have encountered as well. How should one approach an application--in particular, the cover letter--for a school that has people working on issues *very, very close* to one's own research?
So suppose I'm applying to an ethics job at Cocoon University and I work on, e.g., naturalism in meta-ethics. But Professor X at Cocoon U who works on that same topic. My hunch is that this makes me less desirable to that department; but maybe not. Given that I'm applying either way, what should I do to make myself look more desirable? Do I emphasize my interest in future collaborations/discussions with Professor X? (How presumptuous of me to assume that Professor X wants to collaborate with anyone! Plus, doesn't this risk emphasizing my overlap with what their department already does?) Or do I try to illustrate the way my project is different from Prof X's? (This might involve going far into the weeds in a cover letter, which might turn off other committee members.) Or do I emphasize my other projects and interests? (This might make me look less serious about my naturalism project, which might look odd to some readers.)
I'm guessing the best approach lies somewhere in between these, but I'm not really sure how to navigate what seems to me to be a possible minefield. If anyone has any specific ideas, I'd be very grateful.
This is a great query, as my own experience (having served on several search committees) is that it is minefield. Allow me to explain why, and then share a few thoughts on perhaps the best way for job-candidates to proceed.
On the one hand, some search-committee members may look favorably on candidates who work in their areas (thinking to themselves, "I'd love someone who works in my area. We could talk shop, I could get more feedback on papers, I might not have to teach course X so often, as they could teach it too, etc."). On the other hand, other search-committee members may have the exact opposite reaction, thinking to themselves, "I really don't want to hire someone who works in my area. First, that person might want to teach some of my course offerings--and I don't want to share particular courses. Second, given that we already have someone (me) who teaches in that area, we'd be better adding a new hire who can teach courses none of us are qualified to teach." In short, some search-committee members might regard a candidate having similar interests as a significant positive, whereas others might regard it as a serious negative (indeed, perhaps even close to a disqualifier).
What, then, should a candidate like Cleverly Disguised Mule (CDM) do? One thing I would very much suggest is to tread carefully. For example, I do think that emphasizing that one wants to collaborate with someone could come across as presumptuous, depending on the search-committee member (again, some search-committee members might love it, but others might not!). On the other hand, I'm not sure it makes sense (as CDM mentioned) to go out of one's way to distinguish your research program from theirs--as I don't think that is likely to be the main concern of search committee members who might respond negatively (in my experience, any concerns that may arise are likely to be less about research and more about teaching). For this reason, my second suggestion--closely related to the first--would be to aim for the 'middle of the road', such as by saying that you could teach courses in the area in question, and that you would be open to collaborations, you would be equally happy teaching other courses instead. Finally, I guess I'm inclined to think that, beyond these two pieces of advice, the third piece of advice I would give is this: don't sweat this stuff too much, as it is pretty much to impossible to predict how different search-committee members might react to you working (and teaching) in similar areas to them. If a search committee member looks positively on it, then one probably doesn't have to pitch the fact to them--and if, on the other hand, a search-committee member is dead-set against hiring someone with similar interests, there's not much good a pitch will do anyway. The only reason to follow the first two tips, I think, is for search-committee members "in the middle" (i.e. people who haven't thought much about this stuff either way!).
But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have experience on search committees?
Comments