Should job applicants always submit teaching letters?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a job applicant writes:

A question about teaching letters (i.e. letters of recommendation speaking to your teaching abilities). I've not seen any job ad specifically asking for a teaching letter, but for something like 3 letters of recommendation. Is it just expected that applicants submit a teaching letters along with their other letters?

I'm very curious to hear what other readers, but my impression is that in general, yes, applicants are standardly expected to submit at least one teaching letter, and that it would look very strange not to. Now, perhaps there are some exceptions to this (postdoc positions without teaching expectations, etc.), but in most jobs one will be expected to teach--and my experience is that some search committee members think that teaching letters provide vital information about what a job applicant is actually like in the classroom. After all, student evaluations can be misleading, and--absent teaching letters by other faculty describing the applicant's performance in the classroom--all that a hiring committee otherwise has to go on is the applicant's own teaching materials.

So, I think that in most (if not all) cases, it would be a huge mistake not to include a teaching letter when applying for jobs. However, when I think back to my time on the job market, I also recall that this can generate something of a conundrum. Suppose that one has, say, 5 letters in total--maybe 4 'research' letters and 1 'teaching letter.' In my experience, many job application portals only permit an applicant to upload three letters. This means that an applicant in the position just described has to (somehow!) send their teaching letter along with only 2 research letters. But, how in the world is one supposed to decide which research letters to send? Obviously, one might worry that leaving out not one but two of one's research letters might put one at a disadvantage (at least compared to how competitive one might be if one were able to send all of one's letters). So, this might lead one to wonder: should I perhaps leave out my teaching letter so that I can at least submit one more of my research letters?

Perhaps this is the situation the OP is in--I don't know. But what should applicants do in these kinds of situations? Is it possible to ask search committee chairs to submit additional letters? Or, perhaps, if the job is at an R1, might it be advisable to ask the search chair whether it would be better to submit 3 research letters (leaving out the teaching letter)? I'm curious to hear what readers in the know think!

Comments

[elisa freschi]

This is completely anecdotical, but I did not submit any teaching letter for the position I am currently in (at University of Toronto), just because I did not know that teaching letters existed, and no one even mentioned it during my job interview. Perhaps they are more relevant for college positions?

[Tim O'Keefe]

I'd contact the search chair, explain the situation, and ask them what they'd prefer.

[Teach first]

I have three research letters and a teaching letter. I also have a version of one of the research letters that my diss chair adapted to include much of the content from the teaching letter, to use in those circumstances where only 3 letters are permitted.

[Trevor Hedberg]

When I was applying for jobs, I based this decision on the type of institution and the type of position. If it was a teaching-focused position, then I included a teaching letter. If it was a research-focused position (especially one at an R1 institution), then I included only research letters, though I should acknowledge that one of my research-focused letters did briefly mention my teaching. In my various cycles on the job market, I got interviews and job offers for both teaching-focused and research-focused positions, so I think this strategy was effective -- or at least that it did not hurt my chances.

[British Grad Student]

I hadn't really thought about this and am now a little worried. Is it really that important to distinguish between research and teaching letters?

I just asked my supervisors for letters of reccommendation without thinking about it, and assumed they would write about both my teaching and research. Is this something I should follow up on?

[Asst professor applying out]

I'm applying for jobs at good R1s, and not submitting a teaching letter. I have many years of teaching experience with consistently strong evals. I figured no one will worry about my teaching or really care at these research-focused institutions. I imagine them taking a look at my evaluations and statement and thinking 'she'll be good'—and then thinking no more about teaching. I did this to have a broader swath of people, none of whom are at my current institution, speak about my research, which is (I assume) the main factor in hiring at places like this.

But maybe that was a mistake? I don't know.

[anonymous assistant professor]

@Asst professor applying out, I do not think that was a mistake. (I was on the R1 market repeatedly starting a few years after starting a job, without a teaching letter or anyone even talking about my teaching (since, like you, my writers were outside my institution), in a similar situation to you (very strong evals and lots of experience) and I did pretty well, including at places that I know really value good teaching.)

[teaching?]

In many European countries there is no expectation of a teaching letter. Teaching really is regarded as secondary to research PERIOD