The Cranky Professor

ANd people used to think DV was some kind of fascist because he made us give him the job descriptions for every position, and would only write one letter per job, so his students had to divide up the jobs each year.

....I've read 45 files, a minimum of 3 recs per file (and there's another hint! 6 letters of rec undercut your case!), and I can count the number of letters that say anything about OUR job on one hand. You're right, DV is a responsible recommender! --MCT

I wrote this in response to a link left at the Classics job search blog, but in fairness should leave it here as well.

Cranky writes:

"Candidates - don't settle for portfolio services. Develop enough of a relationship with your recommenders that they at least tailor something to different types of schools. The all-purpose to whom it may concern recommendation really isn't inspiring me to want to interview you."

To which I respond:

This is absurd. I applied to over 30 jobs last year. Some were SLACs, some R1s, a bunch in between. Any generic letter is just that, generic. I had four recommenders. They had other students and colleagues for whom they were writing letters. So according to the idiot (you) at Hobart and William Smith these letter writers should have written a tailored letter for each job applied to by each of their advisees...

OK, let's imagine that each letter writer is writing for five job applicants. Let's further imagine that each applicant is applying to at least 20 jobs. So, at a busy time in the semester, these faculty members ought to write 100 personalized letters on behalf of their students, or at the very least 20 different generic letters? Furthermore, failure to do so is evidence for not having a close enough relationship with one's recommender?

Get real and get a clue, Cranky.

This "advice" really isn't inspiring me to take you seriously. When were you on the job market, 1968? Learn to read letters carefully, for what counts, and figure out how it applies to your position. Read the personal statement, which is the ONLY document that should be targeted to Hobart and William Smith, even more carefully. And don't take yourself so damn seriously.

The lake-effect snow up there must be smothering your common sense.

While I would phrase it a bit more gently than Cranky Supplicant, you have to understand that many schools (particularly those in states that mandate rigid rules for applying to state-funded jobs) have practices that make it more and more burdensome on recommenders to submit individual letters. Some places insist on having the letters submitted along with the rest of the application, which can be a challenge if recommenders are not really computer-savvy, since the applicant cannot have access to the letter.

There was a time (in the not-so-distant past) when graduate schools would provide portfolio services (of varying levels of quality) that would sometimes handle individual letters, and sometimes not. With the rise of online applications and private portfolio services, fewer schools are doing this. There seems to be an expectation developing that you will use private portfolio services.

As for the personalized letter, it shouldn't matter whether it is personalize to the SCHOOL -- it should be personalized for the APPLICANT. Developing a relationship with a recommender is about that person writing specifics about YOU, not about whatever school you're applying to. The tailoring to the school should be in the cover letter, by the applicant himself. If applicants are rejected for interview because one of their recommenders failed to mention your school in the cover letter ... well, I'm afraid that suggests more negative about the hiring committee than the applicant or recommender.

When I recommend an applicant, I do what you suggest, and mention the school (when it is possible) -- but I do so for the same reason carbonated beverages bottlers place warning labels on their caps. Don't be the kind of person who expects "point away from eye when opening" on a bottlecap.

Agreed that I don't think this is fair to expect students to ask of professors (maybe the numbers and customs are different in medieval fields). Perhaps it might be appropriate to ask the recommender to send a few letters to the portfolio service, one tailored for each type of school.

But when you really think about it, *all* schools say they take teaching seriously in the job description. Should my recommender really *cut* his glowing remarks on my teaching from the R1 letter, but leave them in the liberal arts letter? Probably not. So what you you really wind up with is the same generic letter with a few words changed. What's the point?

The "I will only recommend one student for a particular job" is more common, I've come across that. But honestly, it's not the named chair's job to know which student will fit your job best. It's their job to describe the student such that you know what you are getting. You are the one who knows what your job needs.

.....I *wish* there were glowing remarks about their teaching. What I'm up against in large part are 5 or 6 "to whom it may concern" letters ("Dear Colleagues" is a welcome amount of personalization!) in which after 2 pages of detailed explanation of the excellence of the dissertation we get a line like "I leave discussion of the candidate's teaching ability to my other colleagues." So after one or two, that kind of letter is not very helpful to a candidate applying to a small liberal arts college, (even though we demand research just like the R1s demand teaching). --MCT

Well, I applied for 22 jobs the year I got my T-T job, and 30 the year before. And my referrees wrote somewhat individualised letters for each one. Now I expect that, like me, my DV had about three basic letters, one for CCs, one for SLACs and one for R-1s, and then chose and tailored accordingly. It was a hell of a lot of work and I still owe him big time. But this might also help to explain why all but one of his students who finished landed jobs. Well, plus I think we know how to do our jobs and all.