letters of recommendation

Search committees should themselves request letters only for the candidates who are short-listed; they should not instruct candidates to ask for multiple letters to accompany an application. That way the reviewer is not asked to go to the trouble of writing a letter for someone who doesn’t have a real chance at the job.

Nina Garrett, Director of Language Study at Yale University, at 8:51 am EST on March 5, 2007

Could not agree more

“No good deed goes unpunished” is right! I may have gotten one letter of thanks in reponse to an external review for every ten I write. And it surely would be nice to hear whether the candidate succeeded or not.

Part of the problem is how many such letters there now are in a given year. We require six or seven for our tenure cases—-and I honestly don’t know whether WE send out letters of thanks and acknowledgment. I will now check that.

My problem has sometimes been the “other side” of what is described in this essay. At times I’ve gotten far too little on which to base a solid letter. Having to go back and ask for what should have been included the first time just makes the process more time consuming and complex.

All this said, however, this is an important process if done carefully and well. What I find depressing is when an administrator grabs on to one letter to the virtual exclusion of the rest to make a case. It happens too often. And that demeans the hard work of the writers.

And now I have to break this off as I have a review letter to write today!

Chris Sterling, professor at George Washington University, at 8:51 am EST on March 5, 2007

A Much Needed Lesson in Manners

Thank you for this call for consideration. Manners seem to be lacking in many areas of academic administration. The failure of common decency is also prevalent in the hiring process. This year, in my coaching practice, I’ve had six faculty clients on the job market and five have experienced unecessary unresponsiveness on the part of hiring committees. When these professosrs are NOT invited for an interview they have rarely been notified that their applications have been unsuccessful. In some cases, they have telephoned months later just to make sure the job was filled. A lack of notification is also common even when my clients have been invited for interviews and are clearly among the top candidates for the jobs. Routinely, the interviewees are told that they will be notified by a certain date, but then the specified date comes and goes without contact. Several times for more than a month. And even, in one case, when the candidate has been offerred the job. What is this about? Why the rudeness? Why not a quick message letting the applicants know that: a) they haven’t gotten the job b) the committee has not yet met c) the job has been offerred to someone else but that person has not yet accepted d) the administration has withdrawn funding for the position e) the department has decided not to fill the job this yearetc., etc.,

This common practice of leaving candidates in the dark adds to the anxiety of the job hunt. It is also against the interests of the department seeking to hire new faculty members because it leaves a sour taste in the mouths of candidates, which is especially detrimental when the candidate is subsequently hired.

Mary McKinney, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist & Academic Coach at http://www.SuccessfulAcademic.com, at 9:21 am EST on March 5, 2007

Our Unprofessional Profession

Dean Gelles’s polite cry of pain touched a nerve in this reader, and I am sure in many another. At some point nearly 25 years ago I decided to “act out” my objections to the practice he refers to on a single ground: the failure of academic institutions, even when they act with reasonable human decency in all other respects, to offer anything like a proper reward for our time-consuming confidential judgments of colleagues’ work. In 1994 I “formalized” my position, composing the following response, which I have sent to all those requesting my “important” (even “essential") advice in this regard ever since. I think I have had one taker since then. The result is that, until I made a mistake and assumed that a recent requester (on behalf of an undoubtedly esteemed university) was offering an honorarium (shame on me!), I have not had to spend my time writing analyses of the work of others.

I append a copy of that letter for those interested, in hopes that others will join me in the effort to call a disgraceful bluff on the part of organizations that should know better. The text (I apologize for the length) is as follows:

REFLECTIONS ON A SORE POINT

While the reasons which prompt the administrations of colleges and universities to look for external evaluation of those members of their teaching staffs whom they consider for continuing appointment are self-evident and understandable, the fact that they are usually willing to offer little or no remuneration for such professional service is dismaying. Can one imagine a law firm asking for such advice concerning a colleague being considered for inclusion in a partnership from a partner of another firm without also offering fairly generous compensation for his or her time and judgment? I think not.

I would add that requests for external evaluation of already tenured members seem to me to lose the one solid ground for appeal which those for help with appointments to tenure possess. For it is in fact of little interest to the profession whether or not Professor X goes up in rank or salary or not, no matter how important such decisions are to Professor X.

My own past experience when I acceded to such requests is that I have spent from one to two full work-days with them, time stolen from my own work, which I nonetheless gave because of what others assured me was my “obligation to the profession.” Some time ago it finally dawned upon me that this “obligation” was in fact a one-way street: I was “obliged"; those who sought my advice were not, it being theirs merely to ask for my best professional judgment.

In light of such considerations, I some years ago made a decision which continues to seem just to me. If my schedule permits me to be involved in these exercises of judgment, my fee is $500.

The result of this decision is that I have been spared doing any more evaluations of this kind. And that result, which is pleasing in itself in some respects, is, however, troubling on another score. If, as we are all assured, this form of scholarly good citizenship is so important, why is it not budgeted for? It is my hope that one day it will be. Until then, I will continue to offer my services, when they are sought, for what seems to me a modest price. I am sorry if my behavior seems recalcitrant, but hope that in my own small way I may help to amend a situation which I consider deplorable.

There is one other thing, perhaps the most important thing. It must be clear that my position with regards to the larger matter at stake here must in no way be taken to reflect negatively on the candidate for promotion. While I trust that no one would so construe this response, I want to underline that fact.

Robert Hollander, Prof, in Eur. Lit., Emeritus at Princeton Univ., at 12:15 pm EST on March 5, 2007

Proper thanks

Being an academic means being engaged in constant review and evaluation of others, and being reviewed. We evaluate students, former students, colleagues, and even our Deans and other administrative superiors.

I assume that the review of colleagues is a kind of service, and that as a member of the faculty of a research university, I may be able to offer some guidance in my comments. I always write careful letters that outline candidate strengths, but also suggest overlooked avenues for publication, concerns about heavy service loads (especially common when I review women candidates), etc.

Clearly, as an outside reviewer I may have advice not available within the candidate’s department. Too often people become hobbled by internal quirks or expectations for success.

I wrote three such letters this year. In each case, I had suitable time to respond, and received a prompt, warm thanks from the Dean. Maybe I am just lucky or my profession is more gracious; I am still in my 40s, so hardy prominent enough to warrant anything unusual.

I would love to hear the final outcome of such reviews (so I check the web the next year for promotions), but think a gift certificate for Borders is problematic. $20 is an insult for the time taken, and Borders is a schlepp for me. However, I can see an unusual book, a blooming plant or a bottle of wine as a gesture that would be very nice. So I would try not to be insulted by the means for selecting my own book, I suppose. Who would select and arrange this gift, though? The faculty (who are stretched thin) or the staff (who are stretched thinner)?

Thanks will come when I am requesting such letters and colleagues graciously take their time to respond.

Dana B, at 6:30 pm EST on March 5, 2007

Having just been reviewed and promoted, and having to identify 7-10 people that I have NOT collaborated with ever who were willing to take the time to write thoughtful letters — I must say I am extremely grateful for the time and effort they gave. I approached each by email 5 months ahead of time with a weblink to my CV so they could decide if it would be a painful exercise or a pleasure and followed up to each of those with my promotion status when it was all done. I don’t know what my institution did...

I was grateful not only for their assistance in my review. But also, because it is the policy of my department head to share the letters, I was able to get some very appreciated feedback on my career to date from people who know. My department is multi-disciplinary and my colleagues just don’t know enough about my particular discipline to judge — so outside evaluation was almost more important to me than the review process itself.

CAM, at 10:10 pm EST on March 6, 2007

I submitted my list of potential outside reviewers to my university today, and most of the names I mention are strangers to me, apart from my abiding respect for their work. I’ve met some of them briefly at conferences, perhaps, but none of them are my friends, and my institution would not allow me to put friends down as outsider tenure case reviewers. I had to disclose all ties to everyone on my list ("sat next to him at lunch at the Woolf conference 10 years ago” — that sort of thing), and anyone with any kind of direct connection to my work (editors, dissertation committee members, close associates from prior jobs) could not be listed. It’s a matter of ethics.

The purpose of the outside review is for my department and university to get a sense of how I rank within my specialization. I am the only one here doing the kind of work I do ... how on earth could the tenure and promotion committee be expected to validate the quality of my research without outside reviews?

This outside review of my scholarship is only one part of the tenure process. My teaching and service are evaluated separately by those who have observed my progress for the past six years. As my chair said repeatedly over the past years, “tenure is about the big picture — everything counts.”

I am also counting on the kindness and good will of strangers in this process, and want to shout out THANK YOU here and now to those who will serve in this capacity in the coming year. My family’s livelihood depends upon my keeping this job, and if I could send a thank you card to each and every reviewer, I would. I won’t know which reviews end up in my file, of course, but I hope that my chair will be kind enough to send messages of gratitude on my behalf.

To my reviewers (who will receive official letters about my upcoming tenure case sometime this month, asking for your participation this fall) THANK YOU. You are the critics whose work I most admire, the people upon whose shoulders I stand, and that is how you landed on the list I submitted. I hope that I will someday be able to return the favor.

Lisa, at 4:05 pm EDT on June 7, 2007