Faculty applications can be daunting. Drafting your application package. Putting your vision out there for hiring committees to evaluate. Getting your hopes up and being rejected or possibly never hearing back. One thing to keep in mind is: you’re not alone.
If you’re in need of a sounding board or second set of eyes, and your advisor is difficult to get a hold of for one-on-one time, consider tapping into one of the most valuable resources you have on campus: your peers—fellow grad students and postdocs.
At least that’s how I felt, so in early August I started a peer support group consisting of myself and three other postdocs planning on applying for tenure-track listings this Fall cycle. Each week, we drafted a new document in our application packages, reviewed each other’s, and debriefed on our feedback. In a month’s time, we had a generalized yet complete draft of our application packages and had established a safe space to share our ideas.
The experience humanized a process which otherwise can be isolating and stressful. This post aims to help others create their own support groups. Here are my reflections on how we structured our time together and what worked well for us.
Create a plan to meet the group’s needs
Most tenure-track listings ask for a combination of five key documents:
- Research statement: describing your research philosophy, plan, and experiences
- Teaching statement: describing your teaching philosophy, plan, and experiences
- Diversity statement: describing your efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion
- Academic CV: listing your experiences, achievements, and publications
- Cover letter: outlining how the contents of your application package build the case that you’re a good fit for the position
We devoted at least a half hour of our first meeting to establish a shared understanding of the scope for each document. During this discussion, we referred to rubrics from past applications, tips from supervisors, and public materials disseminated through institutions and workshops, such as resources from the MIT Career Advising and Professional Development (CAPD) team and their “Faculty Job Search Series” hosted every summer. Our goal was to have a complete set of information which could easily be tailored to the specific asks of each listing.
Different listings might also ask for writing samples, lecture samples, portfolios, or other documents. However, the five documents I listed above are by far the most common in our field of Civil & Environmental Engineering, so in our support group our plan was to draft each of the five documents and receive feedback in a safe space.
Additionally, your support group could draft job or chalk talks. We figured we’d cross that bridge when we got there—as in, we agreed to reconvene for mock interviews and run-throughs as members of our support group progress with interviews.
Commit to showing up
Aiming for roughly one document per week worked well for us. The order we followed was: a week for CVs, then a week for diversity statements, then a week for teaching statements, then two weeks for research statements, and lastly a week for cover letters. This allowed us to get to know each other better by talking through our CVs, work from shorter documents (you typically have a 1-2 page limit for diversity and teaching statements) towards the longer one (you typically have a 2-4 page limit for research statements), and end with the one document that rules them all—cover letters.
Each week, we drafted the agreed-on document by Thursday, reviewed each other’s that night or Friday morning, sent our comments, and met Friday afternoon to debrief on our feedback. Each session lasted about 2 hours, where each person got a dedicated 30 minutes to ask others to clarify their comments and provide suggestions. The session for research statements took a little more time given its longer nature.
As a Comm Fellow, I was ready to take on a teacher-like role—reminding others to submit their drafts and comments on time. This only happened the first week. Everyone stuck to the schedule the other weeks. Not only were we curious to see others’ (very different) documents, we were excited by how we could submit our documents and watch comments start popping up almost immediately (compared to the months we wait for reviews on journal submissions).
That’s not to say we always agreed with each other’s comments. Often enough, one out of the three of us reviewing a document would have a different take on the content, flow, or verbiage. In disagreements, we tried to refer back to the same third-party resources I mentioned earlier: rubrics, tips, and public materials. We agreed to disagree on stylistic choices. After all, your application package is meant to be your own.
Depending on when you start your support group, your timeline might be more or less relaxed. I’d say start early in the summer and allocate more time, rather than less. Ideally, we would’ve loved to dedicate at least an additional week per document, so that we could go over the updated versions after incorporating others’ feedback. Conversely, dedicating less time than we did could be overwhelming because you would have to tackle multiple or all documents at once.
Build a safe space
I’ll just say it: we all fear being scooped. This fear, along with the concern of not having “good enough” ideas, is likely what makes sharing application packages with peers such a vulnerable process. This feeling is particularly pronounced when we’re constantly striving to prove ourselves as the first or best or only researcher to accomplish some specific thing.
Personally, I had to decide that I would rather practice talking about my vision and better refine it than let my fears take control of me. To form our support group, I reached out to peers who I know are in different yet adjacent fields—colleagues who would ‘get’ me, as we all work on sustainability issues, but wouldn’t necessarily pursue the same listings or scientific contributions. The latter I explicitly told them:
- “We are not competition. It’s very unlikely that we would apply for the same listings. Rather, I see this as an opportunity to sow the seeds for an interdisciplinary, cross-institutional network of sustainability researchers.”
- “At most, our skillsets address separate pieces of the same puzzle. I won’t scoop you. I couldn’t even if I wanted to (which I don’t).”
Being a safe person to share ideas with relies on many moving pieces: being open, respectful, constructive, available. Being honest about your opinions. Stating your opinions as what they are—subjective opinions, not objective facts. Building your peers up—helping them effectively express themselves, their aptitude and vision. Being present. Showing up. Sticking to allotted times.
All of this is easier said than done. However, this experience showed me that people show up for those who show up for them. Communicating what works well for you gives others a standard to strive towards, and vice versa. Similar to how codes need debugging, the ground rules for a safe space may need to be fine-tuned over time. Try to be patient as you define and redefine what those ground rules are for your support group.
Lastly, as perfectionists, we tend to focus on what can be improved on. Remember to tell your peers when they do a good job. After delivering your feedback, check in with them. We all need care and attention.
Last remarks
Ultimately, what I enjoyed most was infusing human contact into a process which can be isolating. It’s not easy to reflect on your identity as a researcher and educator, weave a cohesive narrative around what you’ve done and aim to accomplish, and distill that into a few short pages. Each sentence needs to pack a punch when you might only have a matter of seconds to connect with your readers.
As part of the Comm Lab, I strive to help my peers shine—crafting inner ramblings into punchy messages and empowering my peers to put themselves out there with materials they feel proud of. Our support group gave me the opportunity to practice this and receive it in return. For that, I am grateful.
Thank you, Pranav Pradeep Kumar, Soroush Mahjoubi, and Samira Garshasbi.
Resources
- “Shedding Light on Faculty Applications: Insights from Assistant Professor Dr. Jasmina Burek” by Ipek Bensu Manav and Ignacio Martin Arzuaga Garcia
- “Faculty Job Search Guide” by MIT Career Advising and Professional Development (CAPD)
- “Faculty Job Search Series” hosted by MIT Career Advising and Professional Development (CAPD)
Are you an MIT student or postdoc?
- Make an appointment (in-person or online) with a Comm Fellow for individual feedback on your faculty application materials.