{"id":838,"date":"2024-11-04T15:54:25","date_gmt":"2024-11-04T15:54:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitcommlab.mit.edu\/cee\/?p=838"},"modified":"2025-01-28T19:36:34","modified_gmt":"2025-01-28T19:36:34","slug":"peer-support-group-faculty-applications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitcommlab.mit.edu\/cee\/2024\/11\/04\/peer-support-group-faculty-applications\/","title":{"rendered":"I created a peer support group for faculty applications, and here\u2019s what worked well"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"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\u2019re not alone.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

If you\u2019re 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\u2014fellow grad students and postdocs.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At least that\u2019s 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\u2019s, and debriefed on our feedback. In a month\u2019s time, we had a generalized yet complete draft of our application packages and had established a safe space to share our ideas.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Create a plan to meet the group\u2019s needs<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

Most tenure-track listings ask for a combination of five key documents:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Research statement: describing your research philosophy, plan, and experiences<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Teaching statement: describing your teaching philosophy, plan, and experiences<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Diversity statement: describing your efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Academic CV: listing your experiences, achievements, and publications<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Cover letter: outlining how the contents of your application package build the case that you\u2019re a good fit for the position<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    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 \u201cFaculty Job Search Series\u201d 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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Additionally, your support group could draft job or chalk talks. We figured we\u2019d cross that bridge when we got there\u2014as in, we agreed to reconvene for mock interviews and run-throughs as members of our support group progress with interviews.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Commit to showing up<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

    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\u2014cover letters.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Each week, we drafted the agreed-on document by Thursday, reviewed each other\u2019s 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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    As a Comm Fellow, I was ready to take on a teacher-like role\u2014reminding 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\u2019 (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).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    That\u2019s not to say we always agreed with each other\u2019s 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.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Depending on when you start your support group, your timeline might be more or less relaxed. I\u2019d say start early in the summer and allocate more time, rather than less. Ideally, we would\u2019ve loved to dedicate at least an additional week per document, so that we could go over the updated versions after incorporating others\u2019 feedback. Conversely, dedicating less time than we did could be overwhelming because you would have to tackle multiple or all documents at once.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Build a safe space<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

    I\u2019ll just say it: we all fear being scooped. This fear, along with the concern of not having \u201cgood enough\u201d ideas, is likely what makes sharing application packages with peers such a vulnerable process. This feeling is particularly pronounced when we\u2019re constantly striving to prove ourselves as the first or best or only researcher to accomplish some specific thing.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    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\u2014colleagues who would \u2018get\u2019 me, as we all work on sustainability issues, but wouldn\u2019t necessarily pursue the same listings or scientific contributions. The latter I explicitly told them:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n