Great idea, Rakesh. I'll get to work on it! I have one video in the works about "What the first round interview feels like for the *interviewers*" (as a way to help interviewees understand the room they're walking into better)

And a quick question: Is it common practice to use one's (current) institution's letter head when applying elsewhere? Never thought about that, just used a "private" letterhead for applications. Is it a matter of choice or just common practice?

@@jancreutzenberg3889 I think using one's grad institution letterhead is advisable, personally. It carries more gravitas, and it's completely true (given that you are "affiliated" with it, so you're not stretching the truth). Anything to give even the slightest edge, without transgressing any ethical lines.

Fantastic point. I agree completely.

Many thanks! Yes, I use Premiere to edit, along with other parts of the Adobe suite (esp. Illustrator, After Effects, and Adobe Audition).

Thanks for your message. Just to clarify, so I make sure to answer usefully: Do you mean a paragraph to explain why one wants to work at a university in general (as in: at a university as opposed to an entirely different line of work)? Or do you mean as opposed to a liberal art college? Or something else? Just let me know and I'll share any advice I have!

@@tsmullaney Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Sorry for the confusion. I mean a tailored a paragraph explaining why one wants to work at the university that he or she is applying for. For example, if one is applying for university A, will it be a good idea or necessary to include a paragraph explaining why he or she applies for university A?

@@LIRONG8749 I have definitely seen this done--and when it's done well, it can be very effective. By "done well," I mean: (a) it's based on sound research, which demos that the applicant truly understands/has done their due diligence learning about the institution (i.e., it isn't based on a cursory search of the uni home page!); (b) concise (since space is very precious in the cover letter); and (c) comes across as genuine/sincere (which ties back to point (a) above). On the flip side, though, when such a paragraph is attempted, but which fails to achieve these things, it can have the opposite effect, I think: it can end up wasting precious space *and* coming across as wooden or boilerplate.

At the time of this app, I had one pub under my belt, paired with a "Guest Editor" spot. I opted not to include it in my cover letter, but to emphasize it in the CV. However, I think that the best place I could have put it would have been in the paragraph on the dissertation *or* as a kind of "segue" in my paragraph on my second project. For Assistant Profs and beyond, though, direct mention of pubs is *definitely* something one wants to include, no doubt.

I entirely agree with regards to the Service paragraph. Great point. And the more customization, the better, in terms of learning about each institution you're applying to. It's a bit of "max-min" problem: how much customization is "too little" (but has the benefit of saving you time, since often there are 20+ apps to deal with), and how much customization is "too much" (i.e., where the applicant is burning just too much precious daylight on each app packet, which necessarily means diverting attention from other things).

@@tsmullaney Thank you for your reply, Tom. My comment is a bit long and I ain't sure if your reply has already addressed my questions? They are "Most PhD students are beginning to publish, teach, and gain administrative experiences. But what if they lack one (or more) of those? And nowadays, the openings may not always fit the candidates' PhD areas. Do you encourage us to stretch a bit and apply to openings a bit outside of our "comfort zone" (areas)?" Thanks again!

@@jessicayeung4746 Thank you for this question. I would say that, in the event that an applicant does not have experience in an area, that they should avoid exaggerating/lying/suggesting that they do. For example: Sometimes I've seen applicants who, because they don't yet have peer-reviewed articles to their name, go on and on about the book reviews they've written. While writing book reviews is good, it is no replacement for peer-reviewed publications (and thus, if the applicants dedicates a good chunk of their cover letter to this, it will both waste precious space, and come across as somewhat naive, at least in my view).

@@jessicayeung4746 As for the "comfort zone" question, I would say: definitely. While there's no point in applying for something that is far, far from your field or area of expertise, I would say that "marginal" possibilities are always worth serious exploring, and perhaps applying to. Yes, putting together an app takes a lot of time, but each successive application becomes a bit easier than the last. And the only sure way *not* to land a position, is by *not* applying for it!

@@tsmullaney Thank you for the sensible and helpful replies, Tom. The book reviews that go "on and on and on" cracked me up lol And I do agree with you about applying to some marginally suitable positions. I think most applicants just need a bit more confidence to send in one more application.

Can you send me/share a sample (by which I mean: a job ad or a fellowship ad that mentions Career Statements in a European institutional context?) I’m happy to find out more. Btw your research looks fascinating

@@tsmullaney Thank you for your quick reply. I am currently working on the Max Weber Fellowship application. I copy-paste their explanation regarding the career statment: "Prepare an ‘Academic career statement’ (2 pages) as a PDF. The purpose of this statement is for you to indicate why you think the MW Programme, particularly the Academic Practice Activities, will benefit you. It should indicate your research and teaching interests and experience, and career plans."

My experience is shaped by the U.S. academy, and so I would certainly make sure to get further advice when it comes to Europe/New Zealand/Australia. Based on my own experience, though, I think it's essential to disaggregate Europe. For example, applying to Italian and French institutions (for e.g.,) is very different than applying to German and U.K. institutions, at least in my experience. Australian institutions, by comparison, feel far more familiar to me as an American, and I know a great many people who have received their PhDs in the U.S., who then go on to work in Australia.

@@tsmullaney I agree when it comes to France, we have a whole different way to do things. I think this video is helpful for UK to a certain extent.

This is a really tough question. I don't want to sound discouraging in any way, and just know that this is based on my own hang-ups and experience, but I would say: Among people you trust, you can start right now; but among people who aren't trustworthy (by which I mean: they are petty or punitive) then one is always at risk, at all stages of the career. Petty scholars are threatened when they meet people with varied interests. I'm not sure why, but I see it over and over. So the key here is: find your fellow travelers, and your soul mates. It can takes many years, but never give up, because once you find them, academia becomes home. For each of my soul mates in academia, I will *never* forget the day I met them.

@@tsmullaney thanks so much. Indeed, one needs to be really careful around those petty scholars...

I completely understand where you're coming from, and the sentiment. I agree entirely, with one proviso. (What follows is meant as part of a conversation, and so please do follow-up if any further thoughts, questions, or disagreements emerge. I hope you will.) First off, to confirm what you're saying, I've witnessed many instances in which candidates (at *all* levels, not just ABD) have been held to absurdly high standards. A senior hire with an unbelievable track record? What about their fifth book? An Assistant Prof.-level hire with a published book and a full second ms to their name? What about the 3rd book? Sometimes I wonder if, when confronted with a candidate who is obviously marvelous--just one of a kind--scholars worry that, if they don't raise *some* issue, then they are not doing their job. That is to say: even when people's hearts are in the right place (it's *good* to be critical), this kind of absurdity can take place. HOWEVER, I will say: the logic behind the "2nd project paragraph" makes a lot of sense, at least in my opinion. Imagine an architecture candidate, with one brilliant and breathtaking design to their name. An artist with one painting to their name. A pop artist with one unreal song to their name. Any architecture firm, gallery, label, or otherwise *has* to ask the question: is this part of a pattern, or is this everything? If it's everything, then, of course it needs to be praised and admired, and yet the label who signs this musician will forever be waiting for the next song--which might never come. Perhaps I can put it this way: When people on a hiring committee or in a department *don't* care about the candidate's second project, or their future trajectory, this often means that such people have little concern with (or simply hasn't put any thought into the idea of) hiring that person as potentially a life-long colleague. As far they're concerned, the person might be "good enough for the time being," or that "later on, if they failed to deliver something else, we can just hire again." So, counterintuitively, it's the people who care about 2nd projects who are the ones, in my experience, who *do* believe that the point of hiring a tenure-track candidate is, and has to be, to hire them with the full intention of supporting them, and doing everything possible to ensure that they thrive and get tenure. And since a key element of tenure is the second project, it's important to start thinking of that early on, even when everyone knows that plans change, and that the "2nd project paragraph" is written in chalk, not ink, so to speak. Now, I'm fully aware that this idea of academia is about as far away from the present-day truth as one can imagine, particularly when considering the exploitation of Adjunct labor, among other issues. But to the extent that one believes in what academia should and could be--and here, I'm referring to two pillars in particular, peer-review and tenure--then one also needs to believe in the kind of due diligence that is represented by the "2nd project paragraph." One important final point, and this pertains to my note about "lying." Just to clarify: the thing that is being "lied" about is *not* that the candidate has a second project. Rather, what they are lying about is that they only have *one* second project, and that both their clarity about, and commitment to, that project is rock solid. I would say that every serious candidate I've ever met in my life, as well as everyone I've ever met who is at the same career level as me, always has "future ideas" in mind--that they're always curious and thinking about something that jumped out at that. The same for songwriters. I've never met a serious songwriter who doesn't have at least 1 (and maybe 100) song stems in development. After all, wanting to write songs is the first requirement of being a songwriter. The "lying" part comes, not in faking that one has things in mind which might form the basis of future research, rather that their idea is more fully formed than it might actually be (or that, alongside this idea, there are 2 others that command equal attention in the scholar's mind). So why so we need to lie? you might ask. Why can't be list 3 or 4 or 5 ideas we're having? Well, this come back to the "trajectory" question. The point of the "2nd project paragraph" is, at the end of the day, less about the project itself, rather than the demonstration that one has the ability to craft a "scale model" of a second idea. A metaphor here might be architectural blueprints. There's no guarantee that the building will actually be realized. But just the fact that the candidate is *able* to conceptualize, develop, and stress-test a 2nd set of blueprints, beyond the 1 building that they've already built, greatly increases the odds that they will be fully able to build a 2nd building when the time comes. And a 3rd, and a 4th. That is to say, that they have the makings of someone who could have a career in scholarship, beyond the already profoundly difficult stage of completing a PhD.

@@tsmullaney clearly, I do not mean that there should be no hint of future projects. But building meaningful projects takes time, especially when it comes to thinking about sources, digging into archives, having to travel maybe, and so on. It is not very comparable with someone writing a song or deigning a building, in my opinion. And even then, there are plenty of examples of people who were given a chance based on their prior performances, and that took their good time to deliver the future one. Plenty of examples of failures, too, from people who seemed to have a brilliant future (aren't governments filled with those people?). Several professors who openly talked about the hiring processes in academia were honest enough to say that if they had to assess how many times they got it right, it could not be more than 50%. Half of the times they bet on someone, it was a wrong bet. Others have told me in private that they don't eve read students' statements, precisely bc of the "lies." Does it say something about the process? Maybe. And I do not claim that I have the solution, but maybe squeezing students out of programs after 4 years for all fields, regardless what kind of material one works with (is it all online or in the library? or does the PhD need to spend 6 months on the filed digging it out of libraries? etc.) needs some rethinking. The grant books that change the filed are not written when we are 30, after all.

@@tsmullaney hey I really appreciate your thorough answers. Thanks for posting!

Aviv Derri This is a good idea. What about a video just on research proposals?

@@tsmullaney sounds perfect! Although I was going to ask for a video on CVs :-) especially for ABDs and recent graduates. One is overwhelmed by the amounts of confusing and often contradicting information online..

Sure thing! The link is in the video itself, I think towards the middle/2nd half

Tom Mullaney ah I see thank you ! I was listening to your video, so I didn’t see the picture and thought the link was in the description . Sorry to bother you ! Thanks again ☺️