Theoria

10 Comments

1. Kuri wrote:

   I’ve only asked for references in relation to employment or grad school. For employment, I usually include the job ad in question – that way the letter-writer knows what they’re looking for (such as writing, critical thinking, creativity, what-have-you), knows me (hopefully) and can put together something will speak to that.

   Other than that, from spending some time with human resources people, shorter is usually better for employment reference letters.

   Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
2. NotOften wrote:

   I was never in the position of having to ask a sessional for a letter. But I’m not sure if I’d bother – where is the will to power there? I think it is odd that students don’t have professors (at any rank) to ask for such things.

   Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
3. Craig wrote:

   Part of it, I think, is that the four courses I teach at Carleton are required courses. Two are seminars and two are lectures and all are at the third year level. So, I suppose it makes sense to them to ask me for letters given that they may not have had as much exposure to regular faculty. In terms of employment, study abroad and law school, I don’t think it matters that much. Graduate school, however, is another issue entirely.

   Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Permalink
4. NotOften wrote:

   That makes sense. I came from a pretty small college that doesn’t rely on sessionals to the extent that some departments in the University’s do. That might be why I don’t understand the phenomena. I suppose students think that if their teacher is qualified to ‘teach’ the course, then why not access to law school or even graduate school?

   At a general level, I wonder to what extent reference letters impact graduate student admittance? Also: is there a letter ‘code’? Is it: ‘This student is excellent, the best I have seen in some time’ which, through the code of insiders, means ‘I was forced to write this letter for a student that is quite average – take him or leave him. Your choice!’ – thereby totally negating the utility of letter itself (for the student)? In other words, the letter, I suspect, is a genre with specific characteristics.

   Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
5. Disoriented wrote:

   I also refrain from writing letters for my students who are applying for graduate school. But I do wonder if there’s more weight if I was a first year assistant professor than a seventh year graduate student? Besides, how would the readers know the difference anyway unless they check themselves in which that seems unlikely for practical reasons.

   But to answer your questions briefly, I do think there are subtle differences that distinguish a letter for law school from one for employment. For law school, I do focus on the usual grade point average, honors, and whatever work/volunteer related points that will be useful. Sometimes I mention that Student A is in the top 1% of my class.

   However, a letter of employment at, for example, a corporate office, there’s a greater emphasis on personhood such as sociability, responsibility, work ethic, ability to accomplish tasks at hand. There may be a reference to grades but in terms of general performance and not an indication of expertise unless it’s relevant to the job. All the employer wants to know is this: “Am I hiring someone who can do the job?”

   Now a letter for law school and graduate school generally speaks about the intellectual and/or real world experience that the student can contribute to the program with one additional distinction: you can say, “Student A is simply the best student ever!” or “Student B is more than prepared for graduate study!” or “Student C will be a promising scholar in [field of study]!” or something along those lines. Surprisingly, committees, and this information comes by way of my partner who has sat reviewing hundreds of applications for the English department for undergraduate/graduate admissions and search committees, will scrutinize these letters and an exemplary statement can, but not always, make a difference. Or, to put it another way, from the perspective of the committees reviewing hundreds of applications, anything that distinguishes one applicant from another is always productive. Such a statement gives pause to a reader to consider what you mean and to follow it up. If your letter creates that moment, then you’ve done your job. The rest is up to the applicant.

   I know my post is quite late but I hope you find it helpful. I had to learn about the “professional practices” on my own for many years.

   Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 11:29 am | Permalink
6. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

   On the teaching professor issue, Craig, the story is this.

   McMaster sociology just hired an excellent young Canadian sociologist who will be a “teaching professor”.
   She is terrific, and my focus as a tenured faculty member will be to support the development of her career at McMaster in the coming years – it is a position that can lead to permanent status at McMaster, something like tenure.

   So separate from the particular case, in which I am 100% behind the young scholar, there are broader issues worth discussion.

   Essentially what we are talking about is a break from traditional tenure stream jobs, where faculty do 40% of their work as teachers, 40% as researchers and 20% as administrators to a situation where more teaching is required, but far less emphasis on research.
   Some focus on research, particularly research on teaching, is emphasized but basically you are talking about a job that can lead to to tenure-like status with more teaching.

   Canadian scholars and sociologists should learn about this, and debate it.
   I am not an expert on this – I just know it is a relatively new thing in the social sciences and across the university at McMaster.
   I don’t know much about what has been tried across Canada, with this kind of thing.

   In general, I would place the discussion of this in a larger context, dealing with the development of the research university in the 19th century as well as recent transformations in higher education in Canada.

   One can see advantages and positives regarding this type of position.
   Certainly I can see how both administrators and students would like the new approach.
   On the whole, however, I am skeptical of these changes, and this new approach for a variety of reasons.
   It is well worth learning about, and debating, again as a general issue separate from the specifics in my department and in my university.

   Neil McLaughlin

   Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
7. Craig wrote:

   Neil,

   Thanks for the comments on the teaching stream position. Given the choice between reliance on sessionals (such as myself!) in marginal positions within the university and – worse – in marginal relation to steady employment and advancement within the university, a move towards permanent, primarily teaching positions seems to be an incremental improvement.

   It seems to be the case that there are some people who are happy teaching core or service courses, often with large enrollments, and an opportunity for meaningful employment in the university should be made available to them.

   My general worry would be that the difference between elite CRCs and teaching only positions would expand and become institutionalized to the point that what you call the “institutional flatness” – in my mind a positive aspect of the Canadian university system relative to the American system – would be destroyed.

   Thanks again.

   Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 12:15 am | Permalink
8. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

   Craig,

   I can see the appeal of the teaching professor option, for young scholars in your position.

   On the larger issues, let me clarify a couple of general things, before remarking on the teaching professor issue more generally.
   First, I have been very clear in print and in talks that normatively I am opposed to the institutional hierarchies that exist in the United States.
   Writing analytically about these dynamics is one thing – while approving of them normatively, is another.
   If I could implement on institutional reform in the United States, it would be to take away the tax write-offs for donations to the most elite American universities. I can’t, of course, have any influence on these larger political issues but that is where I am coming from.
   And when talking about the Canada Research Chair program, I am the second author on a piece in the newest Canadian Review of Sociology with Kyle Siler, and excellent young Canadian sociologist.
   Lots to talk about with regards to these broader issues….

   On the teaching professor issue, again, it must be put in the context of the history of the research university.
   There are different models possible for universities – the linking of research to teaching is a historically contingent one that flowed from its history in Germany and then the United States, in the 19th century and early 20th century.
   It is not the only way to organize teaching and research- certainly the contemporary Russian and broader European research institute model is another model.

   Ultimately, however, I worry about the creation of a two-tier system for higher education inside our research universities themselves, particularly within the social sciences and humanities when most of us have the “ivory tower blues” and teaching quality does not seem the top priority for most university administrations…

   In any case, it is a conversation worth having, particularly if this new model seems to be spreading in Canada.
   Hard to say whether this is a going to be a trend across Canada, outside of McMaster, or whether the sessional and CLA emphasis will simply continue at the expense of regular tenure stream positions.
   My position is that it is best, when possible, to hold out for regular tenure stream positions.
   But the issues are complex, no doubt.

   Neil McLaughlin

   Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm | Permalink
9. Craig wrote:

   Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I could have been in my last comment. My point was to the effect that given an option between the increasing institutionalization of tenuous, part-time teaching faculty (called variously sessionals, adjuncts, and when hired for a short term rather than for a single course, CLAs) and creating permanent, protected positions (teaching-track as in your department), I’d opt morally and politically for the latter. I’d further argue that pedagogically this makes sense: some people really love teaching first year sociology or Canadian fiction or surveys of western civilization and they have interest whatsoever in conducting research, supervising graduate students, etc. Why force a recently hired assistant to teach intro – which they don’t want to teacher – when there are already part-time faculty kicking around who would love to do it? Students will (and I’m sure evidence could be found, but I’m not immediately aware of it) do better in their courses if their instructor is actually interested in the material. Likewise, for faculty engaged in research projects, there should be institutional and instructional outlets for that work in the form of seminars.

   So, rather than having sessionals begging for work, begging to be re-hired, and making next-to-nothing for teaching large lecture courses that no one else wants to teach, I think we – as academics – and the university owe it to current sessionals to treat them with basic dignities: such as certainty of employment, reasonable wages, etc. Hence, I fully support the removal of sessional/adjunct positions in favour of permanent teaching positions. (I realize this puts me, practically, in a strange position insofar as I’ll be teaching one course for the third time and another course for the second time this coming academic year: these courses – regular offerings – should not be taught by sessionals, but by permanent employees. Not that I’d want to be a full-time teacher now or in the future.)

   Regarding CRCs, I haven’t read your article yet. I’ll make sure to do so. Also, I don’t view you as someone who wants to destroy institutional flatness: I think you have been very clear on that point. Lastly, I completely agree with you with respect to the giant endowments held by major universities. On a related note, I think it is theft for universities to administer SSHRC/CGS/OGS scholarships when the university holds the money in their interest bearing accounts paying out the scholarships monthly to students – students should get that interest; not the university. Or, at least, that interest should be directly funneled back into bursaries and internal scholarships.

   Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
10. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

    Craig,

    I think the issues we are addressing here are really complex, and require broad thinking about the institutional consequences of the changes that some administrators are proposing (and others might jump on board with at some point). But I don’t disagree with you that the present situation for young scholars outside of the tenure stream is morally intolerable, politically problematic and is harmful to the quality of Canadian education (and thus ultimately harmful to the society as a whole). I also agree that the skill-set required for teaching large classes and being a quality undergraduate teacher is not the same as the skill set for being a first-rate publishing scholar/researcher. And it is certainly the case that not all senior tenured faculty members in our universities remain first-rate publishing scholars and researchers. There is irrationality in the system, rooted in the origins of the research university and institutional inertia. So these things should be debated openly, with as much civility as possible.

    One important issue, however, is how to measure and talk about what is quality education and what is best for student learning? Teaching evaluations? Well, having spent time in places where there is no teaching evaluations, I would say they have their role and should not be thrown out. But they have their limits. Serious limits. We need to be talking about other ways to talk about quality teaching, and reward and encourage it.
    And while I could support some well designed institutional reform that puts high level intellectually oriented teachers in the undergraduate classroom with tenure like-status even though they are not high level publishers (either through ability or interest), there are lots of ways where these kinds of reforms could simply be ways for university administrators to save money, for established faculty (whether they publish or not) to dump undergraduate teaching on junior faculty, and for students to help undermine quality and standards in the interests of ease, fun and convenience.
    So I am really excited about the new teaching professor we have at McMaster and will be doing everything I can to support her career as she moves through the system, I do have lots of concerns about where this is going at a broader institutional level. Or where it could go. Again though, you are not wrong that something has to be done – I would choose at this point to push as much as possible to create more tenure stream positions, maintaining, although perhaps modifying the traditional research/teaching link. But there is lots to talk about, no doubt…

    Neil McLaughlin

    Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment