I recommend her to all of my colleagues and students.

BUT for reasons I don't understand, she is abrasive and condescending to her paying clients.

I did not enjoy working with her but the results were undeniable in my case.

If you work with Karen be prepared to have a VERY thick skin.

I hope this helps. Anecdotally, this was a fairly tough job market from what colleagues on search committees have told me. The applicant pools for even non-elite SLACs/R1s were full of strong candidates.

And better luck on the market next year!

I struck out on the job market this year (boohoo, I certainly wasn't the only one), but I'm lucky enough to have been renewed for the second time as a 9-month Lecturer at an elite SLAC. As I continue to put out papers, I am wondering whether I should list this as my institutional affiliation? I do not technically "do" any research at the elite SLAC — most of my data come from MTurk, but I occasionally collect data from my students here. The other possibility would be to list my PhD-granting institution, where I am co-director of a lab, but have no other affiliation.

Any thoughts? Potential downsides of listing this as my affiliation? Thanks!

I looked back at your original post and, y'know, it could be anything - maybe they shared too much info right after your visit, maybe things are just disorganized there or go slowly, maybe negotiations with the first choice took longer or fell through. New thought too - that second position could possibly be from someone considering leaving which means a dept would be left waiting on those negotiations.

Any chance that they meant the second position was a visiting/lecturer/postdoc position? Those can open up now-ish - so that 4 week delay might make sense - and I've seen departments go first to the applicants for the tenure track job and see if they are interested.

I've seen KK's stance on this before. I found what I think is the post I'm talking about:
https://chroniclevitae.com/news/745-the-weepy-teaching-statement

On the one hand she is aware of the sexism aspect of it. And as she said in her message to you she wants to give advice to applicants on how to navigate the market within the norms of the market. On the other hand, in spite of her awareness, she doesn't handle it well IMO, neither in the article and even less so in the communication with you. Basically she's saying, "I'm aware of this sexism but rather than speaking out against it I will choose to perpetuate it with the advice I give. I will also judge people in this sexist manner."

I get where her advice is coming from. Because of sexism, basically, one should not write in this so-called "feminized" way in order to succeed on the market. However, I consider her e-mails to you to be quite rude and unprofessional. IMO in spite of her disclaimer in the article linked above or in her messages to you, she seems all too willing to perpetuate stereotypes rather than call them out.

I hope you are successful on the job market!

For background, I employed Dr. Kelsky to edit my cover letter, CV, research statement, and teaching statement. I had already read her book and blog and tried my best to get the documents as polished as I could using those (often vague) guidelines. As others have said, her advice in early rounds was very generic and often contradictory (make it shorter and add more detail). I accepted her very brusque critics and tried to be thick skinned about it all, but as a researcher who deals with gender bias, I couldn't let the following email pass by without comment.

April 16th - From Karen Kelsky

Brandy.
This RS is not terrible (aside from that horrible when I was a little girl beginning — I get that you have a "quirky" side but that cutesy beginning is not professional) but needs some help in organization and presentation. Please read Chapter 27 in my book, The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. Into a Job, and check out these examples. Then send back for line edits. Get rid of the references at the end — the RS is not an article, and it is not a grant proposal. It is a narrative of your intellectual contributions.

As a reminder, documents must be as attached Word docx file and both the file name and email subject heading MUST include your name, document type and draft #. Example: KelskyRSDraft2.

~~

My response on April 17th

Dr. Kelsky,

I gave myself some time to think about your response to my research statement, as I have given myself some time to think about several of your comments throughout this process. More than a few times I have felt stung by the brusqueness of your comments, but on reflection I have found them useful and on point. However, in this case, I feel I would be remiss in not responding.

As someone who has researched issues of gender in academia, you must be fully aware of how words like “cutesy” and “quirky” are deployed to undermine women. Showing any personality can be just the excuse needed for folks to dismiss women’s work. I recognize that your comments are meant to help guide me away from trouble, however, I feel your critique could have been delivered more professionally, and frankly, less cruelly.

I took a risk with that introduction in an attempt to capture the reader’s attention. I am fully cognizant that search committees must wade through dozens and even hundreds of applications. I was looking for something that would stand out and make the reader want to learn more. You say it won’t fly, and I accept that. I confess though, it is galling to have these words casually flung at me by someone who is supposed to be helping. Would you have been so quick to unleash the “cute” bomb had this been the story of a male client?

I urge you in the future, not to employ the very weapons that are used to dismiss and discredit women on a daily basis in your work. A simple statement that the introduction is too personal and does not fit would have sufficed.

Brandy

~~~
Her response a few hours later

Brandy, I use the adjectives that apply, and in your case, those are the ones that do. I'm really concerned tht at this point in working with me, you're still trying to use gimmicks to "stand out." My writing in my book and on my blog explains very clearly that what stands out on the academic job market is factual writing that communicates the substance of your record without any gimmicks, emotionalism, or rhetoric. You continue to rely on all of those. If you want to keep doing that, we should not work together. But I'm not going to use some different words that are less accurate about any client's actual writing problems, regardless of gender. In fact, to go a step further, what you're doing is exactly the self-sabotaging writing style that women are all too prone to do (although it's not unknown among men), and that actually prevents them from succeeding in the academic workplace, which has all the biases that I try to explain in my book and blog. The tactics that made you successful as a former Slug Queen are not the things that are going to work for you on the ac. job market. I totally get that this may be a reason to dislike the academic job market and rethink your desire to be in academia, and I totally support that. I encourage people to do something other than academia all the time. But if you're trying to work WITHIN the academic job market, with me, my job is to tell you what works, what does not work, and why, using the most accurate words I can. Karen

~~~

Comment from Brandy: I had in fact not employed any "gimmicks" like the story I told oh so briefly at the beginning of my research statement in the CV or cover letter we had worked on previously. No had she commented/complained that I was trying to use tricks.

If you don't know what a slug queen is, don't worry, suffice it to say, it is in fact a quirky thing to be but still not an excuse to be a jerk.

~~~
April 17th -Brandy's final email - yet to hear back she will refund my money as written in her policy

Karen,

I don’t think this is going to work out. I accept the criticism that the intro paragraph of the research statement won’t work. I do, in fact, know that I can be too colloquial and that the strategies that have worked for me as an advocate and educator are not welcome in academia. For that reason I engaged a knowledgeable editor to help me with this tendency.

Your manner of delivery, however, was disrespectful and sexist. I wasn’t going to say anything, but I’ve been working on advocating for myself, as I advise my own students to do. I don’t think I can keep working with someone who cannot differentiate between criticism and insult. Throughout this process I have responded to your edits and attempted to follow your advice in good faith. I have asked that you put more thought in couching your criticism and you have responded by implying that I am not a suitable candidate for academia.

I’m sure you think this is tough love for a foolish young woman. But I’m 40 years old and have worked in academia for 20 years. I’ve had my big girl undies on for a very long time, am fully aware of my faults, and I’m done putting up with bullies.

Please refund me whatever you think is fair for the work you have completed on the research statement thus far and for the teaching statement on which we have not yet worked (minus the $50 reschedule fee per your policy).

Brandy

P.S. The correct terminology is “Old” SLUG Queen, not “former." Once a queen ALWAYS a queen.

~~~
Judge the exchange as you will. But as I said, I'm a big girl and I'm done paying to take abuse. I only wish there were a convenient place to review academic services like you can for restaurants and roofers.

keep in mind too, it's in their best interests to convey an "it's possible" message - if they do get the position then they want to fill it and they know you are capable and interested.

focus on what you are in control of - getting your work done and taking good care of yourself during this uncertain time.

I wish you well!