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'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.

There were also a lot of delays in this experience, which she apologized for by citing political and personal commitments. Life gets in the way, I know, but it still makes it difficult to meet deadlines.

All of this would be fine if she was not so unnecessarily rude. In fact, she was quite polite up until she (re)edited by mistake an older draft of a cover letter, and then yelled at me when I pointed it out. She deflected attention from her mistakes by insulting me. A lot! There are certainly valid arguments for growing a thicker skin, but unnecessary rudeness is not really justifiable in my book. And I never received the final draft of the 4-draft promise before the deadline.

Since job apps are all about creating a certain representation of yourself, I know my job materials comport more to the representation Kelsky deems best. Hopefully, this means that my application materials make me appealing for TT jobs in my field. I am just unsure how search committees will see this new representation, because presumably, the Kelsky-brand has now filtered across the desks of many search committees. I wonder if the instrumentalism evident in Kelsky's style of editing is obvious to people, and how they then perceive the applicant. After I got back the Kelsky-vetted final document, I still ended up changing a few things here and there, to make it more in line with my views and persona. We'll see how it goes, I guess.

Bottomline, I think Kelsky's services were valuable for two drafts, but then there were diminishing returns with subsequent drafts, and it is best to exercise a little of your own judgment.

I think she provides a valuable service to people who are completely in the dark. But if you have a decent advisor, some friends in the field who can review materials, this site, etc, then she is a waste of money.

Also she gives you access to other people documents through google doc, which I found inappropriate. She does give good advice in her book. After my unfortunate experience, 2 of my colleagues shared the same kind of experience.

To be unhappy with one's own life choices is fine; to spread that unhappiness in the guise
of a business is nothing short of corrupt.

I agree with the others here that her blog posts are typically quite helpful. Of course, job market successful friends and advisors are helpful too for more substantial feedback.

The worst part, is that she will absolutely NOT answer any questions that you pose to her. It says in her initial letter describing the process, that any questions you have, you should include in the email with your draft. I had several questions about my CV for my first draft that where relatively straight-forward, and she literally ignored them until I forced the issue, and then she told me she would have to charge me extra money to answer the questions! For the prices I paid, that's insane. The only reason I kept going with her is because I heard it's almost impossible to get your money back from her, as she makes you pay upfront.

That said, I think her book and most of her blog posts are helpful. My advice is to do the following: Get the book, read the blog posts. Find a job search buddy, in your general field, or related, and switch back and forth editing each other's drafts and applying the principles in her book. Also, get example cover letter and research statements from recent successful applicants, and if you can get examples from people who got jobs in the department you are applying for, even better.

And, yes, she is also NOT nice. At all. I was very polite to her throughout the entire process, even when asking her why she wasn't answering my questions or giving me specific feedback, and she was very, very rude.

The visiting committee seemed visibly confused, and the conversation moved on. In business — and, I'd argue, academia — successful people are the ones who are good at seeking out the mentorship they need, whether it comes from their boss, someone in a different department, or someone in a different company entirely. And it seems to be rare to have one.

When I applied for faculty positions, I had detailed advice and feedback from five faculty across three institutions. And I talked to *a lot* more people than that.

The reason she exists and makes so much money is because many advisors DO NOT do the things they are supposed to — including providing realistic and thorough feedback on ALL parts of the application package. I went to an R1 for my PhD and even though I knew I was applying for teaching jobs, my advisor SWORE that the research statement was THE most important. He did not provide any feedback on my teaching statement and could not provide concrete suggestions for the cover letter. I truly believe he didn't think it mattered as much.

When I applied to my first job, my research statement was ridiculously long. I'm surprised I got any bites given that I was focusing my applications to teaching schools. Surprisingly, my application did result in one interview that translated into my first teaching job. After working in my first job for several years (and sitting on search committees), I saw how flawed my first application package was. When it came time to re-apply, I relied VERY HEAVILY on Kelsey's blog — specifically for the cover letter.

Some of the most helpful insights I think she has are for women — particularly in using submissive language in the cover letter.

e.g., I would be most honored to…
I am very passionate about…
I would be willing to teach…

She highlights the importance of rephrasing statements that illustrate your capabilities and knowledge. She argues that everyone has to teach — so it's part of the job — you don't need to be honored or willing to say what you could teach.

She reminds you to QUIT LISTING things and really spell out in concrete terms what you have done or provide examples to illustrate what is on your CV. This is probably the BIGGEST FLAW/PROBLEM I see on most cover letters… you're just listing what's on your CV… I can read your CV… but your list of publications doesn't tell me your process or if you involved undergrads. I can see that you got great teaching evals — BUT WHY? What did you do in your class that was so awesome and amazing?

I wish I would have known about her for my first time on the market. I probably couldn't have afforded personal services, but she had a lot of great tips on her blog that were free. She also occasionally offers cheaper topical seminars on various parts of the application process.

Unfortunately, so many graduate students don't have helpful advisors — and even if they do — they may not have the knowledge to help apply for non-R1 jobs. To the OP, if you're feeling like you haven't gotten decent feedback or that your application is all over the place, I could definitely see paying for her assistance. At minimum, make sure you've read all of her free blog posts.

Just ask a respectef PhD advisor, postdoc mentor, or colleague. You'll get more personalized advice

Honestly, this is what your mentor is supposed to be for. They have intimate knowledge of your field. I don't think Karen is a psychologist and spending time to get a teaching statement to a single page doesn't seem like a good use of time. Maybe that is the norm for humanities? But I commonly see psych teaching statements at 2 pages (mine was and currently is and I was successful on the market).

Your mentors likely served on psychology search committees and know what psychologists want to see in statements.

I know some mentors (grad/postdoc) may not invest this kind of time, but surely there is a former member of your lab who was successful? I often review materials for friends/colleagues and do so free of charge.

As the first anon noted…no amount of crafting a beautiful statement will overcome a poor publication record. It's just lipstick on a pig.