Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »

The waiting is the worst. Hang in there and remember you made a good impression and that's not nothing.

The Howard University Department of Psychology invites applications for a tenure-track Assistant Professor position in Quantitative Psychology, beginning August 16, 2017. Candidates must have a Ph.D. in Psychology or a related field by the time of appointment, an active research program, a strong commitment to quality teaching, and the potential to attract, or an established record of, extramural funding.

The areas of specialty can include quantitative, cognitive, developmental, social, personality, clinical, health and neuropsychology. Candidates with a Ph.D. in a substantive area must demonstrate strong quantitative skills by graduate-level coursework and/or published research. Successful candidates will teach undergraduate and doctoral level statistics and research methods courses, and courses in the candidate’s area of expertise.

Salary will be commensurate with education and experience. The committee will consider applicants on a rolling basis starting May 1 until the position is filled. Interested candidates should submit via email the following to Dr. Woojae Kim, the Chair of Quantitative Area Search Committee (ude.drawoh|hcysPevitatitnauQ#ude.drawoh|hcysPevitatitnauQ): a CV, research and teaching statements, reprints and/or preprints, transcript(s) of graduate coursework, and three letters of recommendation.

Howard University is an Equal Opportunity/Equal Access/Affirmative Action employer fully committed to achieving a diverse workforce. All individuals, including minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans are encouraged to apply.

Note: This quant position is separate from our two other positions (cognitive, neuropsych).

oh the waiting! and a confusing situation.

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.

Way to go, Brandy, for standing up to KK.

I've seen KK's stance on this before. I found what I think is the post I'm talking about:

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!

Four weeks has passed, there is still no news………..

Wish I'd found this thread earlier! Below you will find a series of email exchanged between Karen and I that I think sum up her demeanor. I have not blanked out identifying information, so if you want, you can probably pretty easily figure out who I am.

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

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.


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


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).


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.

The Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at Regis University in Denver Colorado is looking for a full-time affiliate faculty instructor for the 2017-2018 academic year. This faculty member will teach 6-7 courses consisting of a combination of: General Psychology, Social Psychology, Behavior and Stress Management, and Research Methods and Behavioral Statistics. There are no research or committee expectations with this position.

The Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at Regis University is a collaborative and exciting department with excellent faculty who are happy to serve as mentors for developing faculty.

Ph.D. in psychology, or related field. Previous teaching experience is preferred.
Salary The salary for this position is no less than $48,000 plus benefits. Please send cover letter and CV to Mark Basham, Ph.D. (ude.siger|mahsabm#ude.siger|mahsabm)

Postdoctoral position, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University

The Social Brain Lab at Indiana University, directed by Dr. Dan Kennedy, is seeking a postdoctoral researcher for an NIH-funded research project. The lab investigates the neural and cognitive mechanisms underlying human social functioning, and how these mechanisms break down in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Methods include functional neuroimaging (with an emphasis on functional connectivity), eye tracking, and behavioral experiments.

We are looking for someone with a Ph.D. in neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, computer science, mathematics, statistics, or a related area. The ideal candidate would have a strong quantitative background, previous training in social or cognitive neuroscience, and an interest in psychopathology and ASD. Experience with MATLAB and familiarity with neuroimaging analysis software (e.g., FSL, SPM, AFNI, Freesurfer, ANTs) and advanced analysis methods (e.g., graph theory, functional connectivity, multivariate analyses) is preferred. Applicants must have good organizational skills, and enjoy working in a collaborative environment.

The position is available immediately, but the start date can be flexible. We will begin reviewing applications immediately, and will continue reviewing them on a rolling basis until the position is filled. Salary is commensurate with experience, and includes health benefits.

To apply, please email your application to Dan Kennedy (dpk AT Please include a coverletter (with a proposed start date), your CV, 3 representative publications, and contact information for three references (or letters).

I got confused because you posted this on another person's thread and I conflated your situation with theirs. Given that you are a new person and not the person who had posted about their previous situation, I am less sure that you are definitely #2, (i.e. the dept could have said "we can't decide — dean/provost, decide for us!") but the most likely thing is that you are #2.

I agree with the person who posted a few spots back on this thread. A lot of the time they say it takes 2 weeks but in my experience I always got the offer immediately after the last person interviewed. I WAS the last person on two occasions and once I didn't even make it home before they were calling. I didn't get the official letter then, but I truly believe they contact their first choice person immediately after the last interview (or rather as soon as the dept/committee meets, which is pretty fast because they want to move things along and can schedule this to happen right after that last interview in most cases.)

I think the reason most places say 2 weeks is because they want to keep you hanging on in case you are #2 (or even #3). And they do try to force a decision on the first person within this timeframe, usually.

jobseeker6500, thank you for your answer, I really hope I can get it, but three weeks have passed, and i am still waiting…………………..

I'd say you are the second choice for sure but they are waiting on #1 and the possibility of a second line opening up since you were also so strongly liked.

2 weeks passed since the on campus interview of last candidate and after made an email inquiry, I got a response from the search chair that I am one of the top two candidates. The process is taking time since they need the approvals of the dean, provost and HR. He will let me know as soon as he knows more. What does it mean? is the offer is made to another candidate and waiting for the reply from him?

Research Fund: 40k for lab computers, undergrad RAs, participant payments, other equipment
Moving expenses: 10k+ (in-state)
Summer salary: 1 month administrative prep stipend before my start date, 3 months year 1, 2 months year 2, 1 month year 3
Graduate Student RA funds: full 12-month salary, plus tuition and benefits for 3 years
Partner Placement Services
Type of institution: R1
Research area: Developmental
Region: SW
Gender: M
Negotiation: Negotiated 20% salary increase

1) Area of application (e.g., cognitive, developmental, social):Child Clinical/Developmental
2) Posdoc (Yes/No): No
3) Grant funding (Yes/No): Yes (NSF, APA, SRCD)
4) Number of publications: 10
5) Number of FA publications: 4
6) Number of A-journal publications (and how many were FA): 1 FA in very strong general psych journal, 2 FA in strong area-specific journals
7) Number of classes taught (or TA'd): 1
8) Your current status as an applicant (grad student, postdoc, asst/assoc/full prof): grad student, on internship
9) Type of job applied for (R1, R2, SLAC, CC, postdoc): R1, some R2's, top SLACs
10) Outcome (offer, interview, phone interview, grueling despair):20 apps, 6 phone interviews, 3 campus interviews, 2 offers (R1 and research-heavy SLAC). Turned down both offers to take a postdoc that offered a great fit for my research interests and was in the best location for my family. Hoping I don't regret it down the line!

Re: Hiring Cycle Statistics by clindevttclindevtt, 10 Apr 2017 17:56

the search chair gave a very neutral response. that's a "good" response in that it's responsible - the SC can't say more than that since it sounds like their process is, well, in process. it affects your life but on their end it's one of many tasks the admin offices are handling. we don't get to know all the ins and outs of other institutions. so, yes, you are stuck in uncertainty without a way to get more info.

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!

Job Cycle 1

1) Area of application (e.g., cognitive, developmental, social): Social
2) Posdoc (Yes/No): No
3) Grant funding (Yes/No): No
4) Number of publications: 6
5) Number of FA publications: 4
6) Number of A-journal publications (and how many were FA): 1? (1)
7) Number of classes taught (or TA'd): 10
8) Your current status as an applicant (grad student, postdoc, asst/assoc/full prof): ABD grad student
9) Type of job applied for (R1, R2, SLAC, CC, postdoc): mostly R2s and SLACs
10) Outcome (offer, interview, phone interview, grueling despair): Offered 1x tenure track, 1x visiting, and 1x Post-Doc (took the tenure track)

Job Cycle 2
(omitted stuff that didn't change0
3) Grant funding (Yes/No): No
4) Number of publications: 7
5) Number of FA publications: 4
6) Number of A-journal publications (and how many were FA): 1? (1)
7) Number of classes taught (or TA'd): 25+
8) Your current status as an applicant (grad student, postdoc, asst/assoc/full prof): asst prof
9) Type of job applied for (R1, R2, SLAC, CC, postdoc): R1, R2, strong SLACs
10) Outcome (offer, interview, phone interview, grueling despair): landed interviews with around 70% of places I applied for, took 1st offer which was the best position I applied for

My tip to applicants is to cast as wide a net as possible with your first academic job search, even if it means living in a very non-ideal place or working at a non-ideal institution as full time faculty. My research portfolio didn't advance tremendously between my positions, but it seems once you're in the faculty ranks and have strong student evaluations, it's a lot easier to move around (and move on up). Of course, this doesn't necessarily apply to an R1 position. For that, you're better off with a strong post-doc route as the first position.

Re: Hiring Cycle Statistics by DocJDocJ, 10 Apr 2017 13:46

1) Area of application (e.g., cognitive, developmental, social): clinical/health/public health
2) Posdoc (Yes/No): yes
3) Grant funding (Yes/No): yes - predoc and postdoc fellowships
4) Number of publications: 16
5) Number of FA publications: 11
6) Number of A-journal publications (and how many were FA):
7) Number of classes taught (or TA'd): 4
8) Your current status as an applicant (grad student, postdoc, asst/assoc/full prof): postdoc
9) Type of job applied for (R1, R2, SLAC, CC, postdoc): R1, R2, SLAC
10) Outcome (offer, interview, phone interview, grueling despair): 10+ phone interviews, 9 campus interviews (went to 7), 2 offers

2 weeks passed since the on campus interview of last candidate and after made an email inquiry, I got a response from the search chair that I am one of the top two candidates. The process is taking time since they need the approvals of the dean, provost and HR. He will let me know as soon as he knows more. What does it mean? is the offer is made to another candidate and waiting for the reply from him?

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in Forensic or Criminological Psychology
The School of Psychology is seeking to make a permanent, fulltime appointment at the Lecturer or Senior Lecturer level. The area of content specialisation for this position is Forensic or Criminological Psychology and we welcome applications from individuals who have specialist knowledge in these and aligned areas, such as, human aggression, eye witness testimony, offender rehabilitation, forensic risk assessment, forensic mental health, desistance, intellectual disabilities, substance misuse or investigative psychology. This is an exciting opportunity to join an energetic forensic psychology group with international research and teaching expertise within a world leading university.

The purpose of this position is to contribute to the School’s research, service and teaching, in the broad area of forensic and criminological psychology. The staff member will be expected to add to the School’s existing strengths in these areas, in addition to teaching forensic psychology courses at both the undergraduate and post-graduate level. In particular, they would teach into the MSc in Forensic Psychology and coordinate courses on this programme.

The successful applicant will have a PhD in psychology, a strong research and publication record, experience supervising post-graduate research, and in teaching in forensic psychology, or an area of psychology related to this, at the university level.

The University has an excellent research culture and the School of Psychology is recognised as the leading Psychology Department in New Zealand. The School hosts research laboratories in many of psychology’s specialty areas: cognition, learning, social, cross-cultural, developmental, behavioural pharmacology, neuropsychology, organisational, clinical, and forensic psychology. It is also home to the Victoria Psychology Clinic, the Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families, and Centre for Applied Cross-cultural Research.
As the capital city of New Zealand, Wellington is home to parliament, key government agencies and judicial courts, providing excellent opportunities for developing research and professional partnerships with Government and NGOs. It is a vibrant, scenic and creative city making it a wonderful place to live and work.

For further information please contact Associate Professor Louise Dixon, School of Psychology, at:||noxid.esiuol. Please do not send applications to this email address.

Applications must be submitted online at:

Applications close: 5 June 2017

Reference: 1538

1) Area of application (e.g., cognitive, developmental, social): Cognitive
2) Posdoc (Yes/No):No, but on VAP
3) Grant funding (Yes/No): No
4) Number of publications:8
5) Number of FA publications: 5
6) Number of A-journal publications (and how many were FA): 2 FA publications in good journals in my domain (though not necessarily A journals)
7) Number of classes taught (or TA'd): as instructor of record, 5 different courses, more than 20 sections over the past 4 years
8) Your current status as an applicant (grad student, postdoc, asst/assoc/full prof): VAP
9) Type of job applied for (R1, R2, SLAC, CC, postdoc): R2, SLAC, reginal state university
10) Outcome (offer, interview, phone interview, grueling despair):10+ phone interviews, 5 campus interviews (went three), 2 offers

Re: Hiring Cycle Statistics by dariussdariuss, 09 Apr 2017 16:31
page »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License