No problem with a two page cover letter. Actual problems already explained. See above.

Again, a matter of the department being inconvenienced whilst others work through hardships the department does not understand. That’s fine. We wouldn’t want to disturb a well paid academic from a summer in France.

This argument, and those who extend it, are a major part of the problem. It is not at all difficult to recruit to a schedule without wasting the applicant’s time. The thought that this schedule is impossible because a department first invites CVs is not at all convincing. It is ridiculous.

If the hiring department is being “inconvenienced”, then it should be ashamed. Neither myself or @Dunham has argued that ECRs should not prepare a cover letter at all. In fact we have both argued the opposite: that a cover letter is perfectly necessary but only AFTER an initial sift based on the CV. Your own claim is that your hiring department establishes that 50% of applicants are uncompetitive from the credentials in the CV and it only THEN reads cover letters to long list from the remaining 50%. (“The other 50% do have those things but largely have very similar cvs, so that's when we read the cover letters”).

It is therefore quite clear that 50% of applicants are wasting their time. This can easily be avoided with 1) a more honest and precise job specification or, in its absence, 2) my proposal of an initial sift based on CV alone.



There is no need to sidetrack the conversation with dishonesty. No one has suggested that equal opportunities is not important. On the contrary, it is absolutely crucial. And neither is anyone suggesting that one should be unwilling to fill out an equal opportunities form for administrative purposes. The problem is that there is a horrid double standard at play.

You are being shown how equality of opportunity is actually NOT being extended. This is because a statement of purpose is quite obviously not essential at the application stage because of all the reasons you have already outlined. That is, there are discrete criteria (not in the job specification) which give ECRs false hope and waste their time.

How we think about fairness should not be about how it can help us to avoid lawsuits. We should think about how we can make the system actually fairer. By presenting the actual criteria for a lectureship in the job specification (according to you: postdoctoral funding, a monograph, journal papers, etc), we would ALL save time.

The rules are different for academic and academic-related positions. With academic positions, there is dishonesty in the job advert and the playing field is not level. Indeed you have demonstrated this with your own insights. Just look at what you have said.

According to you: committees “argue about whether a Marie Curie or a Leverhulme postdoc fellowship is more impressive”. Why then is something along the lines of “a funded postdoctoral fellowship” not an essential point in the job specification? (I have never seen it and neither has any ECR I am sticking up for by writing this thread.)

Why waste our time time, and your own? If your answer is because it would be unfair to include “postdoctoral funding” in the job specification, you would be right. But the way to tackle unfairness and bias is not to defer it to later in the recruitment process whilst waving your credentials as a champion of equal opportunities. You can choose to do something about this dishonesty, or you can remain complicit. What you are doing is the latter and quite frankly I think you should be ashamed.

And as for “basic admin jobs”, I wouldn’t describe them that way, I would have more respect.




I think you might mean well, but based on what you have said in this thread, I doubt that you understand poverty. I doubt that you understand its implications. It is a privileged person who argues that a hiring department is being “inconvenienced” and that a good candidate might be “on holiday” when a statement of purpose is required and that such a scenario is a potential “can of worms”.

No Madam/Sir: there are good candidates who cannot afford a holiday. There are good candidates who have paid for their own education. Every penny. These are the candidates who are removed from your initial sift because you look for candidates who have won postdoctoral funding. It is a system of appalling elitism which valorises the already privileged.

Mine is not a solitary voice. Countless ECRs feel this way, particularly those from less privileged backgrounds. This thread is their voice as much as it is mine.

In that case, it's very simple: the job specification should be honest. It should state that REFable publications are essential not desirable. That would stop wasting the applicant's time, which is more precious than someone on a selection committee, whose salary compensates her/him for the time spent reviewing applications.



This line of argument is totally unconvincing. There is an entire summer over which academics can recruit. The point is not to waste the applicant's time. That is, the person with a PhD who is queuing at the job centre. THAT person's time.

There is no can of worms. A candidate who is touring Venice and is thus too busy to formulate a statement of purpose when it is requested does not need the job enough.

It is easier if there is one deadline for everything, yes. It is easier for gatekeepers in academic departments who have either 1) lost touch with the unnecessary demands placed on applicants, or 2) have no experience of what it feels like to be on the bread line.

And no one is calling for undeserving candidates (e.g. those who have not articulated a research plan) to be interviewed.



Let's concentrate on fixing the broken UK system first shall we? Our system is no better because it is slightly less ridiculous than the US one. Our responsibilities are with this one. This is especially true for you, seeing as you are a privileged member of a selection committee.

1) Thank you for explaining HR to me. I was not aware what it was.

2) Yes we all understand what a cover letter allows us to do. The point is that hardly anyone creates a long list after reading the statement because there are so many applications. Why do you support wasting applicants' time by making them write statements which only become meaningful at the long list stage? It makes no sense at all. It is administration which appeals only to those religiously devoted to HR.

Good, so you agree that a great deal of time and energy can be spared in this process. This thread simply registers the point, and that Is what it is for. Thanks for your reply.

Why not make the first stage of the application process (for a lectureship/postdoc, etc) a simple CV review?

Once your long list is decided, you can then request a letter of application and further materials.

This will save me, you and basically everyone in the process a huge amount of time.

Sorry, what's that, you think that's not a good idea? You don't like this idea because you enjoy [bleeping] wasting my [bleeping] time and energy on long pointless applications?

Fair enough. I understand. It's not your fault that you feel the need to "judge" 100+ application letters by spending 30 seconds on each one to make yourself feel special and important.

Kind [bleeping] regards,

Dr. disillusioned with this ridiculous charade that is academia

First thing, sorry to hear this. If you browse this forum you will see that everyone has a different journey and often it is a complicated one. Take heart from knowing that your situation is not unique and can be overcome.

Suggestions: would say that your supervisor does have a point, even if it is being expressed a bit flippantly. The fact is that you can try your best to get something submitted and go from there. The key is to get something submitted. Seems you have worked hard in the past 3.5 years and know your stuff. Now is the time to trust yourself.

How many chapters do you have to do, and what percentage is each one complete right now?

Looks like I could be waiting for a while then marasp. How are you (not) keeping your mind off it? Wish i could go abroad but I'll have to content myself with a few bubble baths and a manicure when there is some free time.

Well you know what Locke? I'm going to toast your success with a cuppa right now. Well done indeed, and thanks for sharing the email. As I await my result, I am convinced I will have more corrections to make to my arguments but hope it works out well. I'll post back when I hear from them. Anyway, here's to you: raise your cuppa. 8--)

Terrific outlook, Coco. I hope it works out for you - sounds like you deserve it. True that a bold dissertation has its risks. So true!

Congratulations Locke, well done! Can we have the skinny? What did the email say? Who sent it? What was the result? Was it minor corrections? What is your schedule for completion, etc?
Thanks.

Hi everyone, has anyone any experience of how long it took their examiners to come back with reports/a verdict on a PhD resubmission?

The waiting is really tricky, and I've looked back on my thesis and seen a few typos here and there which make me wince. Any thoughts or advice?

Thanks.

P.s. Mine was a full resubmission, as outlined previously on this thread.
http://www.postgraduateforum.com/thread-31777/

Take the funded opportunity. I was in precisely your position some years ago and still regret going for a RG uni vs. a full funding opp. Take the money and run. Learn to publish papers and get the thing done as soon as you can. No one interviewing you will care much in 4 years' time because you have already been to an RG university. A cade of been there, done that.