cv questions

[yo]

you could try "projects in preparation." I have seen some cvs that do that.

[jobtalker]

I would say that, aside from whether or not it is tacky or padding, adding job talks as invited lectures would further reinforce that you've not been successful on the job market... Unless you are just not describing them as job talks on your CV, then that's weird. Imagine someone reviewing a CV and saying, 'Oh, this person gave a talk at Princeton, I know X there, and I'll ask her how it was received... Wait: It was a job talk? Oh...'

[anonym]

I guess I still don't get the job talk thing. A job talk is an invited presentation where you talk for an hour or more to a room full of sociologists interested in your work. How is that any less a "professional activity" than, for example, talking to 5 people, two of which are asleep, at some regional conference for 10 minutes.

I see the "wreak of failure" argument, but anyone who has been involved with this before knows that hiring decisions often have more to do with "fit", politics, or whatever than anything else. Unless you blew the talk, would it really be a bad thing for a person to ask their friend at another department about you?

[wtf]

Oh, I know...I hate when I don't get the Princeton job like that. Classic scenario!

While I'm grateful for those who come on this board to educate the great unwashed and middling sociologists to make sure we don't do anything "tacky" on our CVs, I'm not so sure that putting a job talk on your CV would give a committee "pause" or that it signals your lack of success on the market. Last year, you would be considered fortunate to have an interview (many PhDs with multiple publications on last year's forum received none). While I don't list job talks under "invited presentations" either, I think there are some overactive imaginations at work here, creating make-believe scenarios about the thought processes of search committees and their highly sensitive padding detectors. Just saying...don't overthink it.

[lalala]

let me repeat myself:
"This is one of those things where people deal with uncertainty by overthinking and obsessing with minor and mostly irrelevant details. "


Does anyone here really think that it's that job talk that you decided to include (or not) or that publication under review that you decided to include (or not) that will land you the job?

Scenarios where those things play a significant role are barely plausible, never mind probable. And even when they do play a small role, you just can't know which way it will affect the decision.

I mean, I know this is one of those yearly "15 pages of endless arguments where A will claim he knows someone who lost a job for cv padding and B swears she knows someone who got a job because she cv padded," but cmon.

[WeRock]

Well, for anyone who thinks we are getting obsessive or uncivil around here, just spend a few seconds on the political science job market blog:

www.poliscijobrumors.com/

I for one, would like to congratulate this year's blog for being uncommonly helpful and respectful-- keep it up people!

[jobtalker]

Hey wtf: I didn't say that I had the job talk at Princeton! I was looking through the job lists previous to posting on this thread and read the Princeton one... Sheesh, don't be touchy. (I could easily be seen as being unwashed as well. Downright filthy, academically. So, no pedantry intended.) Still, people come on here to ask for advice or opinion, and this is mine.

I think that if you put it on once, maybe it won't be a big deal... (But again: as a 'job talk' or just lumped in with other invitations?) I agree with the 'let's not overthink it' meme here, but to take it one step further (since 'wtf' has me thinking about status): I guess that listing a job talk as an invited lecture could be one of several ways to communicate to the reader what types of social communities you see the applicant sees him or herself in, or those s/he want to make them feel s/he (almost) belongs in. In fact, I would guess that there are applicants who would want the reader to know that they were interviewed at a place like Princeton, and sees that as a good thing.

I agree that there are far worse boards out there, and this is hardly controversial. Still no offense intended....

[procrastinating]

Here's another question. How so you list roundtable presentations on your CV? Do you say roundtable or do you just say you presented at such and such a conference.

[round table]

No need to specify it was at a roundtable - just present title of talk, name, date and location of conference.

Aw - the beauty of roundtables, all the credit, a fraction of the stress.

[id]

Yeah, I know roundtables are credited just like any other talk.

So, is the consensus here that your cover letter should indeed be on department letterhead?

[anomiee]

I was told in no uncertain terms that using departmental letterhead was dishonest, because such letter head was reserved for faculty and official university business. So take that for what it is. On the other hand, I'm sure not that many people would actually fault you for it. Probably does not matter much what you do.

[readyRnot]

Unless your department specifically has a problem with you using its letterhead, go ahead and use it. Having seen hundreds of application packets come through my department, I can attest that applicants most often use departmental letterhead for their cover letters. This is, of course, my personal opinion about it. Obviously, some others disagree.

[agree]

I agree. My department happily provides letterhead and other supplies, and I find it odd that a department wouldn't since it is in their interest to assist you in finding a position.

[Mine too]

Mine too! Let's move on-- does anyone really think this could matter?

[samesies]

I agree -- this does not matter. My dept. provides letterhead and typically pays for postage on job applications.