Tag Archives: phdlife

One Thing I Learned at MLA 2019

Committee members share a few takeaways from MLA 2019, Chicago:

“This was my third MLA. I presented in Austin in 2016, attended the New York conference in 2018, and presented twice–oddly enough, in back to back panels!–this year in Chicago. I’ve presented on panels and coordinated panels at MLA, and one of the presenters in one of my panels this year suggested we all meet for coffee or lunch the day before to coordinate. This was so helpful to me. I got to meet the folks I was presenting with, and I felt more comfortable the day of. We were also able to coordinate our talks in advance. That meant we minimized overlap and found authentic transitions between talks to make them seem linked. I think this made our panel feel more cohesive. Not all panels can do this, I know, but if you are placed on a panel, I’d highly recommend suggesting a quick coffee meet up beforehand. It could be 20 minutes in the hotel lobby; it’s amazing what a few minutes and a few friendly hellos can do for your confidence and organization.”    — Kristina Reardon

“MLA 2019 in Chicago was my second MLA, and it felt like it too. Last year’s MLA in New York was my first and it was certainly overwhelming, though I was neither interviewing nor presenting. The sheer amount of people in one place and the fast pace of the in-between panel walks can be disconcerting the first time around. I parked myself in the Graduate Student Lounge for the most part and limited myself to only attending 2 panels throughout the whole conference. This year in Chicago, however, I knew what to expect and planned accordingly. I picked out in advance the panels I wanted to attend, and I tried to schedule meetings with former colleagues in such a way that I was able to do everything I wanted. Having gone through my first MLA last year made this year’s so much better and easier to navigate. If at all possible, I highly recommend attending an MLA before you have to present or interview. Getting the major conference jitters out of the way ahead of time might just pay off in an unexpected way. ”    — Andrés N. Rabinovich

“One thing I learned at the MLA Conference this year is the importance (and pleasure!) of meeting other scholars at the conference. By attending different events, going to panels, and talking to people in the exhibit hall and in the grad lounge, I was able to meet a number of graduate students, professors, publishers, and other conference attendees with whom I had some fascinating and enlightening conversations. For example, I learned some great tips about applying to jobs from a first-year assistant professor, and I talked with another group of scholars about ways to incorporate our research interests into our classrooms. I appreciated the opportunity to learn from others, get advice about my research and career, and generally just make some new friends and connections! For future conferences, I plan to bring cards with my information on them to hand out to others, as several individuals had them, and they seem like a great way to share contact info without having to awkwardly take out my phone or search for a notebook and pen to write things down. I also noticed that some of the booths in the exhibit hall had contests where you could enter your card and win something, so it wouldn’t hurt to be able to enter those!”        — Kayla Forrest

“One of the things I noticed immediately when looking through the program of this year’s MLA Conference is the astonishing diversity and scope of the sessions. The sessions cover a huge range of topics, methods, issues and perspectives of the humanities. I think one of the rewarding challenges of being a young scholar in the contemporary humanities is exemplified in the conference: there is an astonishing breadth of work being done! One can be both overwhelmed and stimulated as one selects which panels, workshops and events to attend. I found helpful practical sessions on academic writing and navigating the difficult terrain of journal submissions, as well as sessions related to my research interests. One thing that was particularly helpful as I navigated the intensity and size of my first convention, was attending an evening event hosted by my university that made me feel a familiar sense of “home” in a new place.”   — Amir Hussain

“After going to about ten MLAs—enough that this was my third MLA Chicago!—I’m starting to learn that as the committee meetings and coffee chats and book parties pile up I absolutely have to save a little bit of time for myself. I love conferences and seeing friends, but I’m getting too old to work, network, and spend time with people I really want to meet or to catch up with from brunch through late-night drinks for days on end!  (I almost always come home from the MLA with a cold, and the reasons for it are obvious). So hopefully next time I’ll remember that I’ll have a much better time if I leave a little bit of time for myself. If I don’t do all the things I want to do, there’s always next year. And this level of conference over-intensity is just one more manifestation of the compulsion to try to do it all, which I think most of us are always fighting. Being selective is always better than saying yes to everything—at least in the long run.”     — Meredith Farmer

Precarity and Activism: A CSGSP Roundtable at #MLA18

In one of our three sponsored roundtables at #MLA18 we focus on precarity and activism for graduate students and non-tenure-track faculty.  We ask, how do graduate students engage activism from the position of precarity? How do these issues impact research and teaching? Issues include confronting rape culture, creating space for junior scholars in academic organizations, fighting for academic freedom in teaching, critiquing faculty and the corporate university, addressing poverty, and discussing different aspects of union-organizing.

See below for titles, abstracts, speaker bios, and further resources.

Time: Friday January 5 1:45 PM-3:00 PM

Location: Concourse F (Hilton)

Session 342. Chosen as one of the sessions under this year’s theme #StatesofInsecurity


Speakers

Melissa Leigh Antonucci (U of Oklahoma)

Making Room for Junior Scholars

At the 2013 biennial conference for the Society of Early Americanists (SEA), the incoming President Kristina Bross (Purdue University) and Vice President Laura Stevens (University of Tulsa), who later served as president, expressed interest in the possible formation of a junior scholars’ caucus during an early morning breakfast meeting of graduate students. The onus, however, of bringing such an organization into being was on us—the graduate students. Three years and two biennial meetings later, the official Junior Scholars’ Caucus made its debut as a functioning organization within SEA. During those three years, Kirsten Iden (Auburn University) and I worked closely with Kristina, Laura, and others within SEA to carve a space for junior scholars within the larger national organization. This presentation will outline the challenges we faced and the support we received from the SEA executive board in developing an optimal space for junior scholars to share research, fellowship/grant information, job market resources, and ways to create a sense of sustained community among younger scholars. This presentation will also include a discussion of those foundational issues with which junior scholars must contend when considering organizing similar associations—issues such as the degree and scope of national leadership involvement; protocols for communicating with the executive board and caucus members; caucus governance and the creation of a constitution; membership; events coordination; and funding. Finally, I hope this presentation will foster discussions as to how junior scholars, many of whom, even after earning their PhDs, find themselves in positions of precarity, can begin establishing professional and steadfast presences within national organizations that do not always address specific concerns of younger scholars.

Melissa Antonucci is a faculty member in the English Department at the University of Oklahoma. She earned her PhD at the University of Tulsa in 2015, where she also recently completed a one-year postdoctoral appointment. As a graduate student, Melissa served as co-chair of the Graduate Student Caucus for the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (ASECS) and is co-founder of the Junior Scholars’ Caucus for the Society of Early Americanists (SEA), which officially launched in March 2017. Her discussion today focuses mostly on those experiences of laying the groundwork for the Junior Scholars’ Caucus and the challenges and benefits of advocating for graduate students within national organizations.
—————————————–
Michaela Brangan (Cornell U)

We Are Workers (?): Organizing Graduate Assistants in the American Labor Movement

It is an organizing commonplace, and paradox, that the worse off the worker is, the harder it can be for them to step toward their union. What, then, when the graduate assistant does not see herself as a worker? What, too, about the grad member of an underrepresented, marginalized or oppressed class. How can they know that anything will improve with unionization: a historically majoritarian model of gaining power? This paper gives a brief political and legal analysis of the graduate unionization movement. Specifically with reference to the author’s organizing experience at Cornell University, it thinks through the intersectional and class conflicts that arise with traditional organizing; discusses issues around American business unionism; interrogates the double precarity of “student labor” within the administrative university context; and speculates on what productive solidarity and activism could look like in future academe.

Relevant links:

 
Michaela Brangan, a PhD candidate in the English department at Cornell University, researches and teaches at the intersection of law, politics, and contemporary literature. From 2014 to 2017, she worked to gain recognition and collective bargaining rights for graduate assistants at Cornell with Cornell Graduate Students United (CGSU). She holds degrees from the University of Washington and the Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law.
Update: unable to attend
 
 —————————————-

Aesthetics in the Adjunct Age

Is philosophical labour commensurable with exploitative labour? In his influential 1950 essay “The Origin of the Work of Art,” Martin Heidegger focuses on a painting of a worn pair of farmer’s shoes by Vincent van Gogh. “A pair of peasant shoes and nothing more,” he says, and then pauses to add: “And yet.” Thinking further, the philosopher decides that “the toil of the worker’s tread stares forth” from the shoes, and argues that the painting is thus “pervaded by uncomplaining worry as to the certainty of bread.” With his continuation of this “and yet,” Heidegger mobilizes the material reality of poverty in the service of philosophical explication; in doing so, however, he renders his peasant woman silent: “uncomplaining.” In the contemporary academic condition, performing the work of aesthetic philosophy often means also having to worry as to the certainty of bread, and increasingly, many of us are refusing to remain silent. The corporatized university and its dependence upon precarious labour is what Kevin Birmingham calls “the great shame of our profession,” and adjunct professors who make poverty wages tell of having to “sell their plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays” to pay for their children’s daycare (Birmingham). “We tell our students to study literature because it will make them better human beings,” Birmingham argues; “that in our classrooms they will learn empathy and wisdom, thoughtfulness and understanding. And yet the institutions supporting literary criticism are callous and morally incoherent” (emph. added). What is the relationship, I ask, between Heidegger’s and Birmingham’s “and yet”? In this labour climate, what kinds of work are we being asked to perform in order to get to a place where we can perform intellectual work, and how do we reconcile this moral incoherence?

Related resources:

Kevin Birmingham’s Truman Capote Award Acceptance Speech: http://www.kevinbirmingham.net/research/

Martin Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art”: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/filmphilology/heideggerworkofart.pdf

Alyson Brickey is a Sessional Instructor in the Department of English at the University of Winnipeg and University of Manitoba, Canada. She writes about the aesthetics of listing in late-nineteenth and early twentieth-century American literature, and her work has appeared in intervalla and Mosaic. She is currently at work on a book-length project called The Agony of the Partition, which focuses on the recurring figure of the wall in modernist American short fiction by women. Twitter handle: @alybrickey

—————————————————————-

David Puthoff (U of New Mexico, Albuquerque)

Beyond Bargaining: Uses and Limits of the Modern Language Association’s Academic Collective Bargaining for Radical Organizers

Following the victory of Columbia University graduate instructors at the National Labor Relations Board in August 2016, the Modern Language Association promoted to members its 2006 collection of essays in collaboration with the American Association of University professors, entitled Academic Collective Bargaining. Perusing this book helped convince organizers at the University of New Mexico that organizing graduate students and adjuncts within traditional unions would be insufficient for our urgent needs in a new political landscape. Instead, organizers sought and found an alternative in an anti-capitalist union, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). This paper seeks to chart those conditions altering the struggle for precarious academic labor. These conditions affect our students as well as our teaching and include mass deportation, violence against women on and off university campuses, police violence, Islamophobia, climate change denial, and anti-intellectualism. As educators, we need to recognize these conditions are not new developments stemming from a recent change in federal administration. I argue that instead they are the conditions which the organization of our labor has failed to adequately address before and since the publication of Academic Collective Bargaining. However, we have increasing opportunities now to engage in solidarity work with student groups and community activists as Foucauldian “specific” intellectuals. Coalitions will improve our working conditions beyond the relatively modest stakes set forth in the MLA’s collection, while our organized labor translates into real gains for our students and our communities.

David Puthoff is a graduate instructor and a PhD student in American Literature. His research focuses on the practices of collective identity in the 19th century, including slave rebellions, non-nuclear family configurations, and labor unions.   In his spare time, David networks with student activists on dismantling rape culture, fighting white supremacy, and deploying effective demonstration techniques. He lives in Albuquerque with his partner and their three cats.

—————————————————————

Leland Tabares (Penn State U, University Park)
The Precarious State of Academic Freedom for Graduate Student Instructors in the Trump Era

This paper examines the precarious state of academic freedom for graduate student instructors in the Trump Era. As English departments continue to rely on contingent labor, graduate students increasingly occupy that influential position behind the lectern. But university structures make addressing race in the classroom difficult. Graduate student instructors have little to no institutional protection. With tenured professors already coming under fire for discussing racial politics in the classroom, especially as neoconservative watchdogs like Turning Point USA encourage students to surveil university classrooms through anti-left websites like “Professor Watchlist,” graduate instructors are often left on their own to speak on sensitive issues regarding race—even in courses dedicated to unpacking racial violence—making teaching a daunting task. However, while some of the dangers of the Trump Era lie in its pervasive bigotry and anti-intellectualism, I also suggest that the structures that govern graduate student professionalization in the academy risk enculturating self-censorship, silence, and even fear in graduate student instructors as they attempt to test the political worldviews of their students. I use my own experiences teaching an Asian American Literature course in Spring 2017—currently my home institution’s only course singularly focused on Asian Americanness in any capacity—in rural Pennsylvania to interrogate the institutional conditions that impact graduate students. Asian American Studies holds a particular relevance to discourses on academic freedom because the contemporary political climate is fueled by anti-immigrant sentiments, yellow peril ideologies, and orientalist conceptions of Asians and Asian Americans. I reflect on my time teaching units on Chinese exclusion, Japanese internment, Indian immigration, and post-9/11 Muslim American surveillance programs during the first full semester after the election of Donald Trump, and consider how these units coincidentally overlapped with the inauguration of Trump, attacks against Asian Americans, and the signing of Executive Order 13769. In the end, I put forth some useful initiatives that universities can take to support their graduate student labor forces.

Leland Tabares is a PhD candidate in English at Penn State. His research focuses on contemporary Asian American literature and culture, with interests in neoliberalism, institutionality, and professional labor economies. Leland has served as the managing editor for Verge: Studies in Global Asias (published by the University of Minnesota Press), a journal in Asian and Asian American Studies, which was recently named the Best New Journal by the Council of Editors of Learned Journals. He currently serves as the Student Representative of the Executive Board for the Association of Asian American Studies. His work has appeared inLateral: Journal of the Cultural Studies Association.

————————————-

“Peers Now”: Pitting the Corporate University against Professorial Fictions

While faculty share many concerns about the corporatization of the university with graduate students, there is a marked—and unnoticed—exception. The touted alternative and precursor to the corporate university, shared governance, masks and often reinforces rather than negates power disparities between faculty and graduate students. The polite fiction then becomes one of equal footing: shared governance, shared intellectual exchange, shared responsibilities as scholars and educators in the field. But even this shared governance is inevitably conditional. Faculty have tenure, compensation (to some extent), and inertia. Graduate students take on further vulnerability and a pressure towards silence. It is at least in part self-sabotage to demonstrate for the faculty senate or one’s committee members (groups that can easily overlap) that they are incorrect in perceiving one as a peer.

Yet they are. Faculty who endorse this fiction of equality, no matter how sincerely, absolve themselves of accountability, responsibility, and power. We have a genuine and vast disparity in faculty and graduate student perceptions of power, one which becomes a minefield in, for example, the context of romantic and sexual relationships. Graduate students face this power disparity in gatekeeping, recommendations, reviews, lab access (outside the MLA’s scope), limited alternatives for their chosen studies, and reputational consequences, all of which impinge on free consent.  I will expose the problems of this dynamic in a specific case, the Cornell Faculty Senate’s rejection of a more stringent supervisor/supervisee relationship policy on the grounds of respecting graduate students’ agency and its subsequent denial of the representative graduate assembly’s formal request for that more stringent policy. Through this I hope to show that in select instances the reviled top-down corporate decisions and corporate culture can, counter-intuitively, be enlisted to mitigate graduate student precarity and aid safety, educational access and diversity.

Anna Fore Waymack is a Ph.D. candidate in Medieval Studies at Cornell. Her dissertation investigates the construction of old age and its relationship to futurity in late Middle English writing. She is also coauthoring Insider Information: The Worlds of Medieval Identities, a book on mnemonic practice, the Global Middle Ages, and textual maps. As a Title IX activist, member of the MLA Committee on Disability Issues in the Profession, and executive vice chair of Cornell’s University Assembly, Anna’s service work focuses on access in higher ed. At times her service work and research meld, resulting in a just-published article on Chaucer’s rape allegations at Medieval Feminist Forum and related digital humanities project chaumpaigne.org. Twitter handle: @annawaymack
Unable to attend: Tara Forbes (Wayne State U); Lucia Lorenzi (McMaster U)
Presiding
Christine (Xine) Yao now a SSHRC Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of British Columbia and later in 2018 will join the English department at University College London as Lecturer. She completed her PhD at Cornell University in 2016. She is currently working on her book manuscript Disaffected: The Cultural Politics of Unfeeling in Nineteenth-Century America. Her second SSHRC-grant-funded book project is Sex Without Love: Affect, Bodies, and Resistance in Nineteenth-Century Sex Work Narratives. She has published or has work forthcoming in J19: Journal of 19th-Century Americanists, Occasion: Interdisciplinary Humanities Journal, Common-Place: The Journal of Early American Life, and American Gothic: An Edinburgh Companion. Twitter handle: @yao_christine

Can’t “Cure” Imposter Syndrome? Reframe It Instead [Guest Post by Melissa Phruksachart]

Guest post by Melissa Phruksachart (NYU). Have an idea for a piece about the graduate student experience? Get in touch — we are on the lookout for contributors!

“It cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment. In the face of these conditions one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can. To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of – this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university.” –Fred Moten and Stefano Harney, The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study, 26)

In what follows, I share three different ways to reframe imposter syndrome, which I define as “a pervasive feeling of self-doubt, insecurity, or fraudulence despite often overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” per psychologist Ellen Hendriksen. My hope is that by finding more ways to think and talk about imposter syndrome, we lessen the shame, blame, and stigma that surround it, in order to find collective ways to manage (if not “cure”) it.                                                                        

  1. IMPOSTER SYNDROME IS AN IRRATIONAL RESPONSE.

Much of the popular literature on imposter syndrome treats it as an affliction of the minoritized – as a pathological and psychological disorder that minoritized subjects cannot get over. In some ways, this is a documented phenomenon. According to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the less competent you are, the less aware you are of that incompetency. In other words, smart people know what they don’t know; they have self-awareness. This is, unsurprisingly, a gendered and racialized affect. In a study entitled “Gender Gaps in Overestimation of Math Performance,” researchers found that men consistently overestimated their performances on math tests, while women were more likely to accurately predict their scores (h/t Chris Matyszczyk). Another set of studies showed that doctoral students in underrepresented minority ethnic groups and women were less likely to submit research for publication than their non-underrepresented male classmates.

Dr. Koritha Mitchell has referred to this phenomenon as “white mediocrity.” In the context of the extrajudicial killings of black people by white police officers, Mitchell notes that the low standard to which white people are held is literally killing black people. (The proof of how far mediocrity can succeed is none other than our President, Donald Trump…)

Academic job consultant Dr. Karen Kelsky has noticed this phenomenon in junior scholars too. I usually take Kelsky’s advice with a huge grain of salt, but I thought her blog post “Women Fail, But Men Bomb,” was spot on. When asked if there were any differences between male and female job candidates, she replied (and I believe this is worth quoting at length):

“The bad job talks by women candidates were run-of-the-mill bad—They were dull, or poorly organized, or unoriginal, or unconvincing, or sadly presented. But the bad job talks by male candidates? Well, those talks could be spectacularly bad. […] These male candidates had somehow managed to completely and totally fail to grasp the spectacular inappropriateness of their topics, their preparedness, and/or presentation styles. They had, apparently, blithely ignored any of the cautions or admonitions that they undoubtedly received from advisors, peers, and general well-wishers, and they proceeded with blissful abandon past the looks of shock, dismay, and outrage gathering on the faces of their job talk audiences. I never saw a woman candidate bomb a job talk in this way. Obviously, this is the flip side of male privilege. Women are not given the license to fail big because they aren’t given the license to try big. Women are disciplined (and punished) and circumscribed and admonished and chastised at so many levels, in so many ways, that men are not….that in the end it is by and large only males who have the opportunity to burst out onto the job market with wildly inappropriate egos and presentation habits intact. This is not to say that all men do. […] But the chances are higher, far higher, that a man may slip through the cracks of the graduate school socializing apparatus, meant to beat graduate students into a state of deference and submission and hyper-self-criticism, and emerge entirely unaware of the impression that he is making on his audience.”

After I read this I began to really pay attention to the way this manifested in my academic life – from male students who repeatedly ignored my advice, to male colleagues who took credit for my organizational labor, and so on. It creates more labor for me – yet one more thing to keep an eye on – but I think I sleep better.

If you want to think about imposter syndrome in this context – as an irrational response to your own unrecognized competence despite all evidence to the contrary, one solution is to begin to build that evidence for yourself. What have you accomplished? Keep a separate document for things that may not make it onto your CV, a running log of all the ways in which you are contributing to the profession – like informally mentoring a new doctoral student, having coffee with someone at a conference, or even attending a talk. All of this is evidence of your presence and participation in the field. At the end of the semester or academic year, review your list and highlight what you’ve accomplished – where you’ve grown, what you struggled through, what you did too much or too little of, and what you’re looking forward to. You can also embrace the negative to lessen the blow: One colleague keeps a list of every academic rejection she receives. Every fifth time, she treats herself.  

  1. IMPOSTER SYNDROME IS A RATIONAL RESPONSE.

A second response to imposter syndrome rejects the suggestion to “lean in” or lifehack our way out of it. Another school of thought suggests that imposter syndrome is a perfectly rational response to a plethora of clues, both structural and those that manifest as microaggressions, that tell you that your work is not valued – whether because you are a measly graduate student, or because you work in a minoritized field, or because your scholarship needs more work, or all three. Cate Huston notes that, “The focus on imposter syndrome as a personal problem, as a series of ‘irrational’ beliefs, pathologizes its victims and diverts attention from the problematic environment to the individual: this is classic victim blaming.”

On an individual level, graduate students or anyone experiencing imposter syndrome should try to become more attuned to the ways in which legitimacy is performed in the academy in ways that index race, class, gender, ability, appearance, and many more.

On an institutional level, departments, faculty, and students can create more spaces for student-led low-stakes scholarly activity. In 2012, my graduate school colleagues and I, together with our faculty mentor Kandice Chuh, started the Mentoring Future Faculty of Color Project for graduate students in the New York City area. Its goal was to create an interdisciplinary intellectual community as well as a support system of intergenerational colleagues. Our principal activity was a lunch and lecture series with scholars of color from area institutions. Over lunch, scholars spoke to us, often quite candidly, of their experiences of struggle and survival in the academy. This was followed by a public lecture on their recent work in order to emphasize the importance of understanding “diversity” not only in terms of bodies, but more importantly as an epistemological project. Alongside this model of vertical mentoring, we benefited greatly through horizontal peer mentoring. We discovered that we could create space for critical discourse in the academy not only through an academic field, but also through the feminist formation of social communities and the knowledges produced therein. By making this space for minoritized students, we created a community that hadn’t formally existed before. Through this experiment, we learned how scholarly work does not happen in a vacuum, despite the way in which we’re taught to go about our work.

  1. LAST BUT NOT LEAST: BEING AN IMPOSTER IS AWESOME.

This last reframing is more fun. Rather than trying to convince yourself that you are not an imposter, Beth McMillan suggests that it is far less work to embrace your position as an imposter. She asks, “If you were a spy who had somehow managed to get right into the heart of the enemy’s regime, would you waste time feeling guilty about tricking your way in there, or would you get on with the business of leaking nuclear secrets, taking photos with tiny cameras and poisoning the soup of important diplomats?” So, if you indeed are an imposter, own it. Steal away with what you can, and enjoy your life.

– – –

These remarks are adapted from those I gave at a roundtable, “Experiences Navigating Impostor Syndrome and Inequity in the Academy,” organized by the Minority Scholars’ Committee of the American Studies Association for the ASA annual meeting in Chicago, IL, on November 10, 2017.

Melissa Phruksachart is Assistant Professor/Faculty Fellow in the Department of Cinema Studies at NYU, where she teaches television history, Asian American media, and minority discourse. She received her PhD in English from the CUNY Graduate Center in 2016. You can find her on Twitter at @mphruksachart.

What Do the Interfolio Fee Changes Mean For You? (A Rundown)

On July 10 Interfolio announced changes to its fee structure for job applicants.

 

  • Accounts are now free (note: through institutional memberships like MLA job applicants were previously able to make free Interfolio accounts)
  • Delivery prices are no longer for individual letters or applications. In a new system called Dossier Deliver they are now charging a flat $48 (USD) for 50 electronic and mail deliveries

At first glance these changes look beneficial. Interfolio costs for sending out applications and letters were always one of the factors that compounded the many structural stresses of the academic job market. Delivery costs for applications could vary wildly.

Still, a number of issues emerged that are not addressed in the FAQ about the new Dossier Delivery system. Here, we will walk through some of our questions and concerns along with the responses we received from Interfolio:

Q: If we have the Dossier Deliver package, what is the cost for deliveries beyond those 50?

A: Interfolio will have an option for individuals to buy tiered (5, 10, and 15 deliveries) packs if they exhaust the original 50 deliveries allotted for the year

Q: How long will the $48 flat fee for Deliver be good for? Is it annual?

A: The flat fee is annual. The 50 delivery credits last for the one year before expiring.

Q: Does “deliverable” mean that each individual Interfolio letter counts toward the 50, or would a cluster of letters for a single position be just 1 toward the 50?

A: A cluster of letters delivered to one application or email would count as 1 delivery. Interfolio has eliminated the cost difference between deliveries

Q: Is there any way to have a cheaper rate for delivery if someone only wants to apply for any number of positions less than 50?

A: No, because Interfolio is eliminating individual costs for deliveries

In short, many of these changes benefit job applicants. 

The major remaining criticism: If there will be a tiered service system, why not make it available not just after the original 50 credits allotted for a Dossier Deliver account? After all, for reasons ranging from temporary but renewable jobs, to smaller disciplines to the unpredictable number of job postings each year, many Interfolio users may send out far fewer than 50 applications a year, but they would be doing so for several years. For these users the annual flat rate model would not have the same benefit.

(Thanks to everyone who shared their concerns with me on social media about the Interfolio changes! If there any points I may have missed, please contact me at christine.yao@gmail.com or  @yao_christine)