Read on Twitter
i feel like this is a good time to point out that i was told a *lot* of things would be of paramount importance on the job market when i was in grad school.
none of those things were important in the end.
none of those things were important in the end.
chief among these things: what my comps were in; what i wore to conferences; who i met at conferences; the grades on my transcripts; how well i adopted white cishet masculinity when i interviewed.
i think we should be really real with grad students. i was taught that there was a formula that would make me more "hireable."
there's no single formula or set of achievements that'll do it, as we know now.
there's no single formula or set of achievements that'll do it, as we know now.
and that's scary as hell - because if there's no standard, how do students know how to market themselves?
we owe it to them to say that we don't always know, either. but that checklists ain't it.
they shouldn't contort themselves to fit *our* notions of what's hireable.
we owe it to them to say that we don't always know, either. but that checklists ain't it.
they shouldn't contort themselves to fit *our* notions of what's hireable.
they should be able to frame themselves and their own work in ways that make sense to them. that way, when they *do* land a job, at least it'll be a job that doesn't force them into scholarly boxes *we* decided were important.
