alphacaeli:

oldowan:

This year I have read over 740 applications for positions or money in academe – jobs, postdocs, research fellowships, grad awards, collaborative grants and more. In the course of reading applications I’ve noticed a few small things that are consistently seen in applications and that I feel should not be seen in applications, however modest their degree of offense might be. Since some of these are things that are not routinely covered by the many very good guides to writing applications, I thought I would share them.

1. If there is a topic, theme, organizing rubric, archival holding, or logic specified for the thing to which you are applying, say very clearly and very visibly what, precisely, you will be doing with or contributing to that topic, theme, logic, etc. It’s not enough to mention the topic, theme, logic in a clause at the end of a sentence, nor to send your standard, unaltered job letter or research proposal. Don’t assume that it is obvious how you will fit. If there is a series of questions in the application (How will your work contribute to existing conversations? What stage are you at? What will you do during the time period comprehended by the grant?) make sure you address every single point, even at the risk of sounding programmatic. (This last mostly for applications for grants or fellowships.) All reviewers of applications love when a proposal says “my scholarship will speak to your focus on Will Ferrell studies in the following ways: x, y, z.” It may feel simplistic to you but it’s a great help to reviewers who might be reading, say, 740+ applications in the course of a year. You can be fancy in other parts of the application, but be simple when saying what, exactly, you will do with the position/grant, and why.


Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/04/30/essay-how-write-good-applications-jobs-or-grants#ixzz1tdzNbR55 
Inside Higher Ed 

Very apropos.

(via jangojips)