Applying to faculty jobs 101
This special episode features Dr. Monique Smith (Assistant Professor, UCSD) discussing faculty job applications with host Dr. Nancy Padilla-Coreano. Both speakers bring experience from different perspectives: applying to various institution types, serving on search committees, and participating in the Leading Edge Fellows program. The discussion focuses on practical advice for applying to tenure-track faculty positions in biomedical sciences and neuroscience. They discuss when to apply, what type of institutions and jobs there are and important considerations when preparing your research vision and statements. They also provide some insight into when your teaching statement matters most.
Here is some additional advice with details including some covered in the episode.
Job types/titles
Tenure-track research roles at research-intensive places (R1s, med schools, institutes). Titles vary: Assistant Professor, Assistant Member, etc. Read the ad carefully.
Ads usually specify fields (e.g., “stem cell/developmental biology”); some are broad; a few are hyper-specific (often targeted).
Where to find ads
Major boards: Science Careers, Nature Careers, Cell Press Careers.
Set keyword alerts (e.g., “assistant professor,” “tenure track,” “biology”).
Check department sites you care about; they often announce when an ad will post.
Compare notes with peers on the market.
When to look/apply
Start scanning June; real deadlines can start late July and run through November (earlier is increasingly common).
Traditional cadence: apps ~Oct; interviews Jan–Mar; offers Feb–May—but many places now move earlier.
If you miss a deadline, it can still be worth inquiring/submitting.
Apply vs. self-filtering
Apply if you’re ≥ ~33% match to the ad. Let committees decide fit. (Reality check: interviews are rarer when you barely fit.)
Track everything in a spreadsheet (institution, portal link, deadline, materials, status, contact, notes). Expect multiple portals (Interfolio, AcademicJobsOnline, in-house).
2) Build your brand (mindset + identity + advocacy)
Think like a PI not like a postdoc!
Speak in the future tense: “My lab will…”
Show you can lead a team, distribute projects, mentor, and understand funding pathways.
Identity
Lead with who you are and how you think, not just the projects.
Articulate a clear, long-horizon Vision (10–20 years): what unique perspective you’ll bring and how it shapes the field.
Demonstrate independence from your postdoc advisor—both in reality and appearance.
Advocacy (make it easy to root for you)
Keep materials digestible with strong, memorable takeaways (“You’re the person who X”).
Use simple figures/diagrams in your research statement to anchor your vision and first steps.
3) The documents (what to include + quick rules)
Cover letter (≈1 page, on letterhead)
Para 1: “I am applying for [exact title/department].” One-line pedigree (PhD lab/institution; postdoc lab/institution; key funding).
Para 2: 2–3 sentences on your vision + what you’ve done (identity-forward).
Final para: Fit: how you complement the department (avoid listing collaborators unless you already have a positive relationship). Optional brief line on teaching/DEI if relevant to that application.
Research statement (usually 3 pages, single-spaced)
Structure:
Who you are + your Big Vision (identity first, forward-looking).
Why it matters (field-level significance; the gap you’ll fill).
Brief past work (postdoc primary, grad secondary) as justification that you can execute the vision.
2–3 “Directions” (not grant-aims language) you’ll pursue in years 1–5—practical, fundable steps with approaches, but light on protocol detail.
Tips: Write for a general biologist half-paying attention; use section headings and figures (e.g., one up-front “vision map,” one “first-steps” schematic at the end). Minimal tailoring: a sentence or two for clear institutional priorities; don’t rewrite per school.
CV
Standard academic CV (training, honors, pubs/patents, teaching/mentoring, talks, service).
Do not write “submitted to Nature/Cell/etc.” for in-review work; it irritates some readers. Prefer a bioRxiv preprint.
Avoid “in preparation” lists—assume everything is “in prep” by default.
Letters of recommendation (typically 3–4)
Core trio: PhD advisor, postdoc advisor, plus 1–2 senior mentors/collaborators from your postdoc environment.
Ask well ahead of your earliest deadline; some will request a draft—if so, highlight what matters; get a second set of eyes to “right-size” the praise.
Don’t over-index on grad-era committee members (signals independence).
Teaching statement (sometimes requested, ≈1 page)
Concise teaching philosophy, any experience, and what you’d teach—acknowledge evidence-based practices. Calibrate to the unit (e.g., don’t promise undergrad courses to a med school with none).
Diversity statement (sometimes 1–2 pages)
Ground in your experiences and concrete actions/commitments. Some places truly weigh this early; weak statements can be disqualifying. (Berkeley’s published rubric is a useful north star.)
4) Quick templates
Cover letter skeleton
Line 1: “I am applying for the Assistant Professor position in [Dept] at [Institution].”
Line 2: “I completed my PhD with [Advisor, Institution] and am a postdoc with [Advisor, Institution]; my work has been supported by [Fellowship/Grant].”
2–3 sentences: Your identity/vision + one sentence on signature contributions.
Fit line: “At [Institution], I would contribute [X areas/centers] and complement [department strengths] by bringing [distinct perspective].”
Closing: “I have enclosed my CV, research, teaching, and diversity statements. Thank you for your consideration.”
Research statement outline
Header: Who I am / Vision (3–5 sentences + a small schematic).
Section: Significance & Field Gap (why now; why you).
Sections: Direction 1 / Direction 2 / Direction 3 (each ~½ page: question → approach → expected outcomes/impact → fundability note).
Section: Preparation (postdoc results + brief grad work as enabling foundations).
Footer figure: Years 1–5 roadmap (people, tools, early grants).
5) Pitfalls to avoid
Writing like a grant (methods-heavy) instead of an identity-forward vision.
Over-tailoring to each place (time costly; low return on investment).
Signaling dependence on your postdoctoral advisor’s turf.
Assuming “October rush”—start in June; deadlines can pop in July/August.
Not having a system (spreadsheet) for tracking portals, rec letters, and status.
