I took a look today at the APSA job postings, curious to see what was required of would-be assistant professors who are trying to land an ever-scarcer job in a shrinking landscape of opportunities. At a time when many political scientists are finding their contracts and tenures to have less meaning, with programs closing and lay-offs routine, surely we are being kind to the new PhDs who are just trying to get started in their careers. I had thought the market bad in 2008, when the financial crisis led to some folks seeing verbal offers withdrawn as the financial crisis hit that fall. But there are even fewer jobs available now, and those jobs are less secure, so, I imagined that those in the discipline running searches would practice kindness and make the submission process as painless as possible.
What do I mean by kindness? Simply that we demystify the job process and reduce the amount of work expected up front for applicants competing with hundreds of others for precious few jobs. In the past we asked for all kinds of customized documents to help guide the choice, but in an age when we can conduct zoom interviews with our short lists and request additional materials by email, surely–SURELY–we are only asking candidates to submit cover letters and cvs, and maybe letters of recommendation (since those are common across all jobs) or transcripts (better left for the actual hire).
yeah…no.
I started skimming through job ads on APSA e-jobs. I ran a search for assistant professor jobs posted in the 2026 job cycle. Of the first four I looked at, every single one required multiple documents beyond the cv, cover letter, transcripts, and LoRs. #1 and #2 asked for a research statement, examples of scholarly work, and a teaching portfolio. #3 didn’t ask for the scholarly work or portfolio, but did want a teaching philosophy statement. #4 asked for teaching philosophy, evidence of teaching effectiveness, and a research statement.
At this point I stopped and asked AI to run a quick (not double and triple checked) analysis so I could get a fuller picture. The table below shows the results. Of the 179 ads with application information published since June 2026 for assistant professors (excluding visiting, chairs, instructors, and open rank), across all fields of political science, only NINE (5% if I round up) ask for just a cover letter, CV, references and/or transcript in the opening round. Let’s name and praise: Good job, Purdue, Western Kentucky (x2), Presbyterian College, Monmouth College, Appalachian State University, University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa, SUNY Albany, and Creighton. An additional 34 ads (19%) ask for exactly one more document, most of them a writing sample or a teaching-specific item. Of the rest, 50 require 2 additional documents, 63 require 3, and 23 require 4 or more additional documents as part of the initial ask. That means that the vast majority of our job ads are asking applicants to produce additional documents, many of which will need to be customized to the specific position or institution.
Documents Required for Initial Applications for Assistant Professor Positions on APSA e-jobs, June-September 2026
| Documents required in initial application | Number of ads | Percentage of ads |
| Basic set only (cover letter, CV, letters/references, and/or transcripts) | 9 | 5.0% |
| Basic set + 1 additional document | 34 | 19.0% |
| Basic set + 2 additional documents | 50 | 27.9% |
| Basic set + 3 additional documents | 63 | 35.2% |
| Basic set + 4 or more additional documents | 23 | 12.8% |
| Total | 179 | 100% |
Note: Percentages are of the 179 ads that list application materials in the eJobs ad text; they sum to 99.9% due to rounding. Eighteen ads that gave no materials list (external application link only, or no link) are excluded. Source population: 197 assistant-level postings on APSA eJobs posted June 2 to September 24, 2026, excluding visiting positions, fellowships, and endowed chairs. Only counts required items, not those listed as ‘if applicable or ‘welcomed’.
Looking at the kinds of documents requested, I counted eleven different kinds of documents. That’s counting all the different teaching documents separately, because a teaching philosophy statement, syllabi, evidence of effectiveness, and evaluations are all different things, although the last two overlap a lot, and a portfolio can contain any or all of those things. But even if we lump in ‘something about teaching’ into a single category, that still leaves us with seven types of documents candidates have to prepare. Writing samples are required in 73% of the ads, teaching statements in 53%, research statements in 49%, DEI/student success statements in 6%, combined research and teaching statements in 8, mission statements in 2%, and service statements in 1%.
This also does not count the cases where applicants are asked to provide a document of a particular length, or to include particular things in one document but not another. If one ad asks for a 2 page cover letter, and another 3 pages, when a third asks you to include research interests in the cover letter but a fourth to put it in a research statement, this requires a lot of customization and changes to existing documents.
COME ON. My friends, we are busier than ever. No one is reading a cover letter, cv, letters, and 4 additional documents for 200+ applicants. No one is doing it for 50! Nor should we. If the job ad is well-written, a cover letter and cv alone should provide enough information to get to a long list; letters can narrow it further at that point (although I personally find letters not super useful, I know many others find them invaluable). The only reason to ask for all these documents up front is to make it easier on the committee when its time to review them (or because HR requires it, but that is not always as strong a mandate as it appears, and worth checking rather than assuming). This practice can introduce bias, though, if one search committee member looks at the research statement or teaching portfolio and another does not.
This also causes tremendous harm to our most junior colleagues. They are having to spend hours customizing these documents, knowing in all likelihood they will never even be looked at, but JUST IN CASE…and its no better to use the ‘if available’ or that additional documents are ‘welcomed’ because any candidate will read that as ‘required to move ahead’. These are the same people who are trying to publish their dissertations, learn how to teach, create new classes, all while largely in precarious or term-limited employment such as visiting positions and post-docs. Those of us sitting in more protected positions can do at least a little to alleviate their stress and anxiety.
There is some hope. There are a few schools (about 20%) that institute a two-stage process, only requesting additional materials of those who make it to later stages, and two of those only require the basic package in the initial ask. Great job, Crieghton and U Alabama-Tuscaloosa (CP). This is the way. It’s less work for the search committee, as they have fewer materials to review (and those materials are more applies to applies), and its much less work for candidates, who do not need to customize beyond their cover letter for a job that they won’t move forward on. A bonus of this approach is that candidates find out their status along the way, relieving some of the constant anxiety they must feel about their chances.
So my request to all schools is to adopt this two-stage process. Cover letter, cv, and letters only for initial applicants, then request whatever you like for those that make it to the short list or interview stage. Everyone benefits and you’ve introduced just a touch more kindness into the world.
A note on AI use in this post: I used AI to collect the data, analyze it, and produce the table. The idea (begun after a conversation with a colleague on the market), the arguments, and the writing are entirely mine.