I hope this doesn’t get taken the wrong way (who am I kidding…this is the internet…there are people who make “taking things the wrong way” their job!), but (if he is really a dean at a community college) isn’t it possible that – because of the nature of the community college – that while letters may truly be pointless there, they still serve a purpose at four year institutions?

I say this as someone who has served on a few search committees. I found the letters to be very influential. Obviously, Chris’ point about the “stature” of the letter writer is valid, but I often glean much more.

There is the damning with faint praise, the absence of commentary in one area critical to us despite effusive praise on other areas, the one candidate who had clearly wrote his own letters, the praise of a candidate’s research (—in an areas we aren’t doing a search for, but that the candidate claims to do in her/his letter). Perhaps these are all subtle cues, but they are important.

Professors at Research Ones have a “reputational incentive” to not paint the lily too much. The discipline is a small world and word would quickly spread which programs (or individuals, if the individual is well known enough) do not produce reliable letters. This would hurt their placement records in the long run as well as their reputations and they don’t want that.

I had a search committee ask for reference names and then called those references personally. I find this to be a much better alternative, as more information – in the form of vocal inflection if nothing else – is available.

I find myself loathe to ask repeatedly for new letters for new positions, so I get the canned letter. This may just be me, but it is sometimes hard enough to get the one letter, much less several that are tailored to specific jobs.

No, it’s not just you, Bryan.