Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    A Culture of Cybersecurity
    Opportunities in the Hard Sciences
    Career Preparation
Sign In
First Person

The Failed Promise of Electronic Applications

By David R. Roediger February 21, 2011
Technology Careers Illustration
Brian Taylor

I should have been the last person to be fooled by the labor-saving promises of new electronic systems to handle applications for faculty jobs and for graduate admissions. I am, after all, a labor historian, and one deeply influenced by the convincingly skeptical writings on academic work and on the social history of technology by the late David F. Noble.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

I should have been the last person to be fooled by the labor-saving promises of new electronic systems to handle applications for faculty jobs and for graduate admissions. I am, after all, a labor historian, and one deeply influenced by the convincingly skeptical writings on academic work and on the social history of technology by the late David F. Noble.

It would have been easy enough, some years back, when I started to get requests to put recommendation letters on Interfolio, to connect the new practice with general trends to outsource university jobs, cut the positions of support workers, and privatize service work in public universities.

Indeed, my own department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign quickly moved from maintaining its own dossier service for graduate students to partially subsidizing their applications for jobs made through Interfolio. Back then, when I thought about the switch in labor terms, I was able to quickly decide that the change was justifiable because it saved work, including, for staff members, the drudgery of photocopying.

Mostly, though, I hoped the new electronic processes would save me labor. The department’s old dossier service file was acceptable to most employers and used by all students. However, when writing recommendations on behalf of colleagues who had jobs but were seeking new ones, each letter had to be an individual production, as faculty candidates were outside the dossier system.

Moreover, I hoped that the new systems would ease the burden of writing endless letters for undergraduates to get into doctoral programs and could centralize that process. Indeed, law schools were something of a model: Centralized recommendation-letter banks, organized either at the university level or by the Law School Admission Council, had greatly eased letting-writing, envelope-licking, and mailing. One student, one letter.

Several years into the process, it is clear that, within the humanities, labor is not being saved—even on the supply side of sending out the recommendation letters electronically. Interfolio itself remains cumbersome and, contrary to the centralized law-school model, graduate schools have adopted countless variants for handling the letters. Some schools require hard copies, sometimes gathered by the student into a file, sometimes not. Where letters supporting job applications are concerned, two schools recently asked that I forward my recommendation letters through the student, forgetting confidentiality altogether.

Odd little boxes asking that professors use a check mark to give a percentile ranking to students on everything from honesty to industry to leadership had been a feature of the older paper-application forms. Retaining those idiosyncratic grids—each school using them seems to survey a different set of virtues—sometimes now justifies departments’ holding on to distinctive formats rather than adopting a standardized recommendation letter. Fellowship applications are almost militantly idiosyncratic in the forms that letters are required to take. No standard practices have emerged.

Most important, school after school contracts for its own systems, meaning the letters are not just sent either through an agency or individually. Instead they fall into an endless number of electronic delivery systems, each slightly different, most new, and typically with giant bugs to be worked out. So frequently do those systems not work—or not work in concert with configurations of the sender’s computer—that some searches are now accompanied by the e-mail contact of the person shepherding tutorials or end runs around the system.

Faculty members much lament the bad experiences associated with sending out letters via those systems, but the annoyances are spread out over time, so it is possible for senders to assume the fault is theirs, or that of their aging computers. The stronger object lesson in the inadequacy of electronic systems comes when you are on the receiving end of e-recommendations.

I got such a concentrated lesson twice in the past three months, once as a member of a search committee and once as a member of my department’s admissions committee.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the former case, the system proved so unwieldy that departments that had the money and confidence to do so hired yet more outside contractors to retool the software to make it workable. Thus there are variable systems within as well as between universities.

Even the small drawbacks of electronic systems are impressively thoughtless. Systems keep an applicant’s file from a previous year’s job search or admissions proceeding. Thus, someone who already “failed” becomes automatically identified as such, even though the applicant may now present new credentials, in different pools. The difficulties with producing spreadsheets showing all the applicants are daunting, so that the new digitally sophisticated formats have, for example, no easy way to generate a list of applicants from underrepresented minority candidates. In addition, recommendation letters are secreted in a location outside the main file.

In the case of graduate applications, the system we used from a year before had so discredited itself—in one case, in a department other than my own, the applicants could actually read the “confidential” letters submitted on their behalf—that a new one had been put in place. News of the switch was communicated to departments only after repeated tries at making the old link work.

By trial and error, our admissions committee gradually made the new system work, at least to read individual files. However, at a second stage, when the committee asked for broader feedback from faculty members about applicants, the learning curve began all over, complicated by widespread disbelief that the system could possibly be so hard to access, and so unfriendly once accessed. Anxiety abounded.

ADVERTISEMENT

Presumably we’ll be mastering a new system yet again next year.

That those problems are so little remarked upon, or, to my knowledge, systematically investigated, testifies to the power of a priori assumptions. Such assumptions hold that new technologies are obviously labor-saving ones and that outsourcing is automatically cost-saving. As such, e-applications can be assumed to be efficient and economical even if they take the form of successions of unsatisfactory profit-chasing ventures, create much duplication of effort, and save precious little, indeed no, time or work for faculty or staff members.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Harvard University
'Deeply Unsettling'
Harvard’s Battle With Trump Escalates as Research Money Is Suddenly Canceled
Photo-based illustration of a hand and a magnifying glass focusing on a scene from Western Carolina Universiy
Equal Opportunity
The Trump Administration Widens Its Scrutiny of Colleges, With Help From the Internet
Santa J. Ono, president of the University of Michigan, watches a basketball game on the campus in November 2022.
'He Is a Chameleon'
At U. of Michigan, Frustrations Grew Over a President Who Couldn’t Be Pinned Down
Photo-based illustration of University of Michigan's president Jeremy Santa Ono emerging from a red shape of Florida
Leadership
A Major College-President Transition Is Defined by an About-Face on DEI

From The Review

Photo illustration of Elon Musk and the Dome of the U.S. Capitol
The Review | Opinion
On Student Aid, It’s Congressional Republicans vs. DOGE
By Robert Gordon, Jordan Matsudaira
Photo-based illustration of a closeup of a blue-toned eye with a small hand either pushing or pulling a red piece of film over the top
The Review | Essay
We Don’t Need More Administrators Inspecting Our Ideas
By Nicolas Langlitz
Solomon-0512 B.jpg
The Review | Essay
The Conscience of a Campus Conservative
By Daniel J. Solomon

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin