Interested in spending 3-12 months with us in Oxford as a senior visiting academic? The Leverhulme Trust has a scheme to help. Get in touch with an Oxford colleague soon, as the internal deadline for interest is on Apr 17. www.leverhulme.ac.uk/visiting-pro...
Postdoc opportunity with any of my Oxford colleagues funded by the British Academy. Expressions of interest due next week! www.humanities.ox.ac.uk/british-acad...
Really looking forward to having Danijela as another great language colleague in Oxford … and better yet that she’ll be joining me at @somervillecollege.bsky.social
We celebrate! It’s the week when our ideas become clearer and pithier.
This is also poorly understood in Europe (especially my current corner of it). They equate US strength in higher ed to the Ivies, and don’t realize that it’s the big publics where so much of the action is.
Pass it to the professionals. You have made an honest and humane effort.
Good questions! The rules are in the Leverhulme call, they’re not our rules. I think applying before the defense is likely ok. UK connection seems to mean *some* UK degree, or currently working in the UK.
Opportunity for early career researchers to spend 3 years working with us in Oxford. Cool surroundings, interesting people. Eligibility: need some UK academic connection. Get in touch if interested! Details: www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/news/2025/11...
So true! Great that you could join the fun!
Looking forward to seeing this cool new building take shape, joining the wild architectural mash-up at the top of my street.
I have often wished there was a way to track reviewing - also as a way to reward thoughtful reviewing. Not too optimistic. ... But I tend to regard invitations as an editor's request for alternate suggestions. I often can't do the review myself, but I can point them to people they're not aware of.
Y’all do such good reporting. Why debase yourselves with this (repeat) slop? Oxford is a great place to walk! But the measure used here is not much related to what folks mean by “walkable city”.
Yes, the detail is fabulous! The version at the National Library of Scotland is even better. Not only can you zoom way in, and also use a nifty side-by-side view to align with current satellite maps. maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/...
This is great ... and it feels like the seed for another series like Housing Week. Why can't the trains to Banbury run as often as the trains to Ely? Why (the heck) are different authorities handling the east and west sides of the station building? And so on.
Another department I work in uses letters very differently. They’re used as a source of often helpful “contextual data”. They’re rarely decisive for applicants who already have lots of advantages. But they often flag potential that might otherwise get overlooked. So, it matters how they’re used.
On further reflection, it makes a big difference how they’re used. One department I work in basically does a rough sentiment analysis on the letters and translates those vibes into a number for a scoring rubric. I think that’s a good use of letters at all!
My experience, from reading thousands of letters over nearly 30 years, in different countries, is that the vast majority of writers have integrity, and are not good at faking. Empty fluff certainly exists, but it is obvious to see, and easily ignored.
This seems to be a currently popular view. But it’s peer review. It’s what we use all the time in our professions. Why should it be uniquely ineffective when we are giving assessments of our students? Letters aren’t perfect. Nothing is. But they’re another useful tool.
We totally read the letters for applicants to our masters programmes. Some don’t know how to write informative letters. But the ones that do really help. We’re in a field where students come from very diverse backgrounds. That may make letters more useful.
What’s the status of the £7M in funding that your earlier article said would expire in March ‘25?
So, if there is a potential red flag that you think is explainable, that's where your external expertise is most helpful. E.g., it's pretty normal for people starting an electrophysiology lab to have a publication gap, due to long lead times. I'll often contextualize things like that.
In most cases, it doesn't much matter where the endorsement sits on the scale from positive to glowing. Committees don't take the average temperature of the external letters. They won't say, "All were positive, just not positive enough." They give most attention to potential red flags.
Two easy ways to make this point.
(1) Say they would get this promotion at your own institution, ideally with real life comps.
(2) Say "This person compares favorably to X and Y, who were recently promoted to this level at institutions A and B (which the candidate's institution sees as a peer).
Thanks for this thread! A couple of my own takes.
If it's a straightforward positive case, your job is just to provide one or two pull quotes for the summary report. No need to overcomplicate. Committees want evidence that disciplinary standards are upheld, relative to institutions they respect.
Seems like we have shared history as lapsed believers with close family ties to Christian rock music. Though I wouldn't pretend for a moment to be a hipster. Gotta compare notes some time.
It’s interesting how the university is trying to wring as much publicity from this as possible. But uprooting one’s life is hard. And few will be able to move. The real action may be in the decisions of younger, less established, more mobile scholars. Less flashy. Bigger long term impact.
More postdoc opportunities in Oxford! 3-year British Academy Fellowships, for start in 2026. For work in any area of linguistics. Expressions of Interest (brief!) for internal competition due July 28. www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/news/2025/06...
£10 million at £2/night amounts to 13,700 overnight stays per day, 365 days per year. That’s about 5 times the hotel inventory in Oxford. Something doesn’t add up.
Some of my younger colleagues stay in college rooms a couple of nights per week, as they can’t afford to live locally. Would they face a tourist tax?
You do great reporting at The Clarion. So why cite rankings based on dumb measures? “The 5 top attractions are close” doesn’t fit most people’s idea of “most walkable”. Oxford really is walkable. But not for that reason!