Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Don’t give them reasons to disqualify you by saying this [Applications in Academia 101, A Survival Guide, Part 6]

The last post offered some advice on better understanding academic CVs. Now I’d like to highlight one critical mistake I’ve made in the past and recently observed in others: handing someone a reason not to fund you. I will discuss the general conundrum and why it happens more often than one may think that someone accidentally disqualifies themselves. Then I will tell you a story of my own, as promised.

Don’t minimize or forget to mention your achievements because you think it isn’t anything “real”

In a recent evaluation, I reviewed a student application that, while solid, didn’t stand out because of a single misstep (even though it could have been amongst those in the “should definitely get funded” tier). The student answered a key question—whether they had contributed to the field or participated in any relevant activities—with a simple “no.” This wasn’t even correct; I knew the applicant had done things that could have strengthened their case. They had a high-quality item (a competitive internship at a respected institution in the context of which they independently developed a small project). Unfortunately, because they didn’t include this information, I wasn’t able to consider it in my evaluation.

This mistake is more common than you’d think. Students often fail to mention achievements, either because they deem them too small or feel insecure about not having done anything “real”. However, omitting your accomplishments in an application, even unintentionally, can cost you the opportunity. Reviewers typically cannot (and sometimes legally must not) take external knowledge into account when evaluating applications—it’s only fair to the other candidates whom they don’t know personally.

Here’s the takeaway: never leave details out. Mention everything relevant, even if it feels small. Early career applicants don’t need grand achievements; simple things like an internship at a prestigious institution, a blog post, a collaborative mini research project, or volunteering at a conference can be valuable additions. Not only do these details show initiative, but they also help fill your CV, which is crucial when starting out. That said, be mindful not to come across as overly self-aggrandizing, of course. Strike a balance by presenting your accomplishments in a clear, factual, and professional manner. Know that you’ll most likely need to prune the fluff of the early days of your academic CV later on.

With that being said, I’ve personally seen several strong candidates fail to secure funding due to similar mistakes—often because they were too humble or unsure about what to include. Academic CVs are not the place for excessive modesty. If you’ve done something that can add value, even something you consider small, include it and explain it clearly. At this stage, your goal is to pad your CV and application with as much relevant content as you can. This doesn’t mean exaggerating or fabricating achievements but maximizing the impact of everything you’ve done.

In academia, where many candidates are equally qualified, these small details often make the difference between getting funded and being overlooked. Don’t let your application be the one that gives reviewers an easy reason to say no.

Don’t worry I have recently made a similar mistake

I promised to mention a case where I tripped up myself and here it is. It was, in fact, a situation quite similar to the example I shared earlier, though a bit more subtle. I didn’t even realize I had made a mistake until very recently, when I was re-reading an old application to mine it for content I could reuse. (As a side note: If you’ve written up a project for an application, it’s worth revisiting later because you’ve likely invested much effort in it. Often, parts of it can be adapted for publications or other applications.)

Anyway, in this particular application, there was a question that asked: “What do you need from our institution to make this project possible?” My response was, essentially: “Not much./Nothing really.”

The institution in question specialized in physical collections like books and manuscripts, but as a digital humanist, I mostly work with digital facsimiles. So technically, I didn’t need to physically access their resources, nor did I need much from their expertise. But instead of framing this in a way that acknowledged how the institution could still positively contribute to my work, I basically undermined my own application.

Looking back, I see how this answer might have been interpreted as: “I don’t really need what this institution offers,” meaning that compared to other candidates who did, I was an easy target to eliminate. And that, of course, disqualified me. Even if their contribution wasn’t essential to my project, I could have explained how their resources or affiliation would enhance it (it wouldn’t even be lying). The key is to never (even implicitly or accidentally) say that you don’t really need to get the thing you’re applying for—because that’s like saying you don’t need the funding or the institution’s support anyway. If you don’t make it clear why their involvement is valuable, why would they invest in you? Why would they eliminate somebody else who does?

A better approach would have been to focus on the strengths of the institution and how those strengths align with my project. For instance, I could have said something like this (or at least ChatGPT thinks so, but I’d say it’s about right):

“While I primarily work with digital facsimiles, access to your institution’s resources would ensure a more comprehensive foundation for my research by enabling comparisons with your physical collections. Additionally, being affiliated with such a prestigious institution would allow me to engage with experts and interdisciplinary networks that would enhance the scholarly impact of my project.”

It’s a subtle shift in framing, but it transforms the message from “eliminate this candidate” to “wow, this might be a good fit”. (Maybe not this particular example, as it’s a bit shallow, but I hope you know what I mean – this would work well once you adapt it to your project and truly elaborate exactly how you benefit from their expertise and resources and they from yours (and your project).

The lesson here is that you should never imply—intentionally or unintentionally—that you don’t truly need the institution’s support (even if that’s the case). If they’re offering funding or resources, explain why those resources would make your project better, even if their contribution seems marginal.

And yes, if they ask if you have alternative sources of funding, of course, answer truthfully, but frame it in a way that explains why their support would still be important. Don’t disqualify yourself only because you feel bad or think somebody else may need the funding more than you. Yes, probably there is somebody among the applications who does. But most certainly that’s not all applicants. Don’t make it easy for them to kick you out. No false modesty. Just be truthful, say how the funding would benefit you and let them decide. Maybe they think you’re a wonderful candidate and great fit (unless you explain to them how you’re not a good fit and don’t actually need the funding). In my case: True, I didn’t actually need yet another fellowship but it would have enhanced my CV because it was at a prestigious institution. Of course that’s the true reason I wrote up the project for. Would I be truly unable to continue my research if I didn’t get it? No, obviously not. But I could have framed how I benefit/how my project would have benefitted from getting that fellowship (and they equally benefit from collaborating with me) in many concrete and truthful ways rather than understating and accidentally implying I didn’t need their resources anyway.

Another takeaway/side note: Overexplaining is often better than underexplaining. Many novice writers underestimate how much context an outsider needs to fully understand their ideas/context. It’s better to risk being a bit verbose than to leave reviewers confused or unsufficiently informed. Context is key, and clarity can make or break your application. I remember from stipends committee meetings that we often negatively evaluate applications that sound “vague” (whatever that means). Be concrete, don’t generalize (that’s helpful advice for writing in general and equally true for applications).

Don’t actively hand them reasons not to fund you

Anyway, don’t hand them reasons not to fund you. Funding committees are actively looking for reasons to disqualify candidates, especially when all the applications are solid and the competition is tight. That’s not because they’re so mean but because their job is to divide scarce funding sources amongst (sometimes many) more candidates than they can actually fund. They need to eliminate someone. Getting disqualified doesn’t necessarily mean you were the worst candidate; it might just mean you were the easiest to eliminate.

Of course, there are reasons to disqualify pretty much any applicant—no one is perfect. However, you’re not obligated to hand those reasons to the reviewers on a silver platter. While it’s essential to be truthful in your application, you should avoid openly highlighting weaknesses or reasons they might use to exclude you. If there are potential red flags, cover them up as best as you can without being dishonest. Don’t draw attention to them unnecessarily. If the committee finds these issues on their own, that’s out of your control—but if they don’t, good for you. This might feel a bit strange, but it’s a perfectly fair approach in the context of competitive applications. The takeaway? Be strategic in presenting yourself. Emphasize your strengths, mitigate any weaknesses, and don’t make it easy for them to disqualify you. That’s just how the system works.

That’s why it’s so important to be strategic and avoid such unnecessary slip-ups.
Don’t make it easy for them to kick you out and learn from my mistakes.

Until then,

best of luck with your applications!

S


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Sarah Lang (March 13, 2025). Don’t give them reasons to disqualify you by saying this [Applications in Academia 101, A Survival Guide, Part 6]. Epigrammetry. Retrieved April 26, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13gni


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.