1. Prepare only one "application package". Different departments ask for different sets of data: a past research statement and a future research plan, or an all-encompassing research plan, or a current research plan and a future research plan; maybe a statement of purpose and maybe not; a list of your publications -- perhaps with abstracts, perhaps without; and so on. Choose from among the available document types and prepare just one set of items. For example, prepare a past research statement and a future research statement, opting not to bother attempting to segregate your "current research" from your "future research". Don't waste time trying to repartition your statements into precisely the separate documents requested by each institution. They'll know what to look for regardless of what format you use, as long as you're clear in your cover letter what you've included. The requested format for applications to a given institution indicates the type of information desired; you won't be disqualified for submitting the information in a slightly different format. (Imagine the discussion at the hiring committee meeting: "This candidate is brilliant! Perfect for the department! But -- ah -- they submitted separate past and present research statements instead of just one, so ... forget them. On to the next candidate!) The moral: job applications are evaluated by people, not machines. 2. Your CV is the most important document you write yourself. (This changes markedly for grants as opposed to jobs!) To a large extent, decisions on your application will be based on your letters of recommendation. There is little or nothing you can do (at this point) to affect that portion of your file. Sad to say, but most of the rest of your file will be read by very few people, and for a very short period of time. At any given institution, there will probably be parts of your file that no one reads. However, those parts never include your CV: that document will be read by everyone who glances at your file. 3. Give your letter writers at least one month to write your letters. Your letter writers are busy. Less than a month warning is an imposition. Corollary: at least a month is not an imposition. Writing letters is part of the job. 4. Give your letter writers complete drafts of your application materials. Your recommenders need to base their letters on something. Beyond informing them about your past research and future plans, your recommenders can comment to you on the current drafts of your application materials to help you improve them. 5. Contact a faculty member at every institution you are truly interested in. You are one applicant out of hundreds to any given institution in any given season. (At the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities and at Duke University, the number is in the mid to high hundreds.) Typically, the faculty at that institution will form a hiring committee to read through all of the applications and make recommendations to the faculty about whom to pursue. To be clear, the entire faculty usually discusses or votes before final decisions are made about offers, but the committee whittles down the choices from hundreds to dozens, or just a single dozen or fewer. The one or two faculty members who might potentially read your application at the initial stage are each charged with sifting through one or two hundred applications. They are typically experts in fields that are, at best, adjacent to yours, although sometimes a faculty member directly in your field is on the committee. Not all institutions deal with applications precisely this way, but the central message is the same: faculty reading your portfolio have very little time to do so, and the faculty members whom you'd prefer to read your application often won't do so by default. Therefore, your goal is to ensure that your application is read by the faculty member or members who will best be able to evaluate it and who will most want to hire you. Such faculty members are often not on the committee, and even if they are, they might give your application less time than you'd like; they might even miss it entirely, by accident. The only way to come close to ensuring that your application gets the attention it deserves is to contact a faculty member directly, to inform them of your application. You can contact more than one, if you identify more than one appropriate faculty member to contact. When you write, be brief and to the point. Inform them of your application and mention that you are particularly interested in your contact's research. Be specific: "I'm interested in working with you" is a lot less useful than, "I am particularly interested in discussing metric aspects of high-dimensional polyhedra with you." It is not necessary -- or advised -- that you write to someone at every one of the (say) fifty places you're applying. Focus your attention on those institutions where you fit the best, or where you would most prefer to end up. Finally, don't expect much in the way of response. If a faculty member thinks your application has little chance this season, they will hopefully say so. A statement that you have little chance this year at a given institution means just that. It does not necessarily mean that your application is weak. It might, for example, mean that the institution isn't hiring in your area. It might mean that the faculty member isn't interested in hiring you. Whatever the reason, your job is done: you have optimized your chances. Note that even if your faculty contact is interested in you, in many cases the most they can do is try to convince some committee members to place your application on the short list.