Education Statement

Education Statement

Core Purpose

Produce a credible, specific, non-generic Statement on Education for a research-university CS faculty application. The statement must convince a search committee that the applicant (a) has a coherent vision of CS education, (b) enacts that vision through specific practices with evidence, (c) understands supervision as a distinct competence, and (d) maps cleanly onto the target curriculum.

Guiding principle: every paragraph must do at least one of: state a principle in your words, show a specific practice with evidence, or commit to specific courses/contributions at the target institution. If a paragraph does none, cut it.

The most common failure mode is abstraction: a page of beliefs with no classroom detail, indistinguishable from any other applicant in the subfield. The fix is the show-don't-tell loop: principle → specific activity → outcome.

Final delivery: humanize the output

REQUIRED SUB-SKILL (run before returning any draft to the user). Load the humanizer skill (via the skill tool) and run the finished text through it as a final editing pass. It removes AI-writing tells (inflated significance, copula avoidance like "serves as", rule-of-three, overused AI vocabulary such as "delve"/"testament"/"landscape", filler phrases, sycophancy, and em/en-dash overuse) without inventing any fact, name, number, date, or citation. Preserve the format and conventions this skill requires (length cap, required headers, course-mapping specifics), and if the user supplied a writing sample, pass it so humanizer matches their voice.

Workflow

Stage 1 — Triage the prompt

Before drafting, read the vacancy text carefully and answer four questions:

1. What does the prompt explicitly ask for? (Length cap, supervision emphasis, "vision", course-mapping, specific programmes.) Match the headers and emphasis the prompt uses.
2. Which programmes must the statement address? Name them and read their curricula.
3. Is this US-style or EU/NL-style framing? See references/dutch_context.md for the differences. TU Delft, ETH, KTH, and most EU R1s lean toward "education vision" / onderwijsvisie with explicit supervision and institutional-fit components.
4. What is the applicant's actual teaching record? A statement promising practices the applicant has never used is detected immediately. Match claims to evidence.

If the user has not provided a CV / teaching record, ask for it — at minimum a list of courses TA'd or taught, students supervised, teaching workshops attended, and any UTQ/BKO progress.

Stage 2 — Draft the structure

Use the standard 6-section skeleton unless the prompt requires otherwise:

1. Opening hook (~120 words)
2. Philosophy / vision — 2–4 named principles (~150 words)
3. Methods in action — 1–3 specific course/practice narratives (~300 words)
4. Supervision / mentorship — explicit, with practice details (~150 words)
5. Courses to teach — three-tier mapping to the target programmes (~120 words)
6. Closing — forward vision tied to the institution (~80 words)

Total: 700–1000 words ≈ 1–1.5 pages single-spaced. Stay under the prompt's length cap with margin to spare. See references/structure_and_pitfalls.md for paragraph-level guidance, opening/closing patterns, and the cliche-strip checklist.

Stage 3 — Build each section with evidence

Apply the show-don't-tell loop to every claim:

Principle → Specific action → Outcome / evidence

For methods, draw on references/pedagogy.md — an evidence palette of CS-specific pedagogy (active learning, pair programming, live coding, POGIL, constructive alignment, cognitive load, threshold concepts, Parsons problems, GenAI/LLM positions, specifications grading, code review as assessment, inclusion frameworks).

For supervision, use references/supervision.md — covers BSc / MSc / PhD differentiation, concrete supervision practices, and CS-specific sample paragraphs.

Rule: cite at most 1–2 frameworks, and only ones the applicant actually applies. Theory-parade openings (Foucault, Vygotsky, Freire, Bloom, Biggs all in two paragraphs) are a documented red flag.

Stage 4 — Map to the target programmes

The courses-I-could-teach section must reference real courses by name (and ideally code), verified against the current study guide. Invented or outdated courses are a credibility-killer.

For TU Delft (BSc CSE, MSc CS, MSc DSAIT), use references/tu_delft_curricula.md — verified course lists, themes, and a mapping table from common applicant expertise to credible TU Delft course choices. Always advise the user to re-verify against studyguide.tudelft.nl before submission.

Use the three-tier mapping:

• Tier 1: courses you can teach now (existing in the curriculum).
• Tier 2: courses you could contribute to (team-taught).
• Tier 3: one new course you propose (with a 1-sentence rationale tying it to a real curriculum gap and your research).

Stage 5 — Apply institutional framing (Dutch/EU only)

For TU Delft and other Dutch institutions, weave 1–2 institutional anchors only if they reflect the applicant's actual practice:

• UTQ / BKO — acknowledge if the applicant is certified, in progress, or planning.
• Constructive Alignment — name only if the applicant genuinely aligns ILOs, activities, and assessment.
• CDIO / project-based learning — name only if the applicant has run client-coupled or project-based courses.
• TU Delft Vision on Education themes — challenge-based learning, two-way feedback, AI engagement, sustainability — pick one that matches a real practice.

See references/dutch_context.md for ready-to-adapt phrasing and the full UTQ competence model.

Anti-pattern: stacking all four institutional frameworks reads as cargo-cult. One or two, applied concretely.

Stage 6 — Self-critique against the rubric

Before finalising, run the statement through references/rubric.md:

• Score each CRLT-rubric category (Goals / Enactment / Assessment / Inclusion / Structure-Rhetoric).
• Run the section-by-section self-critique pass.
• Run the seven mock-reviewer questions.
• Run the cliche-strip search (passionate, open door, real world, diverse learners, critical thinking ×2+).
• Verify length, course names, institution name, applicant name.

Stage 7 — Iterate with the user

• Show the draft. Ask which paragraphs feel like the applicant's voice and which feel generic.
• Replace generic claims with applicant-specific examples (request data points: outcomes, student quotes, project numbers).
• Tighten any section that exceeds its word budget.
• Final pass: read aloud. Cut any sentence that does not earn its place.

Universal Drafting Principles

1. First person, mostly present tense. "I do X when I teach Y." Past tense for prior teaching, future tense only for explicit plans.
2. Show, don't tell. Every principle paired with a specific practice and an outcome.
3. One voice, one document. The statement should sound like one coherent person, not a stitched committee. Read aloud to check.
4. Specificity beats theory. Citing a few practices the applicant genuinely uses beats citing five educational theorists.
5. Supervision is a section, not a sentence. Especially for EU/NL applications.
6. Map to real courses, not invented ones. Verify against the current study guide.
7. Match the applicant's record. Claims must be supportable by the CV/teaching dossier.
8. Reflect, don't boast. A growth note (what you are still developing) signals reflective practice — a top-three criterion in committee surveys.
9. Differentiate. Ask: "could this be signed by another candidate in my subfield?" If yes, rewrite.
10. Cut ruthlessly. A tight 1-page statement beats a baggy 3-page statement.

What to Do When Information Is Missing

When information is genuinely unavailable and cannot be obtained, draft with placeholders marked clearly (e.g., [INSERT: specific outcome from your COMP-201 project assignment]) — do not fabricate.

What to Do, What Not to Do

Do:

• Open with a sentence only this applicant could write.
• Pair every principle with a specific practice and an outcome.
• Differentiate supervision style across BSc / MSc / PhD.
• Map to real courses with codes, verified from the study guide.
• Take a stance on contested CS-pedagogy questions (LLM use, group work, assessment style).
• Acknowledge a development area — committees value reflective candidates.
• End with a forward vision tied to the specific institution.

Do not:

• Use "passionate", "open door", "real world", "diverse learners", or "critical thinking" more than once.
• Cite more than 1–2 educational theorists.
• List courses without surrounding philosophy.
• Skip the supervision section in EU/NL applications.
• Invent TU Delft courses or themes.
• Stack every Dutch framework (UTQ + Constructive Alignment + CDIO + Vision-on-Education) into one statement.
• Promise practices the applicant has never used.
• Exceed the prompt's length cap.
• Restate the opening in the closing.

References

This skill loads reference material on demand. Read the files relevant to the current stage.

• references/structure_and_pitfalls.md — Paragraph-level structure, length budgets, voice/tense, opening/closing patterns, cliche-strip checklist. Read in Stage 2 and Stage 3.
• references/rubric.md — CRLT evaluation rubric, search-committee priorities, section-by-section self-critique, mock-reviewer questions. Read in Stage 6.
• references/pedagogy.md — Evidence-based CS pedagogy palette: active learning, pair programming, live coding, constructive alignment, cognitive load, threshold concepts, Parsons problems, GenAI/LLM positions, inclusion frameworks, specifications grading. Read in Stage 3 when drafting methods/philosophy.
• references/supervision.md — Supervision section drafting guide: 4-element template, BSc/MSc/PhD differentiation, concrete practices, sample paragraphs. Read in Stage 3 when drafting supervision.
• references/dutch_context.md — US vs NL framing, UTQ/BKO competence framework, Constructive Alignment, CDIO, TU Delft Vision on Education, Q-system, English-medium teaching, ready-to-adapt phrasing. Read in Stage 5 (and Stage 1 if uncertain whether the framing is US or EU/NL).
• references/tu_delft_curricula.md — Verified course lists for BSc CSE, MSc CS, MSc DSAIT; faculty department structure; expertise→course mapping table; three-tier mapping template. Read in Stage 4.
• references/examples.md — Anatomies of 9 real CS faculty teaching statements with verbatim openings, structural patterns, and three TU Delft-oriented skeleton outlines (ML/AI, SE/Systems, Theoretical CS). Read in Stage 2 to ground the structural plan.