The Philosophers' Cocoon

Job market do's and don'ts: teaching statements

I'd like to continue our new job-market do's and don'ts series today by asking search committee members to weigh in on what job candidates should and shouldn't do in teaching statements. I wrote one post on teaching statements back in 2015 in our Job Market Boot Camp, and another post in our "Notes from both sides of the market" series in 2016. But of course these posts simply reflect my own thoughts and experiences, and I think it would be good to hear from search committee members on what they think are do's and don'ts for teaching statements. 

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates do in teaching statements that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good teaching statement? What about things you don’t want to see? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make in teaching statements that you think candidates should know to absolutely avoid?

Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have about teaching statements (and search committees, feel free to answer)!

Mentoring program update

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a job market applicant asks:

With the 2022-2023 job market swiftly approaching, I was wondering if the Philosophers' Cocoon was planning on continuing with the Job Mentoring Program this year. This is my first real go at the market, and I would really appreciate the opportunity to have have someone who has gotten a tenure-track job take a look at my materials.

Unfortunately, for logistical reasons, Helen and I decided that we are not able to run the program this job season. Among other things, interest in the program appeared to decline substantially in the last two years post-COVID, making it progressively more difficult for the program to realize its aims (viz. securing mentors for candidates in need).

It is entirely possible that we may try to restart the program at a later date (e.g. next job season), if /when we are able to work through better logistics for running the program successfully. But, in the meantime, it is my hope that in addition to the Cocoon's various past job market series, our new job market do's and don'ts series will help candidates prepare well for the market. This new series will not only work through job market materials (such as cover letters, CVs, and beyond). It will also cover interviews and all aspects of on-campus visits (e.g. research talks, teaching demos, etc.). Finally, once this series is complete, I also hope to run a similar series on the 'alt-ac' market (for non-academic industry jobs).

I hope that job candidates find these series helpful, and of course the Cocoon is always here to help job candidates in every way that we can, including in our monthly "how can we help you?" threads.

The journals we don't write in, because they don't exist

The space of possible journals in philosophy is much bigger than what is actually on offer. Consider the most prestigious journals (an exercise done every few years) and what appears there: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (not much phenomenology published there), Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Review, Mind (OK. Mind is a cool title), and Noûs. 

These are generalist, but not really. It's hard to find, e.g., a paper in Indigenous philosophy in there. I had to look twice when Philosophical Review published a paper in Chinese philosophy recently. Mostly, these journals track recent trends in analytic philosophy. 

All too often, a new journal is just a carbon copy of generalist prestigious journals, and I understand the rationale for this (tiny acceptance rates!) But do we need yet more generalist, mostly analytic journals for papers up to 10,000 words that are mainly not response papers and mainly not history of philosophy? 

Because of the peculiar ecology of philosophy journals, their relative prestige, and overrepresentation of some areas and underrepresentation of others, we are nudged in certain directions in our explorations of philosophy. Especially early career scholars who need a publication record to get any academic job, or for tenure and promotion purposes, are nudged to publish in prestigious journals. How does this ecology of journals impact how we write?

Job market do's and don'ts: CVs

I'd like to continue our new job-market do's and don'ts series today by asking search committee members to weigh in on what job candidates should and shouldn't do on CVs. I wrote two posts on CVs in our Job-Market Boot Camp series back in 2015 and 2019, but still, I think it might be good to hear from people who have recently served on search committees. 

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates do in CVs that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good CV? What about things you don’t want to see in a CV? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make in CVs that you think candidates should know to absolutely avoid? Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have!

Also, our first thread in this series, on cover letters, took a bit to get going yesterday, but there have been some good comments. So, do feel free to continue weighing in over there too!

Updated ADPA job placement data & table

Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced) has a new post up at the ADPA blog describing the results of "ten years of data for around 140 [PhD] programs, nearly 50 of which have so far been able to verify our data."

There is also a new sortable table at the ADPA site where one can learn about job-market placements from different programs. As the following table illustrates, some of the data is very illuminating:

Job market do’s and dont’s: cover letters

It’s been a while since we’ve had a new series on job market tips, such as our Job Market Boot Camp, Secret Lives of Search Committees, and Alt-Ac Transition Tips series. Given that this year’s academic job market will be ramping up soon, I thought it might be good to run a series soliciting tips from search committee members on things that job candidates should do and not do to be as competitive as possible.

I’d like to begin today with cover letters. I wrote on cover letters in the boot camp series, but of course that’s just my advice based on things that I experienced as a job candidate and search committee member. So, in today’s post, I’d love to hear from other search committee members on things they think candidates should do and not do in cover letters.

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates say in cover letters that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good cover letter? What about things you don’t want to see in a cover letter? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make in cover letters that you think candidates should know to avoid? Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have!

Steps before submitting to a journal?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a grad student asks:

Do people have a checklist of things to do before submitting a paper to a journal? If so, what do your checklists look like? I'm wanting to ensure I don't miss anything before submitting and that my paper is in the best shape it can possibly be. Thanks!

This is a good question, particularly for graduate students, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

Recommendations for note-taking tablets?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a graduate student asks:

Does anyone have any views/recommendations on note-taking tablets? (iPad, remarkable, onyx book, supernote)

I've never used a note-taking tablet, so I'd be curious to hear about how useful people think they are and what the advantages/disadvantages of different ones are. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I highly recommend Supernote, especially instead of Remarkable. Remarkable is 100% marketing and 0 substance. I arrived at this conclusion not only by owning both (and returning the Remarkable) but also by seeing more in-depth comparisons of remarkable vs other e-paper tablets on youtube.

Interesting--at least anecdotally, I had heard good things about Remarkable. What do you all think? For those of you who use a note-taking tablet, what do you use and how do you like it?

Specialist journals in metaphysics?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, T asks:

Are there specialist journals in (contemporary/analytic) metaphysics? If so, what are they and which is better to publish metaphysical topics in? Top generalist journals or the specialist ones?

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

There is a new-ish journal, Metaphysics, that I believe still requires conference acceptance or invitation to publish (so: apply to their conference if you have relevant things!). Phil Studies seems to publish a higher proportion of metaphysics than a lot of the other top 10-ish journals, as does Phil Quarterly (but this is just my anecdotal impression, I haven't done research!). AJP also used to but I'm not sure if that is still the case. I don't think there are really specialist journals in analytic metaphysics besides the above, but I would love to know if there are ones I am not thinking of (besides special issues or things like Philosophical Perspectives when they are on the metaphysics year, but I think that also may be invitation-only), and I think it is definitely better to publish metaphysics in general journals typically. If you have work that is on the edge of being philosophy of science or logic you could also try the specialist journals in those subfields. And Synthese seems to be pretty friendly to metaphysics these days.

This reply coheres with my impression, which is that these "generalist" journals are commonly thought to be the best places to publish metaphysics. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Checking in on an R&R?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, ABD asks:

I understand that you are supposed to wait three months after submitting an article before reaching out to the journal to inquire about the submission, but I'm wondering if I should also wait three months before inquiring about a submitted revision for an R&R?

My sense is that it's probably best to think of R&R's like any other submission. Also, for what it's worth, I've never had much luck with checking in on papers. Every time in the past that I've done so, I got a rejection soon after, so these days I just prefer to wait. I also try to send papers to journals that have a reputation for having good turnaround times, so that I don't run into this kind of quandary.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Unhappy after tenure?

In our newest "how can we help you?", an anonymous professor writes:

I have tenure but I am not happy where I live.

I won the academic lottery after years on contingent contracts, and then I finally got on the TT and received tenure, yay!! I love my job--I have lovely students and great colleagues (don't take a good work environment for granted). But, I don't like where I live. There are limited options for my spouse. I don't like how car-dependent the place is. I do not like the climate, which is getting more and more extreme due to global warming.

Before the pandemic I felt that my love of the job outweighs the not loving the location. But during the acute phase of the pandemic I got a huge bout of homesickness for my home town. Also, I got worried being so far away from my parents who aren't getting any younger. It would not take many hours and I need to take a long flight to reach them.

The pandemic worsened my sense of homesickness and increased my desire for more geographic control. It's like I'm realizing and now only fully coming to terms with how much I (and my partner) have sacrificed for my academic career.

How do you deal with this? Moving to a place that would fit my criteria of e.g., physical proximity to my parents is close to impossible given how the job market is structured. But I'm also not quite willing to go alt-ac. So, maybe what I need is a psychological shift? Any perspective on this welcome, of people who learned to love where they lived or tips to feel more at home.

This is a wonderful query, and I'm hoping we may be able to help the OP work through their situation by hearing from others. Are you (or were you) unhappy after tenure? It might be good to hear from readers on this, as I suspect that many early-career people conceive of a TT or tenured job as the "promised land"--but, as the OP notes, it's not always that simple. One can be lucky and privileged to get a job like this, and yet still be (reasonably) unhappy for a variety of reasons, such as the job or institution "not being all it's cracked up to be" or (as in the OP's case) due to location. Second, if you are (or were) unhappy, how have you dealt with it? Did you make a career change of some sort, or instead try to make a psychological shift? Either way, how did it work out? Finally, based on your experience, do you have any specific tips or advice for the OP?

Publishing to get a teaching job w/o 'running dry'

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, G writes:

I am an advanced graduate student in a good, but not elite, program. My goal would be to land a teaching oriented job, not a research focused job. I have over 5 papers in good, but not excellent, journals.

Here's my question. I am plugging away at my dissertation, which is composed of 3-4 stand alone papers. I could submit two of them right now for publication. But, should I do that, I worry I will have nothing new to send out after I land a permanent job, should I be so lucky. Of course, I will have new ideas for papers in the future. But I am so focused on my dissertation right now that I would need a good bit of time to get back in a position to publish new work. So, should I sit on my dissertation chapters, and so have 'rounds in the chamber' when/should I land a permanent job, or, should I just publish as much as I can now, looking as good as possible for the market, but risk 'running dry' after/if I land a job? I understand that maximizing my number of publications isn't necessary or even beneficial for certain teaching jobs, but the idea of sitting on papers that are ready to go is a little annoying, to say the least.

This is an excellent question. Another early-career reader submitted the following reply:

I would submit everything right away and not worry not much about future lack of paper ideas. The review process can be long; a lot can happen after you submit that adds up to the wait. For instance, you might be rejected by several places before landing an R&R.

I entirely agree, but let me add some detail as to why...

Incentivizing attendance in large lecture courses

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm teaching a massive (~300 student) course this fall and looking for tips about how to incentivize attendance. Of course I will make the class as interesting, fun, and interactive (small group discussions/activities, etc.) as possible. But I'm not sure this is enough. How can I encourage students to come to class in ways that don't overburden the TAs?

This is a good question. I haven't taught a large lecture course in over a decade, so unfortunately I don't have any helpful tips to share. But it would be great to hear from readers who do!

Participate in a survey on non-academic careers (guest post by the APA non-academic careers committee)

The APA Non-Academic Careers Committee is seeking input and feedback on how it can better serve philosophers in and out of the profession. To this end, the Committee has created a survey: 

https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3JCIC4U196id4ma

While the Committee is particularly interested in hearing from philosophers who have left academia or are considering doing so, we would like to invite philosophers at all career stages and types to respond to the survey. 

Preliminary results from a prior version of this survey have been useful. We look forward to receiving additional feedback from new survey participants! 

- Lynn Chiu on behalf of the Non-Academic Careers committee

Tips for progressing toward tenure at an R1?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

"Yay!" I tell myself. "I did it!" After many job-market cycles I managed to get a TT job at a R1 school. It's what I wanted. Having said yes to half a dozen collaborations throughout the years and twisting my research to fit the goals and visions of three research projects (through as many postdocs), I made it. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I am pretty happy. But as I'm beginning my first semester "on the clock", I find myself staring at a "timeline to tenure calendar" that I worked up: a 200-or-so column table with each "week" over the next four years taking up one column.

I feel as though I have at least two options. First, I can stick to the spaghetti-&-wall method, where I keep juggling through a bunch of research collaborations that are all vaguely tied together and hope enough sticks to make a coherent case for tenure (especially to an outside letter writer). Or, I can prune off those that I'm less invested in, clear the plate I have in front of me, and drill down into one or two areas within which I might plausibly, to an outside letter writer, be seen as a "field leader."

Going with the first tried-and-true method would likely yield a large number of publications and maybe a grant or two, but at the perceived risk of not becoming a top-tier or renowned expert in any single issue or cottage industry or sub-field. Going the second route might yield fewer deliverables, but might also allow me to develop that "expert-flair". Of course, there's also the risk that I'll choose poorly, or never develop that "expert" reputation (what makes one an "expert" anyhow? Is that even something that tenure letter writers really care about or am I just assuming that?). I'm also sure that there are other, perhaps better, options that I'm not considering.

To file it all down to a few points: are there good (better?) strategies for organizing or prioritizing one's projects in an effort to maximize one's chances for tenure? What do tenure letter-writers really look for? Is this just all a species of impostor syndrome? Do / should people "change" their workflow once they're "on the clock"?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers who are in the know. Although I don't work at an R1, based on what I've heard from others my recommendation would be for the reader to ask the powers-that-be in their department and university exactly what is expected for tenure (e.g. departmental tenure committee members, college deans, etc.) before setting on a strategy. Here's why I say this...