The Philosophers' Cocoon

The job-market dress code?

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

Can we have a discussion of the norms for job market fashion etiquette (i.e. for on-campus interviews), for both women and men. I understand the need to dress for the occasion, but it seems that everyone overdresses a little bit and ends up never wearing those outfits ever again (save at a wedding). In the case of men, for example, is one really required to wear a suit and tie? Can one get away with just a button up, slacks, and maybe a blazer (but no tie, non-matching colors, etc.). Do committee members really care about this stuff? I feel that overdressing can kill the philosophical spirit inside!

Good question. I seem to recall us discussing this on the Cocoon a while back, but I can't quite find that thread--and, in any case, norms can change over time, so it's probably good to discuss it again. What do you all think? What are job-market dress norms these days?

David Lewis failed his metaphysics exams (2x!)

As I mentioned recently here, one of the helpful strategies I found earlier in my career for grappling with 'impostor syndrome' is to collect examples of famous rejection letters, poor reviews, and other 'failures' of famous and highly successful people. Because I love stories like these (which remind oneself that even the best of us sometimes struggle!), I was delighted yesterday when I came across the Hi-Phi Nation podcast's second episode on David Lewis, 'The Man of Many Worlds II'. For, in the episode, we learn that David Kellogg Lewis, one of the most renowned philosophers and metaphysicians of the 20th Century, almost failed out of graduate school at Princeton Harvard (correction), failing his metaphysics qualifying exams not once but twice, only passing them on his third and final opportunity.

Anyway, it's a great episode that may help some of the Cocoon's readers who are struggling get through things, particularly (but not only) the job market. And, more generally, I highly recommend the podcast.

[For another great example, see Rae Langton's (Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge) self-published 'career lowlights', which note: "At Sydney, my background in Philosophy was deemed so poor I needed a remedial extra year. At Princeton, my PhD dissertation was initially failed, though (somewhat awkwardly) OUP had meanwhile decided to publish it, as Kantian Humility (see Books)."]

R&Rs and journal word limits

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

I'm revising a paper (major revisions). The criticisms and comments I received are all incredibly useful. However, I cannot possibly address them all because of a strict word limit of the journal. What are your strategies in cases like this? Can you tell reviewers "your comments x, y, and z are useful, but I could only address x and y because of word limit" ? Should I tell the same thing to the editor?

Good questions! Personally, I think it's a bad idea to tell reviewers and editors that you can't address all of the reviewers' concerns--as that automatically gives the reviewers and editors reasons to reject the paper. Instead, my sense is that it's better to either (1) find a way to get under the word limit, or alternatively, (2) ask the editor(s) whether you can go above the journal's limit, and if so, by how much. But, my sense is that it's also a good idea to give (1) your very best attempt before attempting (2). That is, if I were in the OP's situation, I would revise the paper first, addressing all of the reviewers' concerns. Then I would spend a significant amount of time cutting as many unnecessary words as possible. Then, if after all of that, I can't get under the journal's limit, I would email the editor saying something like, "I have revised the paper, addressing all of the reviewers' comments, but even after a few weeks of trying to cut the paper down, I'm still X words the word limit. Is this okay?".

Mental Health & Disability Network for phil grads

Alexandra Gustafson (PhD candidate, University of Toronto) has drawn my attention to a new initiative with Parker Rose (graduate student, UCLA): a Mental Health & Disability Network open to all philosophy graduate students. Here are the invitation and contact details:

To whom it may concern,

We're writing on behalf of the Mental Health & Disability Network, a new student-led initiative for philosophy graduate students, with an invitation for the students in your department! What is the Mental Health & Disability Network? It's a multi-university network devoted to bringing together philosophy graduate students who are dealing with significant mental and other health challenges. Hosted primarily over Discord, the Mental Health & Disability Network has three aims: 1) to maintain a friendly, accommodating, and non-judgmental space in which peers can share their experiences and support one another; 2) to be an advocacy force that will assist in ongoing improvements to make our field an ever-kinder space conducive to everyone’s well-being; and 3) to work toward the broader de-stigmatization of mental health and disability in academia. Any current philosophy graduate is welcome to join, no formal (or informal) health diagnosis necessary.

Interested students should contact Alexandra Gustafson (Toronto) at a.gustafson@mail.utoronto.ca or Parker Rose (UCLA) at parkerrose@humnet.ucla.edu for a secure link to join.

I think this is a wonderful (and much-needed) endeavor, hope it flourishes, and hope it proves to advance its very admirable aims!

Postdoc or adjunct?

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

I have a question about deciding between whether to pursue a postdoc or teaching the year after finishing a PhD, with an eye to (hopefully) landing a TT or permanent job within a few years. What would be more competitive on a CV for TT jobs/future jobs in general: A 1-year full-time adjunct position or a 1-year postdoc? I have teaching experience already and fewer publications. My goal would be to get a permanent position at a teaching-focused university, but I know a postdoc will likely help improve my publications. Thanks for any advice!

Setting aside logistical issues (e.g. moving, etc.), this seems to be an easy one: do the postdoc. My experience is that a candidate's perceived trajectory matters. You want, if it at all possible, to have a full-time position--and the fact that the postdoc will enable you to continue publishing is a big deal. Also, if (as the OP notes) you already have plenty of teaching experience but not so many publications, the postdoc is definitely the way to go. Or so it seems to me. What do you all think? 

Saturday sounds

Summarizing student evaluations from different institutions?

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

How does one summarize raw quantitative data from teaching evaluations across different institutions and therefore different evaluative scales? Does one include one summary per institution in the teaching portfolio?

Good questions. Indeed, the most common approach that I've seen is to separate out quantitative summaries by institution. I've also heard that some people think it is bad to try to merge quantitative data from different institutions, both for technical reasons but also because it can be useful to search committee members to see clearly how the candidate's evaluations were at different institutions. So, I think separating things out is the way to go. But what do you all think?

How many papers do you abandon?

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

I'm interested to know how many unpublished, abandoned papers people have.

I'm 10 years post-PhD. My papers are in top-10, but not top-5 journals (think: Phil Quarterly, Phil Studies, Synthese, etc. not: Mind, Nous or Phil Review). I have two article-length papers that I worked on for a long time, presented in public, etc. but which never got accepted anywhere (probably a few more false starts that I decided I couldn't turn into full papers, but my question isn't about those).

I currently have two more papers I am periodically submitting, but which aren't resonating with referees. One got an R&R from Phil Studies, but I stuffed up the revision and it got rejected. It's been rejected from about 8 other journals too.

So I'm approaching 4 papers that look like they will end up on the scrapheap. How does this compare with others?

Interesting question, and I'm curious to hear from readers! How many papers do you abandon, compared to how many you write or publish? Here's my own answer...

What materials should hiring committees require?

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

Serious proposal: every job should only ever require a CV and Cover Letter.

Only request more documents at the short list stage.

Less work on the candidates and search committees.

Although this isn't exactly a question, it still implies a good query: namely, which materials should academic search committees require, and why? What do you all think? Here are a few quick thoughts in reply...

A job-market dilemma: teaching and having an affiliation, or publishing in a non-academic job?

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

What is more helpful in terms of landing a TT job - teaching experience and having an affiliation or publications?

Here's why I ask: I'm nearing the end of a year long research postdoc. My publication record is pretty decent, as is my teaching record (4 publications in good journals, multiple years of teaching different courses at 4 different institutions). I am, of course, applying to jobs now but I'm operating under the assumption that I'm not going to land anything. Assuming that's the case, I'm going to be faced with a choice. I can adjunct while trying to keep up with research, but if the future is like the past, the amount of teaching I'll need to take on to keep the lights on will almost guarantee that my research progress will come to a halt. Alternatively, I can take a non-academic job that pays reasonably well that would allow me to keep writing and trying to publish. But from the outside, that will look like I left philosophy. How much does being unaffiliated hurt you on the job market?

I realize the answer to this question likely depends on whether one is trying to land a job at a teaching school or a research school. However, I'm just trying to land any job I can get. I also realize that, ideally, I'd just teach and research. Unfortunately, adjuncting means taking on 6+ courses per semester at different institutions, commuting 400+ miles a week, not to mention while having no benefits. Under those circumstances, I just won't be very productive research-wise.

What's the best route to go with an eye to making myself as marketable as possible?

This is a really good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, if the OP has a good publication record and teaching experience, then I don't see any clear reason why they shouldn't be competitive for jobs if they take a non-academic job and continue to publish. But, on the other hand, search committees don't always act as they should, and I could well imagine them being biased toward candidates who have an academic affiliation. So, I'm not sure what the best strategy here is for being competitive on the academic market. But I guess this leads to my main thought, which is that given how much the academic job market is like a lottery, maybe the thing to do here is not to wager on which of the two job-market strategies is likely to be the most effective (since it's really hard to know). Instead, maybe the thing to do is to pick whichever path forward offers the best immediate rewards, such as a good salary, benefits, and quality of life. This is sort of what another reader suggests in a follow-up comment:

Asking editors to send referees an updated paper?

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

I wonder whether it is considered permissible to send a revised version of a manuscript after it has already been sent to peer review.

Some background: I recently revised and resubmitted a manuscript to a journal, and the editor already sent it back to the reviewers. Since then, I noticed that I could significantly improve two paragraphs of the paper to elucidate a crucial principle for my argument. The changes I intend to do would not affect the conclusion but only make it clearer how I arrived there. I am worried that my paper might get rejected if the reviewers find these two paragraphs confusing.

Do you think it makes sense to contact the editor and ask I could reupload the paper in this kind of circumstances? If not, what would be my best course of action? Curious to hear what others in the field think of this or whether someone has done something similar.

This is an interesting question. I recently had an R&R under review at a journal that I had similar concerns about, but I did nothing and the paper was accepted. In retrospect, I think I was probably just being too self-critical--though I think it's understandable to be that way, given how high journal rejection rates are. So, I guess I'm inclined to think that if the OP's concern is merely that the two paragraphs "could be clearer", it may not be worth their while to do anything. It might be a different story, I think, if they found a fatal error or something--which could definitely be worth trying to do something about. But, in any case, if the reader is that concerned, I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask the editor. Or could it? I don't know. 

What do you all think?

ADPA data on non-academic careers

Over at Daily Nous the other week, Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced) provided a 10-year update on the Academic Placement Data and Analysis (APDA) project, the purpose of which "is to collect, analyze, and distribute data on job placement for graduates of PhD programs in philosophy."

As a member of the ADPA's board of advisors, I volunteered to discuss the ADPA's findings on non-academic job careers for philosophy PhDs. Eric Schwitzgebel (UC Riverside) should be discussing demographic data at The Splintered Mind.

What, then, has the ADPA found about non-academic careers for Philosophy PhDs? Here is a quick summary:

(1) How many philosophy PhDs pursue non-academic careers? 

Over the past ten years (2011-21), the ADPA surveyed 6030 PhD graduates. Of those surveyed, 2606 (or 37.6%) are now in permanent academic jobs, and 846 (or 14%) are in non-academic jobs. The remaining philosophy PhDs are either in part-time academic positions or did not report.

(2) What kinds of non-academic careers are philosophy PhDs in?

Top-ten words used to describe positions (in order of frequency): Director, Manager, Senior, Associate, Assistant, Analyst, Research, Software, Teacher, and Consultant.

Top ten industries (in order of frequency, of around 800 in database): education, technology, law, health, consultancy, government, university administration, finance, non-university education, and non-profits/NGOs.

(2) What kinds of salaries do philosophy PhDs make in non-academic industry?

• Mean salaries reported 
  
  • Academic: $79,237 (n = 477)
  • Non-Academic: $179,833 (n = 42)
• Median Salaries
  
  • Academic: $73,000 
  • Non-Academic: $100,000 

(3) What kind of job-placements do PhDs prefer: academic or non-academic?

Of those who received academic jobs, 84.8% reported academic placement as their priority. However, of those who entered non-academic jobs, only 52.9% preferred academic placement, 17.6% percent preferred non-academic placement, and 29.4% reported no strong preference.

(4) Do PhD programs support students seeking non-academic placement?

• Of those who received non-academic employment (n = 63), only 17.5% felt unsupported by their graduate program.
• A plurality of (all) respondents felt their program was neither supportive or unsupportive (n = 27 or 42.9%).
• However, individuals without placement information (n = 11) unanimously indicated that they felt their graduate program was very unsupportive of pursuing non-academic careers.
• Some qualitative responses: 

The faculty of my department were unprepared to offer support for students pursuing non-academic jobs. If anything, they looked down on such students.

Nonacademic jobs were mentioned in the professional development seminar, but no real guidance was offered beyond that. There may have been other resources available, but I did not know about them.

Pursuing professions other than teaching philosophy is discouraged. Several of my fellow students did not disclose that they were interested in professions other than teaching, for example, pursuing a law degree.

Program officials and some professors have made comments supporting non-academic jobs and they occasionally offer a talk on this. However, there is no focused and continued support.

My department has taken some pretty good steps to help us with this. But during the times where I have thought about not pursuing an academic career I have felt like I had to keep it secret or the department would take me less seriously, give me less support, etc.

(5) Are philosophical skills and knowledge job-relevant?

84.1% of those in non-academic jobs found philosophical skills to be relevant to their non-academic career (n=63). Only 53.2% found philosophical material to be relevant (n=62). 

Some qualitative responses:

My work in narrative ethics informs everything I do from managing business functions such as HR, to fostering community values, developing student leadership as well as developing our marketing strategy and posting on Instagram. Everything we do as humans involves stories and sharing experiences - I have never doubted that my PhD research was valuable, practical and of ongoing benefit to me as a person and as a CEO.

Doing logic and looking at formal systems made the transition into coding and data analysis quite easy.

None of my research was directly applicable, but studying logic helped prepare me for a career in tech.

The vast majority of the topics you study in philosophy are irrelevant to work in the business world. However, the skills you develop and the techniques you learn through the practice of philosophy are invaluable. Being a strong and logical thinker is a huge asset in a business environment.

I engage in textual analysis and rational argument on a regular basis in my employment as a business lawyer -- skills that I acquired and honed in my philosophy graduate education.

The skills of reading and thinking carefully, and communicating well orally and in writing, have helped make me more effective in my position as an academic administrator.

In a generic way, the critical thinking, writing, teaching and public speaking skills I have gained have all set me apart in the workplace.

What should we take away from these findings? As with any study using non-randomly collected samples, we must be careful making strong inferences about the total population. Still, bearing this in mind, here are a few hot takes:

1. About 1 in 7 philosophy PhDs in this sample report working in non-academic careers: that's a good number of people!

2. Philosophy PhDs can end up in a variety of good non-academic careers, some of which involve learning computer programming, but many of which appear to be in well-paying, non-STEM areas (government jobs, consulting, etc.). 

3. Philosophers can make a lot of money outside of academia: of course, it is hard to know exactly how accurate this sample is, as the sample sizes are small and those who are underemployed could be less likely to report. Further, there is presumably wide variance among the salaries of those in non-academic industries. Still, the fact that philosophers can achieve high-salary positions in industry shouldn't be too surprising. Philosophers are as a rule highly talented, conscientious people who can think slowly and carefully as well as quickly on their feet; can understand and grapple effectively with very complex problems, speak persuasively in front of groups (viz. experience in teaching and seminars), etc. Moving from academia to non-academic industry can be difficult for philosophy PhDs--but clearly, it can have real upside, as my Philosophers in Industry Directory also suggests.

4. There is significant variance on the kinds of jobs that philosophy PhDs want: Yes, according to the ADPA's 10-year sample, a supermajority of those who have academic jobs desire and academic job. And yes, a slim majority of those who leave academia have a strong preference for an academic job, as well. Still, a significant proportion of PhDs in the sample report being less invested in academia, either wanting non-academic work or reporting no strong preference either way.

5. Most PhDs reported that their programs were neither supportive nor unsupportive of non-academic employment, and a significant proportion reported that their programs were very unsupportive. Further, qualitative responses suggest that PhD students may fear even disclosing an interest in pursuing a non-academic career -- and in general (with a few exceptions), it doesn't seem that many departments do very much to help their PhDs pursue non-academic jobs.

6. Philosophical skills (and, to a lesser extent, philosophical knowledge) seem to be job-relevant outside of academia: the kinds of skills philosophers cultivate (reading, writing, thinking, speaking, logic, creative problem solving) are widely reported by those outside of academia as directly relevant to their careers. And over 50% of those who reported said that philosophical material is job-relevant too (such as knowledge of ethics, etc.).

Finally, here's one more hot-take, to echo some points I made a few weeks ago:

7. It probably behooves academic philosophy (and grad programs) to do far more to support students seeking non-academic work. Placing students into good careers not only reflects well on the discipline (including to administrators, parents, prospective students, taxpayers, etc.). It may also be conducive to philosophy-supporting philanthropy. Humanities departments (including philosophy departments) are being closed and or otherwise threatened left and right--and like it or not, for better or worse, we live in a time when public and philanthropic support for academic disciplines are increasingly crucial. Many other academic disciplines realized this long ago, and have cultivated industry ties in ways that help their disciplines and departments thrive. The more that philosophers thrive outside outside of academia, the more likely (it seems to me) the philosophy will survive and thrive in academia. Or so it seems to me.

But these are just my hot takes. What are yours? 

Interview on Micro-Digressions

This is just a quick note that Micro-Digressions: A Philosophy Podcast has a new interview up with me on my approach to morality and moral epistemology. I hope some of you find it of interest!

Grappling with impostor syndrome?

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

I'm around midway through my PhD, and have been struggling more than I normally do with imposter syndrome. It's put a real damper on my ability to work. What's the point if I'm not going to do work that others would want to read? And why should I risk revealing how little I know?

I've also been pretty convinced by the cognitive scientist Barbara Sarnecka's analysis of imposter syndrome - found in her book, the Writing Workshop - not as the result of something going wrong on the side of the individual, but as the result of something going wrong in the environment. Those struggling with imposter syndrome aren't usually making bad inferences about their own abilities from good data, but good inferences from bad data. We overestimate the success of others, and so underestimate our own, because we're only ever told the success stories.

I'm wondering if anyone has advice on combatting this kind of bad data. I'm especially interested in what I, as a graduate student, can do about it.

I'm sorry to hear that this reader is struggling, but I'm glad they asked this question, as it's an important issue that I expect a lot of grad students and early career philosophers struggle with. We've talked about impostor syndrome a few times before on the blog, and in fact there were many times early in my career when I struggled with impostor syndrome myself--so I know how hard it can be. So, let me offer a few brief comments that I hope the OP may find helpful before opening things up for comments.

What are standards of co-authorship?

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

What are the standards of honest co-authorship in philosophy? I have recently been asking around to fellow grad students, and in one case, one person reported drafting the entire paper by themselves, receiving feedback by their supervisors, and being asked to add their names as co-authors. In another case, the student recounted a similar story, except this time they acknowledged that the more senior person's ideas were what made the paper worth submitting to a journal in the first place, even though the student wrote the draft entirely by themselves. In a third case, the student researched and wrote all but the introductory/'background' sections of the paper, but the paper is still billed as an even co-authorship. Are these students being exploited, or is this normal?

These are excellent questions. Given that co-authorship is relatively uncommon in philosophy (but seemingly increasing!), I'm hoping we can have a good discussion. One reader submitted the following response:

I work on authorship, and I have co-authored with a number of people, junior, senior, and peers. This is a complex set of questions you ask. Further, one cannot reliably know what happened if you just hear one person's story. The other co-authors might see things very differently. If the various students you mention feel exploited, then they need to talk with an ethics person on campus, that is, someone involved in research integrity. At many universities there is usually a committee. But they can initially talk with a member of such a committee.

I think this follow-up is broadly correct: co-authorship is complex, and as a spouse of someone who works in a STEM field, I've experienced many of these complexities second-hand. My sense is that in science, there doesn't seem to be any exact standard of how to settle co-authorship (including the order of co-authors listed). Instead, there appear to be some general rules of thumb that co-authors often broadly negotiate these matters according to, but which are not always respected (and indeed, in some cases--all too many cases, in fact--abused). Allow me to explain, and then open things up for discussion.