The Philosophers' Cocoon

Transitioning into administration without tenure?

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

I am a tenure-track faculty at mid-sized R2 that is aspiring to be an R1. I have become increasingly disinterested in research and increasingly interested in teaching and service/administration. As such, I no longer desire to go up for tenure. Since I do enjoy teaching and service/administration, I would like to stay employed at the university, if possible (moving geographically is not an option given my familial circumstances). Are faculty who do not go up for tenure ever allowed to move to a lecturer line and/or admin job at the same institution? If so, who makes this decision? How is it negotiated? Some have advised I just do what needs to be done for tenure and then focus on teaching and service after, but I’d rather just start working now on the projects I’m actually interested and not try to pull off some bait and switch in my department. Any insight would be appreciated!

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:

Here is some advice from someone who did make a partial move into admin. DO NOT not go up for tenure. Get tenure. Just do what you have to. Then, really get involved in administrative things around campus. It will be a great service to your department and to our profession. We need philosophers involved in admin at universities. Then our voice is at the table (the adult table). But it is imperative that you do it as a tenured faculty. There is my advice.

This seems broadly right to me. While I think it may be possible to get a well-paid, full-time administrative job at a university without tenure (such as running a Center for Teaching & Learning, Wellness Center, etc.), my sense is that it is highly unusual and that many universities require upper administrators (e.g. deans, etc.) to have tenure. So, I think the safe thing to do is to get tenure (if possible), and then transition into administration. But then again, these are just my impressions, and they may be incorrect or idiosyncratic. What do you all think, particularly those of you with experience in these matters? Also, if you do have experience, how would you answer the OP's questions about the process of transitioning into admin?

Is lack of affiliation a problem on the market?

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

I'm curious if anyone has thoughts about how important it is to have university affiliation (either as part of a graduate program or as a VAP, postdoc, etc) when you are on the job market.

Given that so many of us will be unemployed next year, and for a lot of us it's not practical/possible to stay in our PhD programs for another year, what should we do? If we can find a way to support ourselves (through non-academic work) without moving for the sake of a short-term position with a very high teaching load, that would free up a considerable amount of time and energy to make progress on research and hopefully be a more competitive candidate for the next round of applications. But if it would look terrible on a job application to have no current university affiliation, then it might just be a priority for those of us who want to apply again next year to do our best to get *something*.

What do others think?

This is a good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it is undeniable that having an academic affiliation on the job market is a +. Consider this. There are 200 applicants for a job. 150 have an academic affiliation, and 50 do not. Isn't it likely that for every one of the 50 without who has three publications, and good teaching evaluations, etc. there are 3 in the pool of 150 who have one. So other things being equal, you will be setting yourself at a disadvantage.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think this is a bit strong. Yes, a search committee member may notice absence of current institutional affiliation. And yes, all things being equal, it could be a negative. But are search committee members so narrow-minded that they wouldn't bear the candidate's entire record in mind when evaluating this? I mean, suppose the candidate is otherwise excellent: they have good publications, a good teaching record, etc. I have to imagine that most search committee members would still seriously consider the person. We all know how bad the market is, and surely this would figure into most of our minds. 

So no, I don't think it would 'look terrible' to lack an academic affiliation for a year, and indeed, I seem to recall a few job-candidates who were out of academia for a year or two end up with good academic jobs--in large part, it seems, because they still published in good venues. The real issue, I expect, is how long one lacks an academic affiliation. A year seems fine to me. But beyond that, I expect it could begin to count as much more of a negative.

But these are really only some off-hand thoughts, and could be entirely idiosyncratic to me. What do the rest of you think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Funded MA at Texas Tech

The following recently came to my attention via email, and may be of interest to undergraduates:

The Texas Tech Philosophy Department is now accepting applications for its Master of Arts Program in philosophy.

Our M.A. students are regularly admitted to some of the best PhD programs in philosophy including most recently NYU, Rutgers, and Pittsburgh. Recent placement can seen on our website here: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/philosophy/degrees/placement.php

We are able to offer students generous funding packages. Teaching Assistantships are provided to almost all of our graduate students which include tuition and fee waivers that cover more than 80% of tuition and fees as well as a stipend of an additional $13,000 a year. Additional fellowships of up to $5,000 may also be available as well. 

For financial aid purposes, US students should fill out a FAFSA form as early as possible. For full consideration, all other applications materials should be received by Feb 15th, though applications are still accepted and considered on a rolling basis after this. Further nformation about our program can be found on our website here: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/philosophy/degrees/gradprogram.php as well as on the attached poster.

Please contact Dr. Daniel Nathan at Daniel.Nathan@ttu.edu, Director of Graduate Admissions, with any questions. 

Please do feel free to post any additional opportunities that undergrad philosophers might find of interest in the comment thread below!

Advice on giving good Zoom talks?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Al writes:

Wondering if anyone has advice on giving Zoom talks (in my case it's an invited talk rather than a job talk, if that matters). I usually use powerpoint, so the obvious thing would be to share my screen with my slides up on the screen. Alternatively, I could email around (or post a link to) a handout, and talk through that.

Any other suggestions/advice?

Great question! Another reader submitted the following response:

From my experience, you should use powerpoint. Do not present from a handout. If you want to give them an aid, send the paper in advance. I did this recently. It was for an audience whose first language is not English. They really appreciated, and the questions in the Q&A were, as a result, quite sophisticated. Consequently, it was a far better experience than I expected.

I don't know. Until yesterday, I might have agreed with this. But yesterday, I sat in on an Eastern APA session where the author used a handout, which they shared via Zoom's chat function. I thought it went just fine! I opened the handout on one side of my screen while watching the speaker on the other--and I thought it worked just about as well for the speaker as using a PowerPoint. I was able to follow everything well via the handout, and the talk itself was engaging.

In any case, if the OP does use PowerPoint, I would advise not to simply share the presentation via Zoom. My experience here is that if one simply shares a PowerPoint, the slides take up the whole screen (as is standard in PowerPoint's 'present' function), and the speaker is in a little box in the corner, then the presentation can seem less engaging. In my author-meets-critics session at the Eastern APA last week, I did something different that I thought worked well. I saved my PowerPoint slides as a PDF, opened the PDF in one window, selected the 'read mode' function (which make them take up the whole PDF window), and then did 'share screen' via Zoom, placing my PDF/slides on the left-hand side of the screen with my Zoom camera feed taking up the right-hand side of my screen. The advantage here is that the audience can view a large enough version of the PowerPoint to read and see the speaker in a large window at the same time--thus approximating the experience one would have viewing a philosophy talk in person, at least as far as is possible via Zoom.

But these are just my reactions/tips. What are yours?

Applying in future years to jobs one didn't get?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Annie writes:

My questions concern applying for jobs in departments that one has in previous years been short-listed but ultimately rejected from. Is this something one should acknowledge in one's cover letter? Should one hedge by keeping the same materials like a writing sample (since they worked last time and they might not be remembered) or do something new (to show you've developed or something)? Anything else worth knowing? Thanks everyone

Interesting questions. My reaction here is pretty unequivocal: I don't think it is worth mentioning or doing anything special with one's application materials. Let me explain.

Which AOCs are good to develop?

On Twitter yesterday, an early-career philosopher asked:

I would like very much to develop teaching competence in Ancient Philosophy, including especially ancient science. It seems like this is a bad idea given this would be far off from what I would like to specialize in...I wonder how people navigate such thing. [A]ny Cocoon posts about things like this?

I think this is a great query, as it raises some important job-market issues that I suspect many graduate students and job-candidates might not know very much about. Indeed, far from it being a bad idea for this person to develop an AOC in Ancient, I think it is a great idea. Let me explain why.

Should grad students & job-candidates be open or silent on political issues?

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

I'm a graduate student who will soon go on the job market. My simple question is this: Can I, from a professional standpoint, stay completely silent on the various 'political' questions that are currently floating around the profession? Things related to Professor S*toc* come to mind, but that's likely not the full extent of it.

I have particular concern because, with some dedicated internet searching, it would be easy enough to figure out my political sympathies. I'm not ashamed of them (they are mine, after all), but I guess I'm curious as to whether that is something I should be willing to talk about in job interviews. To frame this as one last specific question: do you think it would be abnormal for search committees to inquire into her political views?

I know there has been some talk about whether a candidate would be judged harshly based on a pro-life stance, for instance, but I'm more concerned about being judged for my personal political work, which I'd rather keep to myself.

These are very good questions, and I'm curious what readers think. But here are a few of my thoughts:

1. I think there is no risk-free approach here. If you are open about your political views, then those views or your public declarations may turn off some search committees. On the other hand, if you are silent, you run two risks: (A) failing to stand out as a job-candidate, and (B) appearing silent on important political issues that some search committee members themselves think people should take public positions on rather than remaining silent. Bearing this in mind, I recall something my father told me as a child: "You'll never make everyone happy", the point being that everything you do runs a risk of turning this person or that person off. In terms of the job-market, the relevant thing to bear in mind here is that your task is not to get every search committee to like you (which is surely impossible). Your aim should be to get one department to like you so much that they want to hire you. And when it comes to this task, it is entirely unclear to me whether being open about one's political views or silent about them is a better approach. Some departments, after all, are plausibly comprised largely by political progressives; others by political conservatives; and others still by political moderates. As a job-candidate, openly espousing one set of views may turn off search committees in the other camps--but it may make you look attractive to search committees (or influential search committee members) who share your views. This isn't to say that I think politics should influence hiring like this. It is merely to note that this is probably how things work, given the way that human beings are.
2. Do you really want to work with people who will discriminate against you? This has come up on this blog before, but I think it's important. If you are hired into a job, at some point your political leanings are probably going to come out, or at least be suspected by colleagues interested in these things. And do you really want to work somewhere where you're going to have to worry that your colleagues might discriminate against you (or worse)?
3. Nothing is risk-free, but professionalism matters. My sense is that there is probably a huge difference between expressing your political views online, and doing so in a way that appears unprofessional (i.e. mocking people on Twitter, thread-jacking blog discussion boards, etc.). Faculty and administrators want to hire people who will reflect well on their university, not embarrass it (or worse).
4. Is it abnormal for search committees to ask about political views? I have no idea. But what I do know is that members of search committees can and sometimes do ask things that they shouldn't (indeed, even things are illegal to ask, such as one's relationship status). If I were asked about my political views during an interview, I'm not sure what I would do. I'd probably get uncomfortable. But then again, I'm not the best interviewee. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear both from search committee members and from current or former job-candidates what their experiences have been.

Book launch and on-the-spot writing contest for Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories

Eric Schwitzgebel, Johan De Smedt and I are launching our book "Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories: Exploring the Boundaries of the Possible", which will be published with Bloomsbury.

The book launch will take place on Zoom on January 18, from 2 PM to 3:30 Central Time. 

This launch will feature authors of stories in the book who will read excerpts or standalone flash fiction. 

In addition, we organize an on-the-spot writing contest (submit within 2 hours of receiving the prompt online) for stories of 500 to 1000 words, for potential publication in Flash Fiction Online. 

All participants to the book launch will also receive a 35% discount code for the book for the Bloomsbury website. 

Details on how to register here: http://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/PhilThruSF-booklaunch.htm

Excellent works by early-career people?

I came across an excellent and important paper this past weekend by an early-career philosopher, and thought it could be great to begin the week a discussion thread amplifying other examples of excellent work by early-career people. The paper I came across this weekend is by Nicolas Delon (New College of Florida). The paper is, 'Strangers to ourselves: a Nietzschean challenge to the badness of suffering' (forthcoming in Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy). Here's the abstract:

Is suffering really bad? The late Derek Parfit argued that we all have reasons to want to avoid future agony and that suffering is in itself bad both for the one who suffers and impersonally. Nietzsche denied that suffering was intrinsically bad and that its value could even be impersonal. This paper has two aims. It argues against what I call ‘Realism about the Value of Suffering’ by drawing from a broadly Nietzschean debunking of our evaluative attitudes, showing that a recently influential response to the debunking challenge (the appeal to phenomenal introspection) fails. It also argues that a Nietzschean approach is well suited to support the challenge and is bolstered by the empirical literature. As strangers to ourselves, we cannot know whether suffering is really intrinsically bad for us.

I think it's just a wonderful paper. It challenges some very influential arguments on the nature of normative reasons and value, including the general methodology behind those arguments--and the paper's central argument not only seems to me to be highly plausible; it's also (for obvious reasons) highly provocative. Anyway, I wanted to amplify it here, as I know that papers, particularly those by early career people, can sometimes fall through the cracks, not getting the attention they deserve. Anyway, I encourage readers to check Delon's paper out!

Do any of you have in mind any excellent works by early-career people that you would like to recommend? If so, please do share away in the discussion thread below.

Developing philosophically out of academia?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Tom writes:

I have a Bachelor's degree in philosophy, and I am going on my second semester as a teaching assistant at my alma mater for sections of ethics and philosophy of religion. I'm not a graduate student, but I was for a few weeks before I quit due to a lack of proper treatment for my mental disorders. However much I might like to return to a master's program to improve my knowledge of philosophy, my mental health professional has advised against it. I read a lot in my area of interest, which is a particularly narrow domain of inquiry. I still write from time to time. I have some people who are willing to give me feedback on my writing, but without attending graduate school, my goal of publishing my two most cherished pieces of philosophical writing seems impossible. Now to my question: how do I improve my writing and develop my ability as a philosopher independently and largely in isolation?

I'm not sure that I have a great answer to Tom's question. I guess my suggestion would be to simply keep up with new articles coming out in their area and try to seek out feedback from professional philosophers or grad students who are willing to read their work. I do think it is probably very hard (though not impossible) to publish and develop as a philosopher independently and in isolation, especially with only a Bachelor's degree. However, it's been done by many philosophers (and scientists!) in history, and I'm strongly inclined to not discourage people or make pronouncements about what 'cannot be done.' If human history shows anything, it is that dedication and resourcefulness can go a long way.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

What should (not) be in a teaching portfolio?

In the comments section of Trevor's post on teaching portfolios vs. 'evidence of teaching effectiveness', a reader writes:

I'm dramatically downsizing my portfolio, since I've heard from folks now that search committees just don't care about seeing all your syllabi, or sifting through full evaluation sets. For me, this means I'm summarizing all of the data, whether quantitative or written comments, and including just two full syllabi, plus of course a statement. And that is that.

If a Department really wants to see full, unaltered evals, then their language should say exactly that. Or so it seems to me. If they don't ask for that, then they shouldn't expect more; nor should they let biases of cherry picking figure into their assessment if they're not asking for the full set.

But I'd like to hear from Trevor and Marcus on this.

Another commenter, Annie, responded as follows:

I would have thought that 'evidence of teaching excellence' means unaltered evaluations, awards, informal letters of support for students (if you opt to include that sort of thing), reports of teaching observation, etc. To my ear, a teaching statement and syllabi don't fit the bill.

Finally, in response to Annie's comment, another reader wrote in:

I had sort of been wondering about this, and now someone has responded in the post about 'evidence of teaching effectiveness' VS 'teaching portfolio' that the former might involve letters of reference written on your behalf by students. But is this something hiring committees actually like to see? It seems pretty strange to me.

All of these comments raise an interesting question: given that 'teaching portfolio' and 'evidence of teaching effectiveness' seem to be used interchangeably, what should and should not be included in a teaching portfolio?

Are PhD programs receiving more applications?

A reader writes in:

I wanted to draw your attention to a Twitter thread by Kevin Zollman at Carnegie Mellon University...

Zollman announced that the philosophy department at CMU has seen a 40%-60% increase in PhD applications this season. A few other philosophers have confirmed a similar increase in their departments. Though it should be pointed out that a few (Rutgers for example) have not seen such an increase.

As a 2021 PhD applicant, I am justifiably anxious about this. I won't be applying to CMU, but I feel confident that we will see similar increases across the board. 

Do you or any of your readers see this happening at other departments? If so, what advice do you have for us graduate students who feel like their already slim chances have just vanished?

I think it would be great to hear from PhD admissions committee members on whether this is happening at their program. Also, if it is, what advice would you give nervous applicants? I guess I'm inclined to say that if this is the case, then applicants who don't get into a program they want to enter might be better off waiting and applying again next year. Then again, next year could be a similar story. What do you all think?

Author Meets Critics this Friday

If anyone is interested, the Eastern APA is holding a virtual Author Meets Critics session on my book, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory, this Friday from 11am-1pm EST. Here are the session details:

5B. Author Meets Critics: Marcus Arvan, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory

Chair: Denise Vigani (Seton Hall University)

Critics: David Killoren (Australian Catholic University), Neil Sinhababu (National University of Singapore), Caroline Arruda (University of Texas at El Paso), Gregory Robson (Iowa State University)

Hope to see some of you there!

Teaching Portfolio's vs. "Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness"

Just before the end of the year, I got an email from a former colleague of mine who is doing her first run on the job market. She asked if I had any input on the difference between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness." The latter phrase is commonly used on job ads these days as a required component of one's application, but it is often ambiguous as to what exactly should be included. Here's what I told her in my response:

When I was last on the job market, my teaching portfolio contained (1) my statement of teaching philosophy, (2) a brief summary of my student evaluations from the last several years, (3) two full sets of student evaluations from recent courses taught, (4) two full sample syllabi, and (5) two brief course proposals (with reading lists) for courses I was ready to teach but had never actually taught. When I was asked for evidence of teaching effectiveness, I usually included fewer materials -- the teaching statement, summary of evaluations, a single set of student evaluations, one sample syllabus, and sometimes one course proposal. If I could, I tailored these documents to the job ad. If I were expected to teach a course like Contemporary Moral Problems, for instance, then I'd be sure to include evaluations from that course, and if I were expected to teach a philosophy of technology course, then I'd slip in my course proposal for that class.

 

In my experience, asking for an entire teaching portfolio has become relatively rare. In my last job search, less than 15% of the jobs I applied for requested it. Requests for either "evidence of teaching effectiveness" or a specific list of teaching-related items appears to be the norm now. I suspect that this is because there are so many job applicants now that most committee members don't want to sift through a portfolio of 25-30 pages and have assumed that evidence of teaching effectiveness should be more focused and concise than a full portfolio. The institutions that requested full portfolios were, as you might expect, teaching focused schools, and I suspect that the portfolio was one of the weightiest parts of those application.

 

This, however, is only my impression of the difference, and I could be mistaken. Does anyone else have a take on the distinction between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness" who would like to weigh in?

Showing appreciation while we have time

Happy New Year, everyone! Given how...challenging 2020 was (to put it mildly), I figured it might be good to try to begin 2021 on the Cocoon on a positive note: that is, in a way that starts out 2021 trying to do some good. One of the things that 2020 brought to the forefront of many of our minds, I expect, is just how tenuous life is. Of course, we always know that our lives or lives of our friends and loved ones could end at any time. But, for the most part, I take it that most of us normally try to avoid this reality, living our daily lives out, going to work, etc. Last year was different. Some of us got sick from COVID; others of us worried about or even lost loved ones to it. Hopefully, this year will be better. But all of this got me thinking about something: namely, how important it can be to let people know how much they mean to us while we still have the time to do so.

My sense is that, for those of us who have lost people (either last year or before COVID), not doing this can be one of the things we deeply regret. For example, last year was the first time a former professor and mentor of mine passed away. Although I did my best to express gratitude to them while they were here, I'm not sure that I ever made it clear just how much of a positive difference they made in my life and career. And indeed, every time I read death notices of philosophers (and comments sections where people express the difference those people made in their lives), I always think to myself: why don't we do this--openly express gratitude to those who mean so much to us--before they pass, that is, when they are still here to see how much they mean to us?

So, here is what I would like to try in the comments section below. I'd like to ask readers who are willing to do so to express gratitude to others in the profession who have made a positive difference in your life--whether it is a mentor, a friend in grad school, whomever! While I think readers should feel free to do so openly under their own name, I'm a bit inclined to suggest that it may be best to do so anonymously, and here's why. I read yesterday a selection by Kant (in his Lectures on Ethics) in which he argues against doing people profligate favors on the grounds that it places them under a kind of unasked-for obligation. Lurking here in the background also, I think, is another classically Kantian idea: that when we do nice things publicly (as opposed to anonymously), there's always a real concern about purity of motive--that is, of us doing so to look good rather than to do good. So, here's what I'll suggest: if there are any people in the profession who have made a positive difference in your life--who you would like to show gratitude to while they are still here--do it anonymously, simply to start off 2021 in a way that, if that person sees your comment, will make their start to 2021 feeling a bit happier and more appreciated than they might otherwise feel today. :)

I'll probably post an anonymous comment (or two) of gratitude myself, but only after others kick things off (in part so that it's not obvious which commenter I am!). I hope that at least some of you do take the opportunity to comment and share the thread. Why not begin 2021 trying to make someone's day (and start of the year) just a little bit brighter?