The Philosophers' Cocoon

Inquiring about the status of journal submissions

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

I am sure there are topics on this, but it never gets old: how long after the submission is it appropriate to reach out to a journal to inquire about the status of the submission? 2 months? 3 months? 6 months? Is there any difference in norms relative to journals?

I'm pretty sure that we've discussed this on previous occasions, but it could still be good to take people's temperature on this again. Personally, I think I'd probably wait 6 months. The average turnaround time for many journals seems to be 2-4 months, so asking within that timeframe might not have much of a point. Then again, different journals have different average turnaround times (sometimes listed on their website), so maybe go by that?

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Tips from successful job candidates?

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

Here's a question: can we have a thread in which recently *successful* job applicants who have gotten TT jobs describe their own application process?

In particular, I'm wondering about time spent on materials. How much time did you spend personalizing your cover letter, e.g., or preparing for the first-round interview? (I'm wondering whether I've been spending way too little time on these initial steps, myself.) Does the process that went into a successful application compare in any notable way to the many unsuccessful applications?

But really, any tips from those who have been recently--especially within the last job cycle or two--successful in landing TT jobs would be much appreciated.

I think this is a nice idea. Do any recent job candidates who have gotten tenure-track jobs have any tips or insights to share? How much time did you spend on various materials, and how did you develop them?

Meeting w/book publishers while on the market?

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

I have been approached by an editor who works for an academic book publisher (somewhere in the middle of ranked publishers from the blog of the guy who ranks everything) who wants to meet me at an upcoming conference we are both attending and discuss publishing the project I am working on (not dissertation project).

I was wondering two things:
1) What should I be asking/getting to know about this publisher in this meeting? I'm completely new to this process and have no clue what to even be asking this editor?
2) What are people's thoughts on middle of the road publishers? I imagine they would help my chances at a permanent job, am I wrong in that assumption?

I think this should be ok in my situation since I would like to work at a SLAC, but I'd love to know what others think?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

It sounds like you do not have a permanent position - if that is the case I think it is a bad idea to try to publish a book. I have published 3 monographs, and edited 2 volumes (and finishing a 3rd). These are long term projects that are quite unpredictable. My monographs and one of the volumes is with one of the top 2 publishers. It is unrealistic to try to complete a monograph while you are still actively on the job market. I completed my first ONLY with the help of a sabbatical - and it came out in print three years later. If you need a permanent position, then you need well placed articles in highly ranked journals.

I disagree, based on my experience both as a former job candidate and many-time search committee member at a SLAC.

Making sense of PhD program rejections?

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

I am an international student (ESL) currently completing an MA degree in a well-regarded terminal program in the US. I am reaching out to you for guidance and support as I recently received rejections from all 25 PhD programs I applied to, including some of the unranked ones. I am (well, I was) confident in my abilities as an aspiring philosopher, having consistently been a top-performing student, winning awards, and presenting at prestigious conferences. That's how I got into my current MA program, or at least that's what I used to believe. As far as my professors (who are v. experienced at getting people into PhD programs) could tell, my dossier had no red flags, and I should have received multiple offers, even from top programs. And again, my writing sample, which was the product of a year's research, received thorough feedback from my professors at every step of the writing process, and was polished to a really high standard, which was again confirmed by multiple people. However, I did not attend a Leiterrific undergraduate school nor did I have any publications, which I suspect are the only two apparent things that made me less favorable. In any case, I am beginning to think that the best explanation of getting 25 independent rejections is that I simply lack whatever kind of talent I needed to have, as it seems that, contrary to what anyone I know, including myself, thought, my application was not good enough. Based on my situation, do you think that reapplying would make sense at this point? Or should I explore other paths? I welcome any feedback or suggestions that you may have.

I'm sorry this reader is having to grapple with this, and I empathize. When I initially applied to PhD programs, I think I applied to some 20-odd programs and only got into two relatively low-ranked ones. This was several decades ago, when (or so it seems) competition to get into grad programs was less intense than it is today. So, I'm not at all sure that the OP should take their performance in admissions this year to be evidence of lack of talent. It could be many things. For example, did they only apply to top-25 programs? Is there something about their application materials that didn't come across well? Could some kind of bias against non-native English speakers have been at work? Obviously, it's hard to say without knowing more. But I guess what I would do, if I were them, is to try to figure out the answers--perhaps by getting some philosophers outside of their MA program to look over their materials, or perhaps even by asking for feedback from a few admissions committees that rejected them (though I don't know if this is feasible).

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Any tips, insights, or experiences of your own that you think the OP might find helpful?

Competing against (much) more experienced candidates on the market?

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

I guess I'm looking for general advice here, as much as that is possible.

A couple times on the market I've made it to the flyout round for an Assistant Prof post only to lose out to a *much* more senior candidate. I'm happy to get the flyout, and I'm also wondering if there is anything I can do to be more competitive against candidates that have much more experience than I. I'm one year out of grad school in a respectable post-doc, and I'm just not sure I can present myself in a way that compares favorably to those who have been assistant professors for 3-5 years.

Thoughts?

Good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is other than perhaps the obvious: keep publishing, improving as a teacher, etc. But of course I realize this isn't super helpful.

Anyone else have any more helpful advice or experiences to share, either from the job candidate or hiring side of things?

Moving from a community college to a university?

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

I've got two related questions:

1. In grad school I heard that moving from a cc to a university is basically impossible. Is that true? If not, what will making such a move require?

2. Is there a way to gauge from job listings, or by doing a bit of research, how big a role research plays at a particular teaching-focused institution? Does it vary widely? (I'd exclude SLACs here because I'm enrolled in the PSLF program.)

A bit of explanation: By the time I entered my last year of grad school, I felt confident that I wanted a career at a community college. I loved teaching and, while I love writing, I am less enthusiastic about academic writing. So I only applied to cc jobs and was lucky enough to land a job at a cc in a great city. The year that I earned tenure there I left (for a few good reasons) after taking another cc job across the country. The new job improves on the areas that were of concern at the old job, but I am deeply unhappy living here so I'm back on the job market. For the first time, I'm looking at university positions with interest because of the additional opportunities that creates. But I'm unsure whether a position at even a teaching-focused university would be a good fit for me because I don't know how big a role research plays there and whether such an institution would even consider me.

I've built up a very good CV in terms of service and teaching, but I don't know [1] how that would be valued by teaching-focused universities, [2] whether my complete lack of research since the dissertation would disqualify me even if I attempt to start publishing now, or [3] what it would look like to be in a position that has a research requirement (all the university job ads ask for a promising research agenda but I can't tell how much research is a part of each of those jobs).

I don't know if making such a move even makes sense for me, but that's in part because I actually know very little about what life would look like at a university. Whatever I can learn will help me take informed steps forward, and I figured that putting out this feeler is a good start.

Another reader submitted the following rather blunt take:

I worked for a number of years at a typical state college - almost all programs were 4 year BAs. When we ran searches we would not have touch a file like yours in a hundred years - (i) it suggests that you have no interest in research and there is no evidence you could meet the (rather low) requirements for tenure; and (ii) there are just so many other that might be just like you, but have a publication of two. So there would be no good reason to consider a file from a candidate who has not published.

I suspect this is probably true for tenure-track positions at 4-year universities, as even at teaching-focused universities research matters, and a complete lack of research since one's dissertation would (as this reader notes) make the OP uncompetitive against candidates who do have some research productivity. However, I am less sure about non-tenure-track "Teaching Assistant Professor" positions, which appear to be becoming increasingly common at many universities. In my experience, these positions can have few (or even no) research expectations, focusing instead on teaching and service. Yet, I also have reason to believe that even when it comes to these positions, some people think that at least some research activity is necessary to keep up with the field as a teacher. So, I'm not sure about those positions. I suspect that if the OP does want to move to at least a non-TT job like this at a university, they should try to take some steps to start publishing. 

But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Who to get letters from for grad school applications?

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

I'm a student preparing to apply to PhD programs in philosophy. Many programs specify that they want letters of recommendation from philosophers. My question is: for the purpose of recommendation letters, who counts as a "philosopher"?

Does "philosopher" solely supervene over individuals with PhDs in philosophy? Would individuals with PhDs in, say, Ethics or Theology qualify? Does it matter if an individual with a PhD in these philosophy-adjacent fields teaches in a philosophy department, or publishes in philosophy journals? Or is this too far into the weeds, and students should ask the faculty most acquainted with their work and research capabilities to serve as recommenders?

Good questions. I'm not 100% sure, but I expect that admissions committees at philosophy PhD programs will want letters from people with philosophy PhDs who are able to comment in a well-informed manner on one's philosophical abilities and work. Although people in philosophy-adjacent fields (such as Theology) may be able to write on an applicant's general academic abilities and ability to put together well-reasoned work, my guess is that people on philosophy PhD admissions committees will be more likely to trust the judgment of someone who has a PhD and publishes in the field.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

How to list affiliation when changing jobs?

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

I am curious what the norms/conventions are for reporting your affiliation when changing jobs. For example, I currently work at institution A but am starting a new job in the fall at institution B. When writing down my affiliation—e.g., when submitting to journals or conferences, or filling out a form about how my affiliation on a conference programme—should I write down A, B, A/B (as I’ve sometimes seen), etc.?

Another reader had the same question ("I have the same question as A/B. Should I write down my future affiliation in my current submission?"). I'm not exactly sure what the conventions are, but I guess I'm inclined to say that it might depend on which institution you'll be at when the event rolls around. Will you still be at School A if/when you attend the conference? If not, then it might be a bit confusing to other participants. And I guess I think the same thing probably applies to journals. Maybe list A when submitting, but if the paper is accepted and will be published when you're at B, update your proofs to list B instead?

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Putting papers in progress on one's website?

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

What's the risk of putting the titles of one's "in progress" or "under review" papers on one's website? Sometimes I'll see a website where someone has replaced the title of their paper with something to the effect of "title redacted for review". And sometimes they'll even redact the titles of presentations on their CV (if they have a paper under review with the same title). But redacting titles of papers and presentations is a pain. So what's the risk?

Is the thought that reviewers might discover your identity and form biases? If so, are some authors more likely than others to suffer from deanonymization? Might those who study or work at prestigious institutions, or who have excellent publication records, even benefit from a positive presumption after deanonymization?

Good questions. What do you all think?

Are job candidates expected to be perfect?

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

My partner, a non-academic who has seen me suffer through the ups and downs of the market for a few years now, made what I thought to be an excellent observation this morning after we debriefed about another intense interview.

She noted that academic job interviewers (you, search committee member!) seem to expect perfection from their interviewees. She elaborated: 'In a lot of other jobs, you can slip-up in interviews, not say the perfect thing, and it's not like they won't hire you, because there is so much on the job learning, and they know that'. My immediate reaction to this was that she is absolutely right. It seems that philosophy search committee members in fact expect perfection in interviews, when that is just completely unrealistic. It also struck me that she was right to think academia does not encourage on the job learning of the sort implied by thoughts like: 'Well, they didn't show in the interview that they had that down, but that is ok, we can teach them; they'll learn'. Instead, we get: 'Well, they flubbed that question; they must be incompetent: they're out'.

Now to my questions: Are you expecting us to be perfect, because it feels that way? If so, why are you expecting perfection from us? And can you stop please? It is completely unrealistic, and just another instance of academic standards being utterly out-of-touch with how things ought humanely to go.

Interesting questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers. One reader submitted the following reply:

In the searches I have been involved with, we do not expect candidates to be perfect. In fact, usually, if the search has gone well, the department would be happy with hiring any of the finalists - even after their interviews. What the committee does is balance their needs with what each candidate has to offer. And small things can make a difference - because only one candidate can be offered the job. But perfection is not the standard.

This matches my experience in hiring. I don't think search committees expect perfection. Few (if any) interviews are perfect. When a candidate "knocks an interview out of the park", it can make a difference--but, even then, my experience is that committees tend to make decisions holistically, not just on interview performance but on the basis of the rest of their dossier. And, even when candidates don't give perfect interviews, they can still be at the top of a committee's list. We all recognize that people can flub a question or two, or even have a bad day interviewing. This is my experience, at any rate.

Are any other search committee members able and willing to weigh in? It might also be good to hear from job-candidates too, as when I was a job candidate sometimes I got flyouts after interviews that I thought went poorly, but didn't get flyouts for interviews that seemed to go well!

Job markets tips or warnings you wish you'd had?

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

I plan to go on the job market for the first time this fall. What are some tips or things that you were not advised or warned about that you wished you were? Also, thinking about the number of documents that are needed is daunting. Does anyone have a sense of how long it takes to finish a research statement, dissertation abstract, and other documents, and/or have any tips on how to write these documents?

These are all good questions. The Cocoon's Job-Market Boot Camp gave a bunch of tips on how to compose various dossier materials, but it would be great to hear some answers about them from readers, and especially on the question, "What are some tips or things that you were not advised or warned about that you wished you were?"

Reviewing a paper again for another journal?

In our two most recent "how can we help you?" threads, two comments were posted (by the same reader?) on whether to accept a reviewer assignment for a paper that they already recommended rejecting at another journal:

I've been asked to review a paper in a journal that I've already reviewed in a different journal and recommended rejection. I haven't seen the new paper but the title is the same. I was quite sure the paper was not ready for publication then and its been about 3 months since then that I've received the request and so I think its unlikely the paper has substantially improved. Should I still take up the review request?

----

Should you review a paper that you've reviewed before for another journal that you recommended rejection there? I'm not sure if it seems unfair to them that they have to be reviewed by the same reviewer that already didn't like their work the first time and maybe deserve to have someone else read the work?

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I have refused to review for a second time. Reason is that I believe that I may be mistaken. And being on the other end, my currently most cited paper (and among the top cited papers in the relevant debate) was rejected by a particular reviewer several times at different journals, always giving the same set of comments. (Almost prompting me to leave academics.) I think it would be bad to exacerbate one's mistake.

This is my policy as well, and for the same reasons. Peer-review is such a crapshoot, and referees so different in their judgments, that I think an author deserves a shot with different reviewers in different places. 

What do you all think?

Diagnosing repeated conference rejections?

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

I'm a PhD candidate working in early modern philosophy who has recently received about a dozen rejections from early modern conferences and no acceptances. Several of the CfPs were exclusively for graduate students, although others were also open to early career academics. I'm trying to figure out where I went wrong and why I've been having so much trouble getting into conferences. My main thoughts are that I'm not working on very trendy topics, that I'm not engaging with enough very recent secondary literature, or that I'm just not doing enough of a good job on the abstracts. Any suggestions for how to diagnose the issue?

I guess I think it's probably hard to say without knowing more, but I guess I would advise the OP to give the papers/abstracts they've submitted to a few people in their subfield who are successful at getting into conferences. They might see something that the OP is missing.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

A pending recession and enrollment cliff: to stay on the market, or not to?

A reader writes in:

I have been on the job market for a few years and am seriously looking into quitting the profession this year. The alternative is that I hold out for another year or two in a visiting position. I'd appreciate hearing your readers' thoughts on whether the job market is likely to improve in the near-term. The US is likely headed for a recession, which many private sector firms are already planning for. And the anticipated "enrollment cliff" (dropping college enrollments due to a decline in birthrates post 2008 recession) will hit soon after that.

Because market conditions will likely only get worse for the next several years, sticking it out doesn't really seem to make sense. Can any of your readers speak (anonymously) to whether departments and universities are already factoring in a recession and the enrollment cliff in future hiring plans, and whether university administrators are already discussing hiring freezes?

An important question. I responded to this reader in private, but I'm curious to hear what readers think--and, in particular, whether any readers on the hiring side of things have any inside information relevant the OP's choice. One thing that I didn't mention to the reader in private, but which is probably relevant, is that aside from technology (which has been notably engaging in large-scale layoffs), non-academic job markets are historically strong right now and are unlikely to remain that way. As such, if there is any good time to transition from academia to industry, it seems to me that time is probably now!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Putting guest lectures, etc., on a CV?

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

Recently, I have been invited to give a fair number of teaching and research presentations recently outside of my department and I’m not sure how to list them on my CV, or whether to list them at all. They include the following types of activities:
- An article I wrote was assigned to a graduate class at another university and I came to their class session to talk with the students about the paper
- An article I wrote was assigned as part of a lecture series for Honors students at my university, and then I gave a presentation on how this paper fit into my broader research program and some takeaways about doing research, followed by Q&A focused on the paper
- For another department at my university’s research colloquium series, I presented the philosophical perspective on an area connected to my research
- Led a class session for a senior seminar in another discipline at my university (the professor and I didn’t know one another before; she reached out to me because she saw I did research on the philosophical aspects of her topic)

Currently, I have the first three listed under “Presentations.” I have enough presentations that I have sub-sections for refereed conference presentations, invited presentations, commentaries, and internal, so I put the first one under “invited” (since I was invited from outside my own university) and the other two under “internal.” I’m not convinced those are the best categories, especially since “internal” is starting to get messy; it was one thing when the only internal talks were for my department’s colloquium, but now it’s including stuff outside my department as well. So if anyone else has other heading suggestions or ways of carving it up, I’m all ears!

Relevant information: I’m pre-tenure, but far enough along that my CV is getting filled out, and I definitely don’t want to look like I’m padding. I don’t *need* any of these on my CV, but also some of them took some time to prepare, so I want to be sure I’m getting credit, as it were, for the things I’m doing. Also, I’m at a school that says it values research and teaching equally, and talks about a teacher-scholar model.

Two readers submitted replies. One wrote:

If you do not need them, then do not list them. Keep a list so if a context arises where you do need the information you can bring it out. But it is great your work is getting attention! Bravo!

And another wrote:

just my two cents: if it is for students mainly, then list it under teaching or service, such as guest lectures. If it is for other researchers, then as invited presentations, not quite internal since you presented to the other department. Both can be concise on the CV though.

Personally, I think the first of these two replies sort of undercuts its own rationale. If your work is getting enough attention that you're getting invited to give guest lectures and discussions, then as the first commenter notes, that looks good (e.g. to a tenure and promotion committee, etc.). It shows that people are interested in what you're doing, and that you're out there getting invited to present and engage with other people on your work. So, why not list these under a category, "Invited Guest Lectures & Discussions"?