The Philosophers' Cocoon

Listing a course one has taught as an AOC?

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

i am an abd grad student. I thought I had my AOS/AOCs figured out, but my department threw me a curveball and is having me teach a class that is outside of those areas. i'm not really worried about teaching the class and i am interested in the material, but i don't research this stuff at all. i fear that adding it as an AOC will look a little strange, both because there are now too many and because it doesn't really 'fit' with the rest, but i also don't want to undersell my capabilities when the ability to teach a wide range of classes is valued. if anyone has faced this situation, or evaluated someone like this from a committee perspective, i would be interested to know what you think.

This is a good query, as people always seem to have questions about what constitutes a 'legitimate AOC.' My understanding has always been that an AOC is supposed to be something that one would be able and qualified to teach an advanced undergraduate course in, even if it isn't an area that one does active research (i.e. publishing) in. So, I would think, at a minimum, an AOC should be something that one either has graduate coursework training in, and/or something one has cultivated some advanced competence in by some other means (such as by teaching lower-division courses in the area regularly and developing a more advanced background in by reading more widely in that area).

Consequently, my sense is that it is probably not a good idea to list a course that one has merely taught a couple of times in grad school as an AOC. Fortunately, in many cases, I don't think that much is likely to turn on this for a job-candidate. If a department otherwise likes you, they want/need someone to teach X, and you have taught X before, then that's likely to be a mark in your favor, AOC or no.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from readers in general, but particularly from members of search committees!

Prestigious PhD programs in Continental Philosophy?

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

Most of my department and its graduate students identify very heavily with "the continental tradition," of the sort that is most represented by the "SPEP" (the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy). I work in core analytic M&E, so it is a tradition which is *extremely* foreign to me.

My question is this: which PhD programs are considered the "prestige" programs in this tradition? For us folks working in the analytic tradition, it's the "Leiterrific" places. But due to unfamiliarity with the SPEP-affiliated side of the profession, I have no idea what the equivalents might be. This might not be the best question to ask here, since I know that rankings of all sorts are typically looked upon here with an eye of suspicion (often rightly so!).

I recognize that any list of the "prestige" programs in the SPEP arena are going to be subjective and highly anecdotal. But that's okay -- ultimately the PGR is, too. I just need to get some sense of which programs are considered the exceptionally strong ones, and which programs are considered maybe also strong but less exceptionally so. (My tentative sense is: maybe Penn State, Northwestern, Stony Brook, and Emory? Maybe DePaul, too?)

I would like to note that I actually have legitimate professional reasons to be asking about this, but I would like to keep them private for reasons of anonymity.

Interesting question, and I'm not sure what the answer is! I do know that there is placement data out there indicating which continental programs tend to have the best job-placement rates (some of which are better than the best analytic programs)--in fact, I know this because I posted it on the Cocoon a few years back. Alas, I can't seem to track it down. Anyone able to find that post? In any case, another reader submitted the following reply:

As a grad student in continental philosophy, things are very volatile, since many of the "best" continental programs come from smaller Jesuit universities who I believe were harder hit by COVID and general declining enrollment than others. As far as the "top tier" of continental programs, I think Penn State and Emory are the two 'best' programs, in that they are the best funded and most likely to remain strongly continental. Many of the mixed continental programs are shaking off their continental faculty and the smaller programs are losing a lot of lines.

Anyone else have any helpful insights?

How much time do editors and referees spend on submissions?

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

How much time do editors/referees spend on average reading submissions before making a decision? Do they read them more than once?

Interesting questions. It would be great to hear from readers (both editors and reviewers), but I suspect there is huge variance. As an another reader writes in the following submitted reply:

I suspect the average would be misleading -- a distribution would be much more helpful. Such info, while likely not feasibly accessible, would be interesting to see (probably there's a *huge* variety).

In my own case as a reviewer, how long I take on a paper depends on many things: how long and complex the paper is, how good I think it is, how certain I initially am about the recommendation I plan to make to the editors (sometimes I know that I want to recommend reject, accept, R&R-major revisions, etc.; other times I waffle), how much work I think a paper needs if I recommend an R&R (as in these cases I write extremely detailed reports specifying exactly what issues need to be addressed for me to recommend acceptance), and so on. Then, of course, there is my personal and professional schedule. Some times of the year are busier than others with teaching, family obligations, service obligations at my university, research (sometimes I have revise-and-resubmits and other research deadlines to meet too!), and sometimes these things can be planned for but other times not. All of these things and more result in huge variance in how long it takes me to get a referee report done. Sometimes I get reports done well in advance of the journal's deadline (in fact, sometimes after just a few days or weeks), but sometimes it takes considerably longer. In any case, I have a policy of meeting journal deadlines, and I'd never not complete a report on time (or at most a day or two late).

But this is just my experience. What are yours? It would be great to hear from reviewers and editors! 

The inside scoop on open access book publishing?

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

Do any readers have an inside scoop on how open access monograph publishing works? Every once in a while, a book from a university press like OUP is published Open Access. Nick Shea's (2018) Representation in Cognitive Science is one example. I assume that in such cases, the author gets a grant from somewhere to pay the press a fee to make the book open access. How much are such fees? And are there particular places to go looking for that kind of funding? I know there are also recent efforts to create all-OA monograph publishing venues (in philosophy of science, there's the new BSPS Open). What other such ventures are out there?

Good questions. I seem to recall hearing that in some places (particular parts of Europe?), people are expected (required?) to publish their research open-access. Is this right? I'm not entire sure how much it costs to publish an academic book open-access (though I seem to recall it definitely being on the order of several thousand dollars), but my sense is that people who publish open-access stuff tend to have dedicated research budgets that they can use to pay for it. Am I right about this? And what about all-OA monograph publishing venues? Here, I know very little.

It would be great to hear from readers who are in the know. Anyone have the inside scoop on this stuff? It would be great to hear some details!

Referrals for 'the professor is out' (or other non-academic job search services)?

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

Hey, asking for a friend: has anyone used/consulted 'the professor is out' for help making the transition to a non-academic career path? I know a while ago there were some threads on another site about their academic services, but wondering specifically about whether they would be helpful in thinking about non-academic options. Thanks in advance!

Good question. I was well aware of the Professor Is In, but wasn't aware of their Professor Is Out services until now. One reader submitted the following response:

I have not used "the professor is out" for that. I did reach out to them in my first year on the TT, and I was surprised at how unreceptive they were to my inquiries. Ymmv. If this is appropriate, may I suggest reaching out to Larry McGrath, https://www.larrysmcgrath.com/career-consulting. He himself found a way out, from a phd in French intellectual history (and plenty of familiarity with philosophy), to private industry work. He now consults with other scholars looking to go a similar road, and I believe he has worked with a number of philosophers. Disclosure: although I have not worked with him in this regard (I'm still toiling away in philosophy), I know Larry socially.

Anyone else have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Developing a mentoring program for underrepresented groups?

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

I have heard that many search committees consider it a notable plus (and some perhaps even an unspoken requirement) that one has experience mentoring/working with people from underrepresented groups in philosophy (or perhaps it is enough to have mentoring experience more broadly-please advise!).

There are very few formal opportunities for PhD students at my (very large, very diverse, relatively prestigious) institution to do any type of robust formal mentoring (we teach to diverse groups, of course, but it seems like search committees find it good to have more one-on-one type mentoring experiences). I want to help design a systematic, mutually-beneficial program that can actually benefit undergrads and create meaningful connections while also helping PhD students get formal mentoring experience that can help them on the job market.

I know my department will support this endeavor, perhaps even with funding (they are super supportive of things like this, both job related and DEI related), but I am curious if anyone has advice, models, links, books, articles, podcasts, warnings, etc. about current programs of this type and what has worked/not worked well for others? I first and foremost want to make sure we go about designing the program in a way that it will not cause any further harm, exploit vulnerable undergrads, or waste people's time.

Any suggestions or stories would be greatly appreciated! I think there is potential to create something truly beneficial for all parties, if such a program is crafted with care.

What a great query--I'd love to hear some suggestions and experiences too! Anyone have any tips, resources, or experiences to share on creating a mentoring program like this (particularly ones that might help a PhD student like the OP)?

Going on the market just after starting a job?

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

Two questions about job market etiquette:

1) Is it considered "rude," "in poor taste," or in violation of relevant norms to leave a job after only one year? One the one hand, I believe in employee freedom in a labor market; on the other, I get that people might be offended by this.

2) Is is a valid worry that your current employer might find out that you're on the market? I would hope that application materials are confidential, but I also imagine that philosophers, like the rest of humankind, like to gossip. Does anyone have experience of their employers retaliating in any sort of way after finding out they were applying out?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:

I had a colleague who we hired leave after one year. I did not consider her rude ... I understood her motives quite well. But I am sure some of my colleagues absolutely hated her. We spent a lot of time doing the search, time we did not have. And then we choose her from among a number of fully qualified candidates - she deserved the job, but others were deserving as well. And then when she left we did not get the line renewed. It was lost ... for good! So do not expect your colleagues to be endeared to you if they find out you are on the market.

This sounds right to me, but here are my hot takes:

1. Sure, people will probably get upset if you leave after a year, as they hired you hoping and expecting you'd stay. But you have a right to leave for another job at any time (though if they asked during the hiring process whether you'd stay if hired and you were dishonest, then that seems bad, right?).
2. It's a worry for sure, but a "valid" one? I have no idea. I've never heard of employers finding out about this kind of stuff through the proverbial grape-vine, and think it would be an enormous wrong for anyone to compromise the confidentiality of a job application. Does it ever happen? I have no idea.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people who have some experience with this kind of scenario, both on the job-candidate and hiring sides of things.

Why hire new PhDs over VAPs with better publication records?

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

In response to the VAP Treadmill thread, Patrick said the following:

In addition, based on anecdotal evidence as well as comments I've read elsewhere on this issue: being a VAP and having a decent publication record doesn't always trump a freshly minted PhD with a proportionate publication record. Ex. a VAP with 4 years post-PhD and 4-5 articles, in many cases, isn't going to be appear exceptional compared to a new PhD from a ranked program who has just one publication. To be sure, some institutions value a seasoned junior person with bona fide teaching experience but this is definitely not the case everywhere.

I am glad Patrick said this, because it speaks to an impression I have had, which is that for whatever reason a VAP one, two, three years removed from the PhD, who has been able to publish while teaching what is likely a heavy-load, nevertheless does not look as shiny ('exceptional', promising) as the graduate student with fewer publications (maybe none) and less teaching experience (again, maybe none). What is making them shiny then, other than that they haven't yet come out of the wrapper? It's almost like the fact that one is not yet in a job counts in favor of people, whereas it counts against some (e.g. VAPs, lecturers, etc.).

The help I am requesting is for a good explanation of this phenomenon, which appears to me to be utterly biased and irrational (like so much of this process), and what a VAP is supposed to do keep their shine on, if, as Patrick says, apparently publishing isn't going to do the trick.

Good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

Here's just my guess as a person who got nothing the first year out, a teaching-intensive job in the second round, and a permanent one in the third round. One can publish a lot based on one’s dissertation. I have published 4 papers based on it. But at some point felt that I’m getting close to milking my dissertation dry. So I started another research project and published a paper from the new research project, and have one completed draft under review and several other papers to be written. I think this speaks to future publication potential, which is good for the prospects of tenure or this thing called REF. My guess is thus the worry about having published most of one’s dissertation but having less clear evidence for the potential of future publications would make one look less competitive compared to someone who seems to have a publishable but unpublished dissertation.

While I do think it's a good idea to develop a research program beyond the dissertation if you are out a few years (and that this can indeed help one get a job), my sense is that this probably isn't the best explanation of what is going on here. The most common explanation that I've heard of why some departments hire people just out of grad school with few (or no) publications is this. Top research departments (e.g. at R1's) may be the most interested in one's overall "promise" as a researcher, and whether one might be "the next big star." Whereas candidates who are a few years out may have fine publication records, a "shiny new PhD" just out of a top program is less of a known quantity and thus "might be the next big thing." In this regard, the phenomenon seems not all that unlike drafting top sports prospects out of college programs. Although even the best college athletes drafted have never played a single pro game (and many of them fail!), teams still draft them out of the mere hope (and possibility) that they will turn out to be a big star.

Now, I personally don't think this is a good line of reasoning. As another reader wrote:

I was on a series of VAPs. And I was passed over a number of times. I had papers in PhilSci and Synthese and PSA. In one case, they were interviewing someone from an elite school who had been out two years with NO pubs ... ZERO! In another case, someone was offered the job before me ... now two decades later I have over 11 times the number of citations as this person. It is a sorry world. I have had a good career, but it has been hard all the way.

Fortunately, if there are any silver linings here, they are these. First, even though some programs hire people just out of grad school with few publications, other departments really want to see a robust publishing record. Second, my experience is that jobs at teaching-focused institutions care a great deal about teaching experience, and thus, all things being equal, are likely to prefer VAPs over new PhDs. Finally, in my experience there are many people just like this last commenter: job candidates who were passed over for new PhDs, but who ended up getting a good job and succeeding in the end. In fact, speaking from personal experience here, I think that as horrible as it was at the time, my long time on the job market was a bit of a blessing in disguise. If I had gotten a TT job right out of grad school, I think I probably would have failed. I didn't know how to publish, nor did I really know how to teach all that well--let alone do both effectively at the same time. So, while it does indeed seem profoundly unfair, I'd just say to the OP: keep fighting the good fight. There are no guarantees in this unfair world, and there is a ton of luck involved on the academic market, but if you publish and teach well, good things can happen.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be good, in particular, to hear from people on the hiring side of things.

Tips for asking for a retention raise?

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

I am curious about the mechanics and strategy of asking for a retention raise. I am a TT assistant professor. I might receive a job offer soon for another TT position. I would be willing to take the new job, but I would prefer my current position if my salary increased. How would I go about asking for a retention raise? Whom should I ask--my chair or the dean? Any other advice?

Fair questions! I've heard anecdotally that some institutions don't negotiate these sorts of things at all (they will say in essence, "good luck to you at your new job"), but if you are willing to take the new job, what's the harm simply telling your institution that you have an outside offer but would prefer to stay if they'd be willing to raise your salary $X? If you really are willing to take the other job, the worst that they can say is 'no.' In any case, my sense is that one should only do this if one actually has an outside offer and you're willing to accept it.

In terms of the mechanics, one reader submitted the following reply:

go to the Dean (at least) Every campus is different, and campuses even change over time. I worked at a place where you went to the Provost. I liked it. You had to have some gumption to think they would even meet with you, but if you did, and you made a case for yourself, she was a generous and appreciative leader.

This seems right to me. Go first to your Dean. Then, depending on what they say, maybe go to the Provost. But it would be great to hear from other readers here, particularly readers who have tried to negotiate a raise like this. What was the process like, and how successful (or not) were you?

 

 

Tips for on-campus visit meetings with deans?

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

Oh gosh this one is a bit time sensitive so I am not even sure it's worth posting but just in case: how should you prepare to meet with a dean at a flyout? What is going on in these meetings? What is the dean's role re: your prospects of getting an offer? Any advice at all about this would be so very appreciated.

Good questions! Unfortunately, it's been almost 10 years since I did one of these and I have terrible episodic memory, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. One reader submitted the following reply:

This really is a simple part of the process. The dean meets with you to sell you her institution. So do not be stressed. It is a chance to ask about the institution, the place of philosophy at the institution, etc. They will want to impress upon you things about the broader community - what a great place it is to live (it is quite unlikely that they will be a philosopher). In one case, though, I did ask the dean why they did an external chair search (where I am from, such searches usually signal that the department is a little fucked up).

I'm curious to hear from other readers: is this right? Are these dean meetings things not to be stressed over too much, or do deans sometimes play important roles in the hiring process that can make these meetings more important than this response makes them sound?

Any readers have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share? 

Job market 'waiting-game' tips?

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

Any advice for coping with the interminable periods of waiting to hear back about job applications? How do you stay focused while navigating the emotional ups and downs? Do you have any strategies for maintaining focus, or for resetting when you find yourself distracted? It's my first year and I am struggling. Some days are fine...and other days I feel like a wreck with no self-control, opening zillow and refreshing my inbox, wondering and worrying, and not writing.

Excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers. I have to confess that when I was on the market, I didn't have any special strategies for handling this stuff. I was pretty much stressed and preoccupied all of the time. But I've always been able to focus on work, so during work hours, that's more or less what I did: bury my head in writing, teaching, grading, etc. I also went for a lot of long walks and runs with my dog, listening to music--things which have always been calming for me. But again, I really struggled, as I suspect most job marketeers do.

Any of you have any helpful tips for the OP?

(How) do 'little things' make a difference on the job market?

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

In the post about the VAP treadmill, a commenter said the following:

"In my experience in our searches, probably the top 20-50% of the applicant pool would be successful in the job and be an adequate fit for the specific role. The differences between the person who gets the job and the person who is 15th on the list are often small and hard to characterize."

I would love to hear from people who have been on search committees (or ppl who were told by someone on the search committee why they were hired) some examples of the tiny little things that ended up making one candidate get the job over the other equally-qualified candidates.

If these reasons are silly or arbitrary (e.g., this person just "seemed cooler" or had one more publication than someone else), all the better, since it helps us to remember just how much randomness there is. If some of the things are tiny things that others (like myself) can somehow imitate, then that is great too!

This is a great query, and I'd love to hear those who are in the know weigh in. One reader submitted the following reply:

Not a really practical advice, but making one's CV and/or cover letter unforgettable in the right way helps. According to my future employer (I've explicitly asked why they decided to hire me), apart from a promising research project (from their point of view) and institutional fitness (which played a central role in the final decision), I received a prestigious prize during my phd candidature and this really helped me get into the interview stage. Judging from other people who got a job, prizes help. At least everyone I know who got a prestigious prize (like from a journal or from some philosophical association) eventually got a TT or permanent job.

And another reader submitted this:

[H]ere is a tiny thing that might matter - imagine a position is advertised for Business Ethics, with an AOC in history of philosophy. The two finalists are matched on Business ethics, but the one has a broader range of history competence (early modern AND 19 C); or the one has early modern and 20th Continental and the other has early modern and 19 C. - and you think, a course on Nietzsche will fill seats, let's go for that one. These are small things that cannot be anticipated, and when a decision for ONE and only one candidate is required they become the difference maker.

Any other readers have good examples of 'little things' making a difference in the hiring process?

Requesting copyright permissions?

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

I'm thinking of sending a paper to a journal and have only now started thinking about copyright. Do I need to request permission from all the publishers from where I've cited work to include it in my paper?

Fortunately, one doesn't need to request permission to cite work in journal articles. However, there are two things worth knowing that some people might not be aware of.

First, my understanding is that one ordinarily does have to request permission to reproduce images--from journal articles, books, or the internet--including (surprisingly) images one has previously published oneself (e.g., in a previous journal article). I just found this out relatively recently when submitting to a journal, and found it terribly frustrating, as requesting and receiving image permissions can be time intensive and it's not clear to me why one should be able to cite written material with proper attribution but not do the same for images.

Second, my understanding is that when publishing books, one has to request permissions for epigraphs (e.g. short quotations at the head of a chapter) as well as, in some cases, permissions for long quotations of material (some publishing contracts or style guides explicitly lay out how many words a quoted passage can be without obtaining copyright permission).

I have confess that I don't know much about copyright law, but these requirements seem pretty arbitrary to me. Anyone know more, or am I incorrect about any of this? It would be great to crowdsource information about this so that authors know what it is and is not expected! 

The VAP treadmill?

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

I wanted to bump something to here that 'visiting treadmill' posted in the job market discussion thread, as I think it would be good to hear from folks on what they were saying, but no one responded there. I hope they don't mind!

visiting treadmill: Unsurprisingly, I feel a bit perplexed by the market. This is my fifth year on the market but I’ve held a visiting position every year. On the VAP market last year I had four interviews and two offers. I thought that maybe the VAP market buzz I experienced might be some evidence that I would have better luck on the TT market this year. But so far on the permanent market this year I’ve only had one first round zoom interview, which did not advance. It looks like that’s all I’m going to get, which needless to say is really disappointing. Anyone else have a similar experience? Is there such a thing as a VAP treadmill? Why would multiple departments (and I’m not talking R1 here) see a candidate as good enough for a visiting position but not a permanent position? Also, what’s the number to that truck-driving school again?

Good questions--it would be great to hear from other job candidates, as well as from search committee members. Do job candidates in visiting positions get pigeon-holed as good enough for visiting positions but not for permanent ones?

Finishing a grad program remotely?

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

Now that I have completed my coursework, I would love to finish my graduate program remotely. What are the norms for doing this sort of thing? It seems like most graduate students that do this have some kind of visiting student affiliation with another department. But is this sort of affiliation necessary? What else should I consider here?

Good questions! I don't know much about this, but my initial reaction was to wonder whether grad programs might be biased against this kind of thing, much as many workplaces are with respect to remote work. However, "recent PhD" submitted the following reply:

I know several people who do this for a variety of reasons. I certainly didn't go into the department when I was writing my dissertation during the pandemic. I think the biggest hurdle is funding. If you have to TA to get funding and all classes is in person, you obviously have to show up. People I know who are doing this are either teaching online or on fellowship/grant money.

Any readers out there have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share?