The Philosophers' Cocoon

The job market & financial health of universities

An anonymous reader writes in:

I was recently thinking about applying to a private, non-elite SLAC simply because it's a lot closer to my and my wife's families. I decided not to for a lot of reasons but one deep hesitation I had was that I know a lot of the private, non-elite SLACs are likely to flat out fold in the next ten or fifteen years and the public ones are likely to come in for some deep cuts. This brings me to a question that I thought it would be very good to put out there: How in the world does one get any information on the financial health of the place one is applying and related stuff like enrollment trends?

This seems super important. The people who ended up getting two jobs I interviewed in the past at public SLACs have already gotten laid off. It would have been a disaster for me and my family if I'd left a renewable lecturer gig . . . that, while shitty in oh so many ways, was at least stable, for a TT gig only to get laid off in three years. It seems important that applicants know that this is a real threat they need to worry about at a lot of schools, especially SLACs.

This is a really important question, and I'm really glad someone asked it. Over the past couple of years, I too have heard of at least of a few horror stories--cases where someone was finally able to get a tenure-track job, only to see their job eliminated a year or two after they started. Alas, I'm not sure how to answer the question. You can of course ask faculty or administrators at the university about the financial health of the institution (either during an on-campus visit or after a hiring offer is extended). But, as for asking faculty, my sense is that sometimes even they can be quite in the dark about these matters, as the actual financial health of the institution may only be known by upper administration (which, I think, is why so many of the recent waves of faculty-line eliminations have come as a total shock out of the blue to those who faced them).

So, while the OP's question is a super important one, I don't have any real guidance above and beyond: ask around before accepting a job offer. But this advice probably isn't all that helpful. What do you all think? Do you have any helpful tips or insights (or personal experiences) on this issue? 

The problem with "don't go to grad school" advice

You are a professor at a small liberal arts college. A bright student approaches you and says she is considering graduate school in philosophy. She loves philosophy and wants to dive deeper into it. She foresees a life of the mind where she might do this for a living.

Oh, your heart just breaks. This student is so excellent. Her final paper for your philosophy of science course blew you away. Still, you steel your heart and give her the advice that not only is sensible, but that strikes you as your moral duty to tell her.  

"Just don't do it!" you say. "Just don't go to grad school. The philosophy academic job market is abysmal for years, and now with Covid it's gone even further down."

You might temper this advice by saying that maybe she can consider it if she cannot imagine doing anything else (this is terrible advice, btw, but that's for another time), or only if she can get into a top program.

On the face of it, it seems straightforward to give this advice. We might even think we have a moral duty to actively discourage a student who contemplates getting a PhD in philosophy. 

But there is a fundamental problem--the advice takes away the student's agency. This piece by Tracy Evans, who started a PhD at age 60 is illuminating. Evans is privileged in many respects. She already had a long career already behind her when she "heeded the call to change". Yet, her reasons for embarking on the PhD are, I think, recognizable to many of us. As she writes, "'What do you intend to do with a Ph.D.?' [my colleagues] asked. 'It is all about the journey,' I responded. She goes on to quote one of her favorite authors, Ursula K Le Guin, who wrote  “It is good to have an end to journey towards, but it is the journey that matters in the end.”

Did you receive adequate mentoring?

Laurence B. McCullough (Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Baylor) writes in:

As a retired professor, I follow your blog to keep up with what is happening in the world of philosophy.  I spent my career as a medical educator.  In the Baylor Center we (Baruch Brody and I, then the only two senior faculty) had a program for mentoring for all junior faculty.  We met with our colleagues regularly both formally and informally, read their work, advised them on academic matters, etc. 

We called what we did mentoring for success.  For example, Baruch and I mentored a junior colleague who followed Baruch as Director of our Center and therefore as my boss before I retired.  This is common, and a point of considerable pride, in the world of medical education. 

I am struck as I follow the postings on your blog by the absence of mention or mentorship.  I benefitted from mentoring when I was junior faculty, especially from a philosophy colleague at Texas A&M (where I was on medical and philosophy faculties and my first position).  I get the sense that many of our colleagues whose comments you post have no mentoring.  Perhaps mentoring – the absence of it, when it helps, when it does not help – would make a good topic for your blog.

This is an excellent query, and I'm thinking of running a short series on the topic. But, before I move forward with that, I'd like to ask the Cocoon's readers a few questions:

1. If you are a current or recent graduate student, what kind of mentoring are you receiving (viz. research, teaching, professionalization, the job market, etc.) have you received or are you receiving? Do you think the mentoring you've received is appropriate/adequate? Why/why not?
2. If you are or recently were a junior faculty member (e.g. a postdoc, TT faculty, non-TT faculty, etc.), what kind of mentoring have you received or are you receiving? Do you consider it appropriate/adequate? Why/why not?

Repeatedly publishing in the same journal?

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

How do we feel about having multiple publications in the same journal?

For instance, there are four major journals specific to my subfield. Of them, one is an absolute pleasure to work with; one has had egregious, well-documented problems with response time (i.e., taking many years); one has lesser issues with response time (i.e., taking many months); one has an acceptance rate of about 2% and hardly seems worth the effort.

Given this situation, sometimes I'm tempted to stop sending to the other three and only send to the 'good' one. Of course, I'm not actually going to do this, but I'm curious whether anyone has thoughts or stories about this subject. In particular, I wonder how multiple publications in the same (good, maybe A- level) journal would look to search committee or tenure committee members.

Good question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Assuming the journal is well-regarded, it's not clear to me why publishing repeatedly in the same journal should be a problem--or why search committees or a tenure committee should care. But maybe I'm missing something. Anyone have any helpful insights here?

Work habits on the tenure track?

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

As a (very) early career person, it would really help me to know how later career people spend (or spent, when they were on the tenure-track) their average week. How much time to you dedicate to writing? How do you make sure you are setting aside the right amount of time for editing / pipeline type work (responding to reviews, getting papers submitted) vs creating type work (developing new projects, drafting new paper sections)? I'm finding it difficult to navigate this and am curious if others have systems that work for him. I expect this varies widely, but it would still be helpful to hear about others' experiences.

These are very good questions, and I am very curious to hear how readers respond. It is difficult for me to give a simple answer in my own case, as during my time on the tenure-track (and post-tenure) my work habits have varied tremendously. A lot depends, I think, on how in need of publications one is. When I needed to publish a lot, if I had a two-day-a-week teaching schedule, I would basically spend the other three days of the week writing. On the other hand, during times that I didn't need to publish a lot or had a three or four day a week teaching schedule, there have been entire semesters when I've gotten very little writing done--and, in any case, I get the vast majority of my writing done during winter and summer breaks. In general, I've found it pretty difficult to shift-gears between teaching and research on "teaching days", and have friends who report the same thing--though maybe things are different in R1 jobs where one has a very light teaching load.

In terms of how I partition my writing time between pipeline-type work (editing pre-existing papers, completing R&Rs, etc.) and drafting new work, I'd say it's roughly 50/50. On writing days, I'll usually spend the first half of my day (say, 9am-1pm) drafting new work, and then the afternoon (2-5pm) on pipeline stuff. I will say that my sense is that it is vital to always be drafting new things. Most of the people that I know who are the most successful (including in terms of receiving tenure) are people who consistently publish a lot, and hence, always have quite a few things under review at any given time--which requires producing a lot of new work pretty consistently. 

But these are just my habits and experiences. What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from those on the tenure-track who are pretenure, but also (for obvious reasons) from those who received tenure. What does your average work week look like, and how do you partition your time between teaching and research, and between drafting new work and work in your pipeline?

How many applicants are PhD programs receiving?

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

I wish you all a happy new year. I would like to ask if the readers who serve on the admission committees at their schools (or are otherwise acquainted with the situation) know or have any guess how applications to PhD programs they have received or expect to receive this year, especially compared to the last year (when the applicant pool was so big) and earlier years (2020, 2019..).

This is an excellent query. I have heard anecdotally that some programs are way down in terms of the number of applications they've received this year, while other programs are either similar to or up from recent years. I've also heard, again anecdotally, that this might have something to do with whether programs require the GRE--which, for obvious reasons, might push applicants to apply instead to programs than no longer require them. 

Any readers (e.g. on PhD admissions committees) willing to share how large their applicant pools are this year compared to recent years? This might not only provide some idea of big-picture trends (in philosophy PhD applications in general), but also perhaps help us to understand the causes of them. It might also be good to hear from applicants too! Did you apply to fewer PhD programs this year for some reason? If so, why?

Freelosophy: a centralized forum for commenting on philosophy papers

Two philosophers, Filippo Contesi and  Giulio Pietroiusti (University of Barcelona), have created a new site, Freelosophy, which allows users to search and leave public comments on PhilPapers or PhilArchive. Contesi writes:

In some academic disciplines, publication and discussion of articles
before journal submission is generally much more widespread than in
philosophy. Indeed, most journal publishing houses are publicly
committed to considering pre-archived papers for publication. You can
double-check this for your journal of choice here: https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/

Philosophers already can make their pre-prints publicly available at
any point on at least one pre-print repository: PhilArchive.org.
However, currently existing web platforms for public discussion of
scientific pre-prints (e.g. PubPeer.org) cannot be used to discuss
PhilArchive-d papers.

So, we have created a website that allows anyone to comment freely on
papers present on PhilArchive and/or PhilPapers: https://freelosophy.github.io/
On Freelosophy, scholars can add comments to a paper (and read them)
by using its PhilPapers/Archive ID, an identifier present on the page
of each paper on PhilArchive. Each paper on PhilPapers also has its
own PhilPaper/Archive ID (in the URL).

Everyone interested is most welcome to start using our service, which
is currently in public beta. Please do not hesitate to contact us at
philfreedback@gmail.com for any comments or feedback.

Readers can learn more about how the site works at Daily Nous. I hope the site takes off, as I think it's a great endeavor--and I encourage the Cocoon's readers to try it out!

Tips for Zoom job talks?

Earlier this week, we had an illuminating discussion on zoom teaching demos for on-campus visits. In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Amaya writes:

I was wondering if it would be possible to also do a thread on tips regarding Zoom job talks?

Great suggestion! It would be great to hear some tips, both from those who have done Zoom job talks, but especially (for obvious reasons) from search committee members. What works well in a zoom job talk? What doesn't? What do you all think?

Disinviting someone from your dissertation committee?

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

I have a question about disinviting someone from my dissertation committee. Is it 1) possible, 2) acceptable, 3) a bad idea (for strategic/interpersonal/departmental reasons, etc.), or 4) a good idea (given the below)?

The problem I am having is that said committee member does not engage with me AT ALL. This person won't answer emails, including requests for meetings, or give ANY feedback, etc. and is on my committee b/c given their area and my area, it made sense. But it seems they will not be in a position to recommend me when all is said and done, which is pretty terrifying. And despite my best (and many!) efforts, I feel I have no relationship with them not even a bad one, really, since so unresponsive. So I would like to disinvite them (I don't have a replacement yet), but I assume this is extremely controversial. Thus, seeking advice.

This is an excellent question, and I am sure some other grad students have (or have had) experience with similar situations. Mike Titelbaum (Wisconsin) submitted the following response:

That's a really tricky problem you have, and I'm sorry you're stuck with it. Besides the concerns you mentioned with "disinviting" one member, there's the additional problem that if that person is very well-known in your field, when you apply for jobs folks might wonder why that person wasn't involved in your dissertation, and might informally ask them what they think of your work.

Maybe one way to move towards a solution is to recognize that there are two groups of people here: Those that are officially listed as being on your committee, and those who help you write the dissertation. Those two groups don't always have to be the same. Many grad students have three people on their committee, but work closely with only one or two and hardly ever interact with the others. Heck, I've sometimes worked closely with someone on their dissertation without ever being on their official committee. So the fact that this person won't help you doesn't mean you necessarily need to get them off your committee.

If I were you I'd try to gain more information about this person, based on experiences of their colleagues and your fellow grad students: Is this ghosting behavior typical for this person, or is it an indication that they dislike your work? Even if they're unresponsive now, when dissertation defense time comes around will they read the thing and show up where they need to be? It's possible that even if they're behaving badly now, they will come through at the end and then (if they like the dissertation you produce) write you a perfectly good letter. If you do get information that leads you to remove them from your committee, I'd recommend identifying a replacement first. It's a lot easier to say to a cantankerous faculty member that you'd like to sub them out for someone else with whom you've struck up a good relationship, than to simply tell them you don't want them involved with you any more. And until you get a substitute, it doesn't sound like having the bad member on your committee for the time being is doing you any active harm. Good luck!

This strikes me as wise advice. You don't necessarily need to work closely with all of your dissertation committee members. What you do need is to write a passable dissertation and get good letters of recommendation from faculty whose letters are likely to help you on the job market. So, along with Mike, I think the contextual details matter a lot here. Is this just how that committee member is? Might they still write you a good recommendation letter at the end of the day? Would it look bad on the market if you didn't get a letter from them? Can you write a good dissertation working primarily with your other two committee members? These, I think, are probably the questions the OP really needs to answer in order to make the best decision.

One additional note: what the OP describes could even be a proverbial blessing in disguise. Dissertation committee members can sometimes disagree substantially on the direction a dissertation should take--which can give rise to difficult binds where you have to choose between which committee member's advice you follow. I've heard that in some cases, situations like this can lead to a divide within the committee itself, angering the committee member whose guidance isn't followed. So, in principle, it could actually be good to have "fewer voices involved" in working on the dissertation, particularly if the OP's other two committee members are responsive and helpful. So, long story short, I think the answers to the OP's questions are probably: (1)  Yes, it's possible; (2) Sure, it can be acceptable; (3) and (4) whether it's a bad idea or a good idea depends on the details.

But these are just my thoughts (and Mike's). What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from grad students who have faced this kind of situation, including how their decision worked out in the end, but also from grad faculty (including dissertation committee members). What do you all think?

Tips for Zoom teaching demos?

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

Can you open a thread asking for tips/advice regarding best practices for zoom teaching demos for a job interview?

This is an excellent question, and was seconded by another reader. Do any job candidates or search committee have any helpful tips to share?

How is the Omicron surge affecting searches?

In our job-market discussion thread, a reader writes:

I have a question for any search committee members who may see this and are willing to offer any intel (anonymously or otherwise): Is the current COVID-19 surge impacting (delaying or changing) your committee’s hiring timeline or the decision to have fly-outs versus online teaching demonstrations/job talks? Also, I wonder how a committee might respond to a candidate who expresses reservations about traveling for a second-round interview under the circumstances? P.S. I recognize how challenging this question is as things continue to evolve, and things may vary considerably based on the university’s location.

Excellent questions. It would be great to hear from some search committees in the comments section below!

Retracting an accepted article from Philosophia?

Back in our October "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I just had a paper accepted at Philosophia two days before the really icky news broke. What do I do? Should I retract it? Interested in both moral and practical reasons to retract/not retract.

Maybe-important details: I'm an early-career philosopher in a TT job at a small school.

These are very good questions. For those of you who may be unaware of what happened with Philosophia, here is the relevant background. What do you all think? 

How can we help you? (January 2022)

Happy New Year everyone! Now that it's been over a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

As usual, feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! 

Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Presenting a paper too many times?

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

Lately, I've been wondering about conferences, and to the extent to which it's acceptable to give the same talk at multiple conferences. Obviously, I know that most people present their work at multiple venues, but is there an upper limit to this? I suspect people might look oddly at a CV that had twenty presentations of the same idea.

I haven't reached anything close to that point yet, but I'm an early-career scholar who teaches a 4/4. As such, I haven't gotten a ton of new writing done since March 2020. But I have continued presenting old work, in part to keep my CV up to date and in part because I like attending conferences. In my case, this work remains unpublished, and each time I presented it was to a very [sic] audience. However, I wondering if there are some ideas I should 'retire' at this point because they have had their moment to shine.

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, I'm sort of inclined to say, "Present it as many times as you want!". It's your paper, after all. You may well get good feedback each time, and in any case there are multiple reasons to want to attend conferences, including exposing yourself to new work, etc. On the other, you might get bored presenting it so many times; you might keep getting the same feedback; and you might start "eating into the journal reviewer pool" for the paper (i.e. presenting the paper to people who might be asked to review it for journals)--all of which might be reasons not to keep presenting it.

But I don't know: I routinely see people who present papers tons of times--not just at conferences, but at departmental colloquia, etc. So, I'm not sure whether any of these considerations are decisive. Finally, I guess if you keep presenting the paper, people might start to wonder why you haven't been able to publish it yet. But honestly, how many people out there spend this amount of time thinking about what other people are doing or not doing?

All of this is just a roundabout way of saying: I have no idea! What do you all think?

What actually helps on the job market?

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

On this blog, I have seen many questions like "Would X help my prospects on the job market," and often that answer is "No, X won't really make a difference." My question is: what actually, substantially, really, definitely makes a difference? What should grad students actually spend their time on?

Here are the things I think really, actually matter the most (please tell me if I am wrong!): prestige of the PhD-granting institution, publications in top journals, being a great fit for the job AOS/AOC wise, (at least for a lot of jobs) having some solid teaching experience. There are also so many random things at play that can play a major role, like how your personality meshes with the people on the committee, who knows who, who they just hired last year, etc.

It seems like most other things just don't make a big difference, at least enough where it's worth doing action X JUST because you think X will help you on the job market (versus, say, doing public philosophy stuff because you are passionate about it).

So, it seems like there is not too much that's actually both helpful to my prospects AND within my control (publish in top journals, meet a lot of people and seem cool/smart/professional to them, finish the program while keeping my sanity), and I should just focus on those things without worrying much about the rest. Does this sound right?

These are excellent questions, and I'm very curious to hear how readers respond. Allow me to make a few quick points before opening things up for discussion.