The Philosophers' Cocoon

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"?

Ideas being stolen at conferences?

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

I'm a graduate student and I've submitted my paper to many conferences, including the graduate conference. I'm wondering if there is any chance that my ideas will be stolen and published before I publish them. I have this question because I've heard that many referees for graduate conferences are students, and I've heard that students have stolen other people's ideas from conference papers. Also, sometimes I come up with an idea and I think I've read it before, but I can't find it. But I'm not sure if it's from a draft I've read before.

I have all kinds of thoughts about this, and will probably weigh in down in the comments section. But, before I do, I'm curious to hear from other readers.

What do you all think? Have you ever run into problems presenting unpublished work at conferences or colloquia (viz. sketchy shenanigans that made you think someone took and published your ideas)? In line with this blog's safe and supportive mission, please don't make explicit or implicit allegations directed toward identifiable individuals. Instead, I'm just looking for a general sense of whether people have run into problems that have led them to think that presenting at conferences (and such) is risky for junior people for the kinds of reasons the OP mentions.

Problematic job-market practices?

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

This is a request, rather than a question. Could we make a chart with all of the unhelpful, problematic things we see through the job market process for schools--to generate collective knowledge? e.g. Some schools are atrocious with spousal hiring. Some schools pitch salaries very low, expecting you'll negotiate. Some schools have departments collapsing because the financial health of the university is bad. Surely, this information would be helpful to future candidates.

In brief, doing this sort of thing at the Cocoon isn't consistent with this blog's safe-and-supportive mission. Further, although I'm not a lawyer, I imagine that making a list of which schools do various "problematic things" could be legally problematic, viz. libel (if false allegations are spread that damages a program's reputation). However, what I think would be consistent with the Cocoon's mission is for job candidates to enumerate in fully general terms the kinds of unnecessary indignities or problematic practices they have faced on the market, without naming or otherwise implicating particular individuals, schools, or programs, either explicitly or implicitly. Doing this could be helpful, first of all, by drawing attention to the kinds of things that job candidates find to be problematic--and so, secondly, by perhaps generating some kind of impetus (viz. raising public consciousness in the profession) for improving hiring practices.

So, this is what I propose instead. Job candidates: without naming or (explicitly or implicitly) implicating any particular individuals, programs, or institutions, what general kinds of things have you encountered on the market that you consider to be problematic and warranting correction, and why? The OP named a few: schools being atrocious with spousal hiring, pitching extremely low salaries, having bad financial health as institutions that imperil departments, etc. What other kinds of (potentially) problematic things have job candidates encountered, and what (if anything) do you think would be better?

Becoming competitive for teaching jobs from top PhD programs?

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

I'm a grad student at a program that mainly prepares its students for R1 jobs. I'm more interested in teaching-focused jobs. I've heard lots of advice about applying for teaching-focused jobs coming from an institution like mine - demonstrate a commitment to teaching (and there are various ways to do so, but mostly by having as much teaching experience as possible). Is this basically right? I've heard also that one of the ways in which one might demonstrate a commitment to teaching is by engaging in scholarship of teaching/learning. I suppose my specific question is how to get started in this sort of research with no background. Do I need to try to audit a course in the Education department? Are there philosophical pedagogy conferences/workshops I should keep an eye out for? Are there recommended readings or journals?

Good questions! I took part in a Teaching Hub session at the Central APA last week where these kinds of questions were discussed by various panelists who have hired at teaching focused institutions (I served on the panel myself), and a few main things seemed to be embraced by virtually everyone on the panel.

First, solo teaching experience is critical. People hiring at teaching-focused institutions want evidence that you can teach classes well as an independent instructor, not just as TA. So, getting as much experience as solo-instructor as possible seems like a good strategy (if your program doesn't provide many solo-teaching opportunities, you should seriously consider adjunct work at a nearby college or university).

Second, all of the panelists suggested that it is critical to come across in your application materials--including your CV--as though you would be happy at the institution. If, for example, you come across "like someone who belongs or sees themselves as belonging at a research institution" (because you've published in a bunch of top journals but have very little on your CV in terms of teaching), then that may count against you. So, I would think the OP would be well served trying to publish something on pedagogy in Teaching Philosophy, and then do whatever else they can to show in their CV that they care about and have sought out ways to become a better teacher. Any or all of the things they mention in the OP might help (I would love to hear from readers about conferences, workshops, etc., on pedagogy).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people who have hired at teaching institutions what they think the OP should do to maximize their chances!

How can we help you? (March 2023)

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

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:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask 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.

Applying to PhD programs several years after an MA?

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

I have been wondering the potential drawbacks of applying to a PhD program several years after completing an MA program. Might such a delay reflect unfavorably upon an applicant in the eyes of admissions committees? Additionally, what steps can one take to mitigate any negative perceptions, aside from pursuing further academic credentials? Could publishing one's work be a viable alternative?

Fair questions, and I confess that I don't know the answers! Anyone have any insights?

Additional cover letter tips?

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

Cover letters have been discussed before on the blog (see link below), but I am wondering if we might hear about the different approaches people take to ordering information in the cover letter.

We've all heard something like: teaching school/teaching job = talk about teaching first, emphasize it; R1 = talk about research first. But then I've also heard 'always talk about research first'. After all, you gotta show ya can meet tenure requirements at a teaching school, and maybe it comes off as disrespectful if you write as if the department must not care about research. Additionally, when I was looking back at another post on cover letters, there was some advice from Marcus to make sure you show you've actually read the ad and researched the institution. Fair enough. But do you, reader of my cover letter, want to see this demonstrated effort right up front, or can I mix it in, or what? Are you more interested in seeing that I've researched your department than hearing me describe my research?

Cover letters continue to be demanded. But do we really have a standardized understanding of what they are for? Be nice if we did.

https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2019/11/what-are-cover-letters-for.html

I guess I'm one of those people who think that it's not the order of what you put in the cover letter that matters, so much as the substance of the letter itself. If you're applying to a teaching focused institution, you never know how much individual search committee members care about research--so I think it's fine to start with research. The key is not to focus on it too much or come off in your letter like you belong (or think you belong) at a research university. Cover letters are, I think, there to show "you've done some homework" and are a good fit for the position. So, the more that you can speak to the things listed in the job ad, the better. Also, consider taking a quick look at the CVs of the faculty in the hiring department. How active are they in research? How active are they in pedagogical development? University service? That might give you a fairly good idea of where people's priorities are!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?