The Philosophers' Cocoon

Program prestige comparisons in applying to PhD programs?

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

Asking as an upcoming applicant: What are mid-ranked programs and how should we compare them? My sense is the following:

1. The current top 9 (ending with USC) plus Stanford are the best.
2. Top 14-22 -- from CUNY to Cornell are second-tier.
3. Top 22-36 -- from UCSD, Chicago, to UPenn are third-tier.
4. The rest, starting with Georgetown, progressively gets worse.

So what are "mid-ranked" programs here? Is it 2 and 3, or just 3, or some of 2, 3, and some of 4? Where do UCSD and Chicago fall, for instance? In addition, do you have a sense as to which programs are on the rise and which ones are on the decline?

I'm genuinely asking this to figure out people's actual perceptions and predictions about prestige. I am aware that there are other factors important to consider; my question is just about prestige comparison. I'm not interested in a discussion of the absurdity of rankings or whatever. Clearly, everyone cares about these and takes them seriously to an extent whether they find it absurd or not.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I know very few people who put a lot of stock in rankings (whether from US News, Leiter, or elsewhere). They are maybe useful in a general way, but not at the granular level. If you are trying to decide where to apply, I'd advise making a list of scholars whose research you find exciting and then apply to the programs where they work. Once you get your acceptances you can go from there. Don't discount quality of life considerations. At the end of the day there aren't that many jobs, so I advise prioritizing fulfillment over prestige. There's no sense in spending 5-10 years miserably when there's no guarantee you will get to do philosophy after you finish the PhD. Perceived prestige counts most on the job market, but I doubt the general prestige of say Cornell vs Chicago is going to make any difference in your employment prospects. However if one of those programs is really strong in your particular AOS, that can make a huge difference - even if it is technically "ranked" a couple slots lower. This is especially true if you work hard on networking and getting good letters of reference from important scholars in your area.

I think this reply makes some sense, but if I were applying to PhD programs, I think I'd probably focus the most on different programs' job-placement rates (see here and further ADPA data here). If you're going to spend 5-10 years in a PhD program, you should probably care a lot about how likely it is that you'll actually finish the program and obtain a job. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Journals using "initial" review prior to peer-review?

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

When I submitted a paper to BJHP last Fall, the paper got rejected after receiving an initial review before being sent out for peer review. I got some helpful feedback from the initial reviewer (who isn't the editor). I wonder if there are other journals that adopt this practice of sending submissions for an initial review before the peer review.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I am puzzled ... why do you say it was not peer reviewed? If someone other than the editor looked at the paper then it was peer reviewed. Am I missing something? Sometimes journals do give authors decisions with only ONE referee's report - in fact, I am a quick reviewer, and I have noticed that some of the journals I have reviewed for have made decisions on the basis of my report only (and the editor's judgment). If one report contains enough information to form a sound judgment, then an editor may choose to reject the paper on that basis (especially if they have not managed to secure a second referee).

As a matter of fact, I think this second commenter is missing something. In the past year or so, I have begun to receive a kind of referee request that I had never received before: requests by journals to give an "initial review" of a submission to determine whether the paper should be sent out to referees for a full review. In these requests (which I have received from two or three different journals), I am explicitly asked to decide not whether the paper should be published, but rather whether it should be sent to referees. Further, it's noted that in making a recommendation, I may elect to provide comments but that I don't need to: all the journal wants is to know whether to send the paper to referees.

So, it seems, some journals may be adopting a new practice that functions something like "desk review" by journal editors. For my part, I can't help but wonder whether this practice may be a result of journals being overwhelmed with new submissions (see here), one aim being to provide quicker verdicts for papers.

Do any readers have the "inside scoop" on what's going on here? Also, what do readers think of this practice, as described above? I guess I sort of find something attractive about it, as it may more widely distribute the "gatekeeping" function of desk review at journals beyond just a few editors. On the other hand, it might incentivize more rejections without comments. But again, this is mostly just speculation, as I'm not entirely sure how these initial reviews function (do editors also read the paper?). Anyway, I'm genuinely curious!

Is there a stigma against philosophy of religion?

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

I'd love some frank opinions/advice about including Philosophy of Religion in one's AOS. I'm in a position where I can list it, but I don't yet have publications on the topic, so no one would likely know I do PoR if I didn't include it. I have been told by senior faculty across several universities (including those who work in PoR) that there some quarters where PoR is seen with disdain, and that I shouldn't pursue it openly until I already have a job. There's the further consideration, which I'm not asking about here, that there are few jobs looking for a PoR AOS; what I want to know is specifically whether people think there's anything to the idea that it is most pragmatic, where possible, to refrain from mentioning PoR as an AOS to dodge stigma among job committees.

As a follow-up, if folks agree that there *is* such a stigma, I'd be curious to hear what other topics would also be unwise to voluntarily disclose.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

About listing phil of religion on a c.v. - one reason to do so is that the department may have a course on the books, and they may think it would be nice to have it taught again. So it could be a reason to tip the scales in your favour. But there are a lot of people who regard phil of religion as of little worth. (to be frank with you, I am a philosopher of science who has no patience for any metaphysics)

What do you all think? Is there a stigma against job candidates who work in Phil Religion? Might there be places where it might work in one's advantage? Finally, are there any other topics/AOS's that would be "unwise to voluntarily disclose"?

APA blog posts and the job market

A reader recently wrote in by email:

I’m wondering if you know (1) how or even whether to list an APA blog post on a CV, and (2) what hiring committees would make of it?

Fair question. I suspect that you can always list it on your CV, and that if you do, you should probably do so under a unique heading (e.g. "Blog Posts").

As for how this will look to search committees, I'm not sure. I suspect that they probably won't count for much, and maybe some committees might even view it strangely. Then again, other committees might look at it as a nice little service to the profession, if for example the post discusses something of public or professional interest.

So, I don't know. What do you all think?

Crowdsourcing review times for specialist journals?

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

I am aware of a couple of crowdsourced web pages for data on average journal review times and other relevant stats for early career people trying to get a feel for where they should and shouldn't send things off if they're hoping for a semi-reasonable turnaround. There are plenty of "specialist" journals, though, that don't end up on those lists, particularly those that intersect with the sciences. I think it could be really helpful to get a thread going in which people can share links to any such journal database pages that they're aware of (including pages for interdisciplinary journals!). I personally didn't find out about these things until well into grad school, and wish I had earlier. I think this would also be a great way of increasing the accuracy of these sources (by increasing submission #s) and slightly minimizing the extent to which success at early stages in this profession hinges on knowing the "right" people with this sort of insider info!

This is a great query. Another reader wrote in:

I'm not sure that there's any other page than this one: https://apasurvey.philx.org/ Seems pretty active.

While to my knowledge that is probably the best page for journal turnaround times, there's at least one other crowdsourced page for other journal stats here.

I highly encourage readers to contribute to it, filling in info for missing journals!

Does anyone know of any other/better pages for philosophy journal info?

Doing a PhD in philosophy of education?

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

I'm interested in doing a PhD in philosophy of education. The programs I find just based on internet searching are in education departments. These programs aren't out of the question for me, but I'm wondering if there are philosophy departments that welcome that area of research, as I don't see it much when I look on departments' research pages or faculty interests.

And if there are philosophy departments that do accept that area of research, which programs should I look into?

I'm not sure--does anyone know? I guess I would think the best thing to do is to see which PhD programs philosophers work at who do philosophy of education. But one thing I guess I would want the OP to be aware of is that there seem to be few, if any, jobs in academic philosophy for people who focus primarily in this area. So, if one did focus primarily on philosophy of education during one's PhD, one might be in hard place in terms of getting an academic job.

I realize this isn't terribly helpful though, so do any other readers have any other helpful tips or insights?

Doubts about continuing on in academia: to carry on, or not?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Questioning Their Career asks:

I'm close to finishing my PhD - I could be done this coming year if I so choose - and I'm not sure what to do next. I'm just not sure that I really like this work anymore. In the last month or so, I have absolutely dreaded the very thought of writing, and even just talking about philosophy, whether with professor, friends, or students, feels painful at times. I know this is a common reaction to finishing up a dissertation - none of my friends have liked their work by the end of it - and so this could just be the result of burnout. I also know that I now am closer to a professional philosopher than I've ever been, though. I have a much clearer sense of what the job is now than I ever did in the past. I don't think I should just dismiss my current antipathy because it might go away in the future.

I also currently have an opportunity to pursue a very different kind of work that I have good reasons to think I could find deeply meaningful and enjoyable, and my life on that path would be much easier if I started the pursuit sooner rather than later. I plan to finish my dissertation regardless, but my plans for going on the job market and all that would entail would seriously conflict with my ability to start on this alternate path.

This has all left me feeling deeply conflicted. I've poured so much of myself into pursuing this degree and a position in this profession. Being an academic feels like a deep part of me. I've also, historically, loved it. It's sometimes been bad just like any job, but that's never made me doubt that I should pursue it. It feels like I could be throwing something away needlessly because of a temporary setback.

I'm hoping for some insight into what sorts of factors have lead folks either to decide to carry on with academia despite some significant doubts or to leave the profession. I think hearing about others' experiences would help me to better understand whether what I'm experiencing now is a case of mere burnout or something more serious. Thank you all so much for any insight you might have!

I'm sorry to hear that the OP is going though this, and I empathize. It is a great and very understandable query, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

Norms for meetings and feedback with dissertation supervisors?

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

I'm wondering how much feedback others get from their supervisors and also how much they expect from you and your work. I've talked to others both in philosophy and outside, and I am very surprised to hear from a lot of people, mostly those from outside philosophy, that they get fairly little feedback, sometimes just once a year with committee meetings, and also often requiring fairly little revision at all. Are the expectations in philosophy much higher than other fields? Are they healthy?

Good questions! My sense is that there may be a lot of variance. I didn't meet terribly often with my dissertation supervisor, who was pretty content with me working independently at my own pace--and though I got helpful feedback from him, I don't recall it being a ton, and I was happy with this. On the other hand, I had another committee member (Jerry Gaus) who would give tons of feedback, which was great but could also be pretty overwhelming. But I'm curious to hear from others.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I started with meeting with my supervisor roughly every two weeks for the first two years. The supervision was mainly about honing my writing skills such that I a) write on topics my supervisor believes to be worth writing on, and b) write in a way that, roughly paraphrasing my supervisor, won't lead to a straight rejection from editors or reviewers upon finishing the first or second page of the manuscript. After the first two years, it's pretty much meet whenever I have a draft or revision of a manuscript ready, roughly every 1-3 months. I think compared to some other graduate schools, my supervisor (and others in the department) are rather hands on. I'm not sure whether this works for everyone, but it surely worked for me in terms of publication quantity and quality, and in finding a job. Philosophical writing is, from my own point of view, extremely difficult unless one is innately blessed or properly trained. (Hint: I don't belong to the former group, if such people exists at all.)

Any other readers care to weigh in? How much did you/do you meet with your supervisor, and what are their expectations/feedback like? Do you think the expectations are healthy and/or higher than other fields?

How can we help you? (May 2023)

Now that it's been nearly two months 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.

The publishing arms race for philosophy students

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

Can we have a thread on publication trends among philosophy students (including BOTH those already in PhD programs AND those yet to be admitted to PHD programs)? Apologies if this has already been discussed/over-discussed elsewhere, but I read in another thread about an applicant to PHD programs already having five publications prior to even beginning their PHD education. This strikes me as ridiculous but also, perhaps, understandable in light of the publication arms race.

So, a question (and one that I'm guessing has been entertained already on this website) is: what should we (can we) do about the publication arms race in philosophy? Perhaps it needs to be tackled in conjunction with the publication arms race in academia more broadly, but perhaps not...

Further, maybe some folks this [think] it's not a problem. If this is the case, I'd be curious to hear why. For my part, I'm tired and overwhelmed by the # of publications out there...even those that just relate specifically to my sub-sub discipline.

This is a good query. I personally know of several cases of students publishing multiple papers in good journals before even getting into a PhD program--and these days, my understanding is that, generally speaking, job candidates need publications to be competitive on the market, which has indeed led to a publishing arms race. Some job candidates these days may even have more publications than the people interviewing them!

What I'm not at all sure is what, if anything, can (or should) be done about this. Do readers have any thoughts?

"What Grad Students Wish They'd Known About Doing a PhD"

This is just a quick note that the excellent podcast, The Philosopher's Nest, has a new bonus episode up entitled, "What Grad Students Wish They'd Known About Doing a PhD." Here's the episode description:

In this second special bonus episode of The Philosopher's Nest, we've asked each of our last 12 guests the same question, and we've compiled each of these answers into a single episode.

We'll be hearing the following 12 Philosophy PhD students answer this question: "What do you know now that you wish you knew when you started your PhD?"

I'd be curious to hear what readers at the Cocoon think, including current PhD students but also those further along in their careers, both those who remained in academic as well as those who have left for jobs elsewhere. 

Do you wish you knew the same things as the guests interviewed here? If not, what do you wish you had known?

 

Do PhD students at unranked programs get a fair shake in peer review?

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

In the opinions of Editors of Journals (who decide on whether a paper moves to reviewers), what are the chances of a paper coming from Ph.D. students from "unranked" or not top 50 schools getting to the reviewers? That is, do editors automatically desk reject papers from grad students they haven't heard of or universities that aren't top 50? I ask because this seems to be the sentiment amongst the grad students from these "lower" ranked schools. And it seems to be supported by anecdotal evidence and conversations between students from varying schools and their prestige. If this is true, I doubt the editors of the "good" journals will admit to it, but worth asking.

I would by surprised if editors would automatically reject papers by anyone, and some journals practice triply-anonymized review, in which case no one knows the identity of a submitting author. On the other hand, some journals are only doubly-anonymized, in which case editors may know who the author of a submitted paper is--and it's always possible for bias to come into play when a person's identity is known. In any case, I wouldn't know how to gather good evidence one way or another about this issue aside from asking authors who are from unranked or low-ranked programs whether they get referee reports and/or publish in journals.

Do any editors or authors with experience here care to weigh in on this?

Norms for checking on the status of conditional acceptances?

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

Are the norms for emailing an editor to inquire about a submission's status any different for minor revisions/conditional acceptances than they are for initial submissions? Is it appropriate to email after just three months, say, if you still haven't heard back about a conditional acceptance?

I would think the norms are the same as for any submission. If three months have passed, you can always write to check on the status. But these are just my thoughts. 

What are yours?

Teaching asynchronous online in the ChatGPT era?

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

I am teaching an asynchronous online course next academic year. I am having a hard time thinking of ChatGPT-proof or ChatGPT resistant assignments for this class. ChatGPT seems like it is capable of doing all of the following:

-Essays
-Quizzes and exams (any question format)
-Discussion boards
-Reading response short essays
-Prompt ChatGPT and write about the responses

Are there any good options for assessments in asynchronous courses, given ChatGPT and other LLM AI bots?

Great question! I haven't ever taught online, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. However, at least when it comes to essays or short reading responses, my sense is that if one makes essay prompts sufficiently detailed, requiring students for example to engage with specific parts or passages of texts, it can be hard to produce a ChatGPT-written essay. There are also, of course, AI detectors that can help.

Does anyone else have any helpful tips or insights? It would be great to hear from readers in general, but particularly from people who teach asynchronous online.

Publishing a paper critiquing one's own work?

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

I've discovered a weakness in an argument I published recently. It would be very easy to write a paper pinpointing this weakness and strengthening the original argument to avoid it. Is this advisable? If so, how far should I go to hide the fact that I am the author of both papers from editors/referees?

Great questions! There was a great case of this recently, in which Hanno Sauer (Utrecht University) published a rebuttal to a paper he published just a year earlier critiquing the history of philosophy. 

Although one doesn't see this sort of thing very often, I personally think it's a nice reflection of intellectual honesty. We're after the truth as philosophers, are we not? So, if you think something you've published is mistaken in some way, why not critique it? Further, if you can use the critique to strengthen the original argument, that seems to me like all the more reason to do it!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?