The Philosophers' Cocoon

Tips for UK grad students?

In our new thread soliciting questions from new and returning graduate students, Lauren Tate writes:

I’m about to start a PhD in philosophy in the UK in October and wanted to know what exactly this entails other than writing my thesis. I’ve tried seeking answers to my question on other forums but most people who have replied have been in the sciences so often talk about lab work which I definitely won’t be getting involved. I know philosophy is really just a lot of thinking and writing (and rewriting...and more rewriting), but when I explain that to outsiders of philosophy it seems strange to say that I will spend 3 years (and a lot of money) to *just* write 80,000 words.

This is an excellent question, and as someone who has virtually no experience with the UK system, I'm really interested in hearing readers chime in! An Australian Graduate Student submitted the following reply:

I've just finished an MA in Australia, where degrees have a similar structure as the UK. I had no coursework and teaching was entirely voluntary, so the thesis is all that's required to graduate. But that wouldn't set you up well after graduation if you want a job in academic philosophy. You'd want to juggle your thesis with a bit of teaching and most importantly publishing scholarly work. That is how I approached my MA and what I would do in your position.

This sounds right to me, as far as becoming competitive for the academic job-market is concerned. But I wonder: how exactly does one get good teaching experience in the UK? (I've heard from a few friends that it can be difficult). Also, what are some good tips for learning how to publish as a graduate student in the UK? Given that there is no PhD course-work, I imagine it may be difficult to come up with publishable ideas outside of the dissertation. Are there good reading and working-paper groups to join--that sort of thing? If you're someone with experience in the UK graduate school system, do feel free to share any tips that Lauren might find helpful! 

Tips for first-time commentators?

A reader writes in:

Do you have a post already with advice for a first time commentator?  I've got one coming up at the Eastern APA in January, but I've never done it before.  Not exactly sure what all a good commentary includes. According to the schedule, the presenter only has 20 minutes, and I will have 10 minutes to present the commentary.

How formally do people dress at these things?  I've never been to one, so I really have no basis of comparison.  The colloquia...during my grad school days were pretty informal, but I don't know if that's apples and oranges or not. (Granted, pandemic shifts might make this a moot point if the conference goes remote.)

Good questions! We had a thread on tips for first-time conference presenters about a month ago. However, I don't recall us ever discussing tips for first-time commentators, and in some ways I think it can be trickier to be a good commentator than a good paper presenter. Any tips for the OP on things to do (or not to do)?

My two main recommendations are to (1) briefly but charitably encapsulate whatever parts of the paper you critique or raise questions about, and (2) avoid being overly-aggressive. It's fine, of course, to raise questions, concerns, or objections to a paper. The key, I think, is all in how you do it. A good commentator should come across to the presenter and audience as constructive rather than hostile or seeking to embarrass the author. Also, stick to your allotted time! Finally, in terms of how to dress, conferences differ and so do the styles of conference participants. But at an APA, I'd say that whatever today counts as 'business casual' is the way to go. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Summer sounds

Grad school question: getting scooped?

In our new thread soliciting questions from new and returning grad students, a reader writes:

I've written a paper for a conference that's due in the next few days. But then someone posts a forthcoming paper to PhilPapers on the exact same topic making the exact same points as my paper. And it is far better than my paper. What do I do? Not enough time to change my paper substantially. Do I submit my paper anyway? Or just scrap it? I'm a PhD student and have not attended a conference before.

This is an excellent question, and a bunch of other readers submitted replies. NH writes:

Having had and overcome the experience of being "scooped" several times, I think that if you appreciate the finer details of both your account and theirs, you'll find differences that are productive to discuss. Being first to a point is important but you can still make a major contribution. Just don't let the feeling that you've been scooped be a mental block that prevents you from working further on the topic.

Prof has similar advice:

Make sure it really is the same. Subtle differences matter. If not, try to tweak it to make it more clear (at least to yourself) how it is different (keeping in mind you can almost always make some changes before presenting). If you really aren't adding anything new, scrap it. This happens.

S-U adds:

If your paper presents a different argument, then send it in to the conference (adding a note in the paper that a different argument has been put forward by someone else). IF it is the same argument, then, move on.

Tammo writes:

I'm aware of one recent case where one author (call them A) made an interesting technical point, and not much later another author -- B -- published a paper that made the same point. B's paper had a footnote saying something like "After finishing work on this paper, it was brought to my attention that A makes the same point in a recent paper." B's paper explored a few ramifications of that point that A's paper didn't, but the "heart" of the paper was the same. I don't think that B's behavior there was unethical, but I did hear a few negative comments about B's paper. (There wasn't any insinuation of plagiarism, but B was rendered as being a bit to keen to publish in some of those comments.) So I guess pursuing publication of that exact point is probably not a good idea -- although I'm less certain about whether to present at the conference or not. That said, I would probably consider (a) thinking about whether you still have some interesting and new thoughts about what to make of that point and (b) getting in touch with the author of the forthcoming paper and have a discussion, given that you have overlapping interests and positions. One other thought: the fact that the forthcoming paper seems "better" than your paper probably has a lot to do with the fact that it's at the end of a process of presenting at a conference and getting feedback, submitting to a journal, and (most likely) being revised after peer review. When you submit to a conference, it is normal that your paper would be in a much more "raw" state -- so I wouldn't take the apparent differences in quality at heart.

And Michel writes: 

Just send it in and see what happens. (This other paper won't be held against you, especially since it's just forthcoming; nobody has read it yet!) To publish it you'll want to acknowledge this new paper and try to make a distinct contribution. But for the conference, don't sweat it.

Thanks to everyone above for their tips and advice! I'm curious to hear what other readers think, but here are a few quick thoughts of my own.

Grad school questions & support thread

Given that many MA and PhD students will be either starting or returning to graduate school in the next month or so, I thought it might be good to have an open thread—much like our more general “how can we help you?” series—where grad students specifically can pose questions to the community.

When I started this blog all the way back in 2012, one of my primary aims was to create a place where graduate students in particular could find support—as in my experience, one’s years in graduate school can range from exciting and wonderful to extremely tenuous, stressful, and dispiriting. Indeed, like more than a few grad students I knew, I went through significant periods in grad school when I felt utterly lost, unsure of myself, and not altogether comfortable with opening up to other grad students or grad faculty about my struggles—and the data on the mental health crisis in graduate school indicates just how common these kinds of experiences (and worse) can be.

In any case, to all of the new and returning grad students out there: please feel free to share any questions or struggles you are facing in the comments section below (anonymously, of course, if you prefer). Do you have questions about course work? Could you use tips on finding a dissertation topic? Are you struggling with an unsupportive graduate advisor or a difficult department climate? Or, are you just about to begin your grad program and looking for general tips on how to start off well, do well, and flourish? Fire away!

As in our “how can we help you?” series, I will plan to run new threads to discuss each individual query as a community. Finally, a couple of important quick notes: (1) when posting comments/queries, please bear in mind the blog’s safe and supportive mission. This blog is not the place to make allegations or insinuations about particular individuals or institutions. If you are struggling with a difficult situation, please share only in very general terms in a way that cannot be used to infer the identities of individuals or institutions. We are here to help, but this aspect of the blog’s mission is vital to preserve; (2) readers may feel free to submit follow up comments in the thread below (responding to a reader’s posted query); however, to keep things organized in the thread below, I will not approve follow up comments but instead may post them in new threads introducing the topic for broader discussion.

Anyway, bearing these notes in mind, if you are a grad student with questions or looking for support or advice, please do ask away in the comments section below. We’re here to help!

'Spare time' book recommendations?

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

I am wondering what philosophy books people read in their spare time "for fun" (or, at least not for research). Most of what I read in philosophy are related to my research or teaching. In my spare time, most of what I read are outside of philosophy, such as fictions or news articles. I imagine there are philosophy books that are inspiring while not too technical. I can read them in my spare time, may or may not dive deep into them, but will learn something new and interesting. Do people have recommendations? I hope the question makes sense.

What a great idea for a thread! Brad answered:

There are some great philosophy books to read in your spare time - they are as much about the broader culture as they are about philosophy. For example, Wittgenstein's Poker is a real joy to read. It is so engaging, and it gives you a nice picture of the worlds of Wittgenstein and Popper, including their social worlds. It is truly funny at parts. A second book is The Murder of Professor Schlick. It is a bit more technical, but also quite insightful. The Vienna Circle Positivists are shown to be quite humane people, each with their own challenges and strengths. Finally, I would mention George Reisch's books: The Politics of Paradigms and How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science. George is very knowledgeable about the Cold War period. He also has a great sense of humor.

I've also read and can recommend Wittgenstein's Poker and The Murder of Professor Schlick. Personally, my favorite spare time books are biographies and autobiographies of philosophers and scientists. I highly recommend this John Stuart Mill biography (which contains some great history of philosophy, including some of Mill's criticisms of moral intuitionism), Cheryl Misack's recent Frank Ramsey biography (which has some nice coverage of why Ramsey favored naturalistic philosophy), Ray Monk's Wittgenstein biography, and (for those interested in science and philosophy of science) this great physicists book, which provides a wonderful history of and relatively non-technical introduction to the groundbreaking contributions of a wide variety of physicists ranging all the way from Galileo to Marie Curie.

I love biographies in particular because they not only expose me to interesting tidbits of intellectual history--including the fascinating personalities and personal stories (and struggles!) of influential historical figures, as well as their otherwise lesser-known thoughts about ideas and debates that may have never shown up in their published work--but also because it helps to bring the history of ideas alive, situating great works in their historical context, revealing how many of the greatest figures in intellectual history had struggles not unlike you and I. For example, did you know that Kant had to work for a number of years as an unpaid lecturer before getting a paid (not to mention permanent) academic job? Or that the Critique of Pure Reason initially received brutal reviews? Also, in addition to being a pleasure to read, I find that biographies often inadvertently inspire new philosophical ideas! 

What about all of you? Any good recommendations for philosophy-related books to read in one's spare time?

Handling new-job jitters?

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

I recently was fortunate enough to land an amazing job that I've very excited about. Especially given the current market situation, I feel very lucky. But I also feel more nervous than I ever felt on the job market. It's not really concerns about teaching or publishing (well, at least not beyond the general anxiety I imagine everyone experiences about those things). I'm more worried that I'll say something wrong and all my new colleagues will start to dislike me. Honestly, it feels a lot closer to how I felt on the first day of kindergarten than it does anything else. I'm hoping the feeling will get better with time, but I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to make the transition to my new department smooth and how to be less nervous talking to people?

Good question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

You made it through the 1st day of kindergarten. You will make it through this one too. Generally, the selection process is so rigorous, the candidate who gets the job will do just fine. You are off to a great start to a wonderful career. (if you want something to worry about, you should be more concerned that the department is dysfunctional - hopefully not, though).

Moving/relocation tips for academics?

On Twitter, Alex Bryant (PhD student, McMaster) writes:

Early career academics: Presumably you have developed a kind of expertise related to moving (including problems common to grad students/academics, like moving books). What have you learned, what do you suggest, and what mistakes could you help others avoid?

Related: One way long-tenured senior people might be out of touch with the state of the profession is just how much of an impact frequent moves has on people who have to move from contract to contract, postdoc to postdoc, rather than picking up lifelong job out of school.

This is a good question that we've never discussed before, as in my experience moving between jobs can indeed have a serious impact on an academic's ability to get work done. The couple of times that I moved (first to UBC, then to Tampa), the summer that I moved was mostly a 'wash' where I wasn't able to get much research done. My experience was that there are just so many things to figure out and daily stressors having to do with it that it can be hard to focus.

Anyway, do any readers have any tips? Also, it might be worth hearing from readers on whether (and how), in their experience, senior academics may be out of touch here.

Applying to philosophy PhD programs w/multiple grad degrees?

In our latest "how can we help you?" thread, Claire writes:

I'm another unusual applicant to PhD programs, and I'm hoping for some advice on how to proceed. I have a PhD in History from Cambridge, with several prestigious scholarships. I also have one BA in Sociology (UCSC), another in History (UCR), a masters in medieval history (Cambridge), and another masters in urban and regional planning (Virginia). I also worked for a while in digital humanities and in cancer research (medical abstracting). I gave up on academia because History just didn't make me passionate enough, and I felt I would get backed into a temporal corner. I'm a broader thinker and needed something that makes my sense of wonder come alive. I now know that philosophy is what does that. I might seem like a perennial student, but the truth is, I've always sought out philosophical issues in each degree, and am currently writing a book that touches on philosophical topics in many ways. Writing this book is actually what got me looking into academic philosophy in the first place.

I want to dive into a PhD in philosophy now, and pursue research (and teaching, if I'm lucky) in the field. But how do I proceed with getting enough official philosophy background and letters of recommendation to be admitted? I have never taken a class in philosophy (but a lot of social theory, and a lot of independent reading). I have maxed out all student loan possibilities, so can't do a third BA or MA. What are my chances of being admitted straight to philosophy programs with my existing profile? Since I gave up on academia after my last PhD, I also haven't been in touch with anyone who might be a letter writer. I'm not sure what they'd think of me asking for one at this point. Any advice? Much appreciated.

Good questions! Amanda submitted the following response:

I think you'd be okay if it were just a history Ph.D., but all the other graduate degrees on top of that will probably work against you. People have a tendency toward "judgeness" in these situations (in my experience) and might see you, as you say, as a "professional student."

I would also be cautious about saying things about finding your passion in philosophy. As sad as it is, the field is full of philosophers who felt that way initially and now look back on that old self with a jaded eye roll. No, not everyone, but many are cynical and bitter, having learned that the profession is not what they hoped.

I'd argue that the best way to increase your odds of achieving your goals is to take a handful of philosophy courses (4-6) in the "core" areas, i.e., epistemology, metaphysics, history, ethics. These should be either upper-division undergrad courses or grad courses. I recommend taking them at a school with either an MA or Ph.D. program in philosophy. In-person is best as that would make it easier to get letters, but online courses would be okay. This would achieve both the goal of showing background in philosophy and getting letters of rec from philosophers. It would be best to find a program that allows people to enroll in one-off courses, but auditing could work with the right personal statement and letters of rec.

A possible alternative path would be to sneak your way into a Phil adjunct teaching position and then sell yourself as self-taught. With all your degrees, you will be able to get by with minimal official training. While in general, there is skepticism of self-teaching, a Ph.D. changes things. Create a syllabus and explain that your other academic work created a familiarization with philosophy. A school that really needs instructors might hire you. However, COVID is going to make things far more difficult than before.

CFP: Southwestern Philosophical Society

Southwestern Philosophical Society 2021 Annual Meeting Call For Papers 

An association of scholars and philosophers founded in 1936, Southwestern Philosophical Society provides a forum for philosophical and scholarly research. While SWPS originally served philosophers in the American Southwest, it has been for many years a national and international society. While SWPS does follow trends and methods that prevail in the world of Anglo-American philosophy, the Society is proud of its pluralism and its tradition of openness where scholars from diverse backgrounds and of all major traditions find their views and philosophical styles taken seriously.

The 2021 meeting of the Southwestern Philosophical Society will be held at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN from Oct. 15-16. All papers accepted and presented at the conference will be published in volume 38, issue 1 of the Southwest Philosophy Review.

Papers on any philosophical topic are welcome. There are multiple benefits to submitting to the Southwestern Philosophical Society:

1. All papers undergo blind peer review from two scholars; 
2. Presented papers will receive a written commentary, published in Volume 38, issue 2; 
3. While the journal owns the copyrights to the journal-formatted article, the author retains copyright over the words. Thus, the author can potentially expand the conference-length article and publish it in another venue.

Dealing with undercitation in philosophy? (Guest-post by Ten-Herng Lai)

Ten-Herng Lai (Australian National University) writes in:

I understand that pretty much the same issue was discussed here around 2015, but I think it is important that we bring it up again. I believe that literature review and under-citation is a problem in academic philosophy. Here I can only provide some personal experience as a journal reviewer. It may be that I’m not being a very good reviewer. I’m open to this possibility, and if so, please simply point it out.

I am a very junior scholar, but was fortunate enough to publish a paper in a decent journal on an issue that proved to be quite topical. So I get these invitations to review, several of them. Last time I counted, there are at least 20+ papers published in print or online first on this topic since 2019. A good portion of papers I reviewed cites almost none of them, as if the issue was uncharted territory. Some papers have very good insight, but fail to engage with the literature at all. Some papers just reinvent the wheel. Occasionally there are some papers that make good proposals but would be much better if taken certain points others have made into consideration.

Here’s what I did as a reviewer. I would encourage them to at least say “Archer (2020) Bard (2018) Cleric (2019) Druid (Online First) have all suggested certain solutions, but mine is different and covers an ignored but important point.” Better is that they say why their point is better, or at least distinguish their own point from those made by others. Sometimes I suggest that they can simply cite and rephrase a “respond to objection” someone else already made, instead of writing a separate response to some objection that has already been responded to like 5 or 6 times in different papers. Some more particular points may be that the author(s)’s solution can be combined with someone else’s solution to become even better.

I hope what I did as a reviewer helped to improve the quality of those papers, even if they were not accepted in those particular journals. I sincerely believe that doing some literature review and actually engaging with some previous papers enhances the quality of papers. (And I admit sometimes I see some papers published that fail to do so, and are of very bad quality, e.g., proposing points that have been utterly knocked down by previous publications. I don’t know how they went past the reviewers in those journals...) I also believe that there seems to be some sort of disrespect going on when not engaging in previous publications enough. Probably it’s some sort of arrogance, believing that one has “discovered” something new, just like (though obviously less serious than) how Columbus “discovered” America and how Captain Cook “discovered” Australia.

I agree that this is a problem, and have heard other people say similar things. I also agree think that what Lai did here as a reviewer is right. But this raises an obvious question: what else can/should be done to address under-citation in philosophy? I have two ideas, and am curious what other readers think, including whether readers have other suggestions, as well.

Summer sounds

 

Using old teaching letters when TT?

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

I have a question about acquiring a teaching reference letter. I am a junior TT faculty member, looking to switch to another institution. My last teaching letter was acquired when I was teaching in grad school. However, I am more than several years out now, and I am not comfortable asking any member of my department for a teaching letter for another job (for obvious reasons). How problematic is it to use an outdated teaching letter? Finally, all of my current letters do address teaching in some capacity or another, would it be OK (given my circumstances) to not submit a teaching reference for a job that technically requires one? Could one address this in a cover letter?

Good questions. I'm inclined to think that it is probably fine to use an old teaching letter when applying out of a TT position, as it seems plausible to me that search committee members will think something like, "Oh, they are applying out of a TT position, so they probably can't get a teaching letter from their current place of work." At the same time, I think there may be a better alternative--or rather, a way to supplement your old letter in your application.

At my university (and, I suspect, at many other universities), it is not uncommon for TT faculty to have teaching observations, where another (usually tenured) faculty member sits in on one of your classes to observe your performance. Normally, in my experience, the faculty member who does the observation will write a detailed letter evaluating your performance--which you can then use in your tenure file to help make the case that you are a meritorious teacher. Further, as long as you perform well, these letters are usually positive on the whole--though they may contain some critical feedback or teaching suggestions. 

For these reasons, I think it might be helpful to include a letter or two like this in the OP's job applications, not as reference letter per se, but instead as supplemental materials in their teaching portfolio. I'm not entirely sure about this, though, so what do you all think? Is it okay for a TT faculty member to only include an old teaching letter in their application? If so, should they address this in some way in their cover letter? Should they try to include a teaching observation letter or two in their teaching portfolio?

Getting well-known people to read drafts?

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

[I] often see philosophers thank people for helpful comments on earlier drafts of a published paper. And they are usually thanking the 'big names' in the field. My question is, how do I get these people, the 'big names' in my field, to read drafts of my papers? I assume most of this happens at conferences. But how do I figure out which conferences these people attend so that I can also attend and hopefully get them to comment? Are there certain conferences in a given sub-discipline that most people working in that sub-discipline are likely to attend? How do I find out which conferences those are?

I expect some readers may be puzzled by these questions: why care about getting 'big names' to read paper drafts? It's not as though one has to do that in order to publish effectively, right? Although the OP doesn't say, I expect there may be several reasons why they might care about this: (1) to get better feedback (i.e. from top experts in their area), and/or (2) to get their work noticed. Anyway, regardless of their reasons, the Cocoon is here to help.

Political philosophy & poli-sci job markets

I came across an interesting question recently, which is whether and to what extent political philosophers and political scientists who specialize in political theory are competitive for jobs in the opposite departments. For example, I know of a fair number of junior and senior political philosophers housed in political science departments--but I'm not sure that I know of any political science PhDs who have jobs in philosophy departments. 

Does this sound right to everyone? If so, I'm curious about the asymmetry. Why would political science departments be more willing to admit philosophers into their ranks than the converse? If you were on a philosophy search committee, would you take a Political Science PhD seriously if they specialized in political theory? Why/why not?