The Philosophers' Cocoon

Publishing in lower-ranked journals after top-ranked journals?

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

I'm a PhD student, with two pretty fancy publications and nothing else published so far. I have another article draft prepared but it got rejected from the top journals in the relevant subfield. Is it risky to send it to a medium-ranked journal or even a lower-ranked journal? Will that look like a stain on my CV that lowers my average, or will it just have an addititive affect considering I already have two other fancier publications?

Good questions. We've discussed this before on a number of occasions. There are plausibly some risks and potential benefits, and perhaps some hiring committees at top-ranked R1s might look down on it. However, the only empirical study that I'm aware of that looked at whether "weaker" publications hurt or help on the market found that they do tend to have a positive additive effect, helping candidates who already have good publications.

Do any readers have any helpful insights or experiences to share?

Philosophy PhD, then a JD degree?

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

I've heard some discussion of getting a JD before a PhD in philosophy (e.g., on Leiter's site), but I haven't heard anything in reverse: going from a PhD in philosophy to a JD. So, I'm interested in answers to any/all of these questions:

A) Would having a PhD in philosophy give an applicant a significant advantage in law school admissions?

B) Would this route make one more or less competitive at schools with AOS in political philosophy or philosophy of law?

C) Is going from a PhD in philosophy to practicing law a viable alt-ac route that others have taken?

All good questions. Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Job-talk conventions: slides and/or handout?

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

Is the convention for job talks to use slides, either instead of or in addition to a handout? Really hoping the answer is no, as I hate slides, but I've heard this from enough people that I wanted to check...

I'm not sure. Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?

Norms for citing unpublished (and unavailable) work by deceased scholars?

A reader writes in by email:

I am currently doing some research ... for my dissertation and found that someone else made a distinction I needed... However, in making the distinction, [Scholar X] cited an unpublished conference paper from [Scholar Y] ... Unfortunately, I found that [Y] was very much no longer with us. So, I would like to know, what is the consensus on citing deceased folks' unpublished works? Is there a concrete etiquette here? Is it better to leave it out altogether than try to attribute an unpublished distinction to a deceased person, while the only real knowledge I have about the situation comes from a footnote in someone else's work? 

I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks about this. I don't know of any clear norm on this, and I guess what one should do may depend on what one thinks the point of citations is supposed to be. I've heard some people say they only cite works that influenced them. But, for my part, I think this approach ignores the demands of scholarship: namely, an obligation to actually read and be aware of what's been written on a topic. Indeed, I've always been inclined to think that part of the point of references is to provide an accurate history of ideas, giving credit where credit is due. And, in this case, I'd personally hate to see someone deprived of credit for an idea simply because they passed on before they could publish it. But two things seem to complicate this case: (1) the work in question is unpublished, and (2) the OP has never read it, doesn't have access to it, and only has a second-hand report of what was in it. So, what should the OP do? 

What does everyone think?

Is it always better to have more publications on the market?

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

Is it better to have more publications when going on the job-market, or fewer? I'm not from the fanciest of PhD programs, most of our graduates end up teaching at smaller regional colleges/universities. My question isn't whether it is best to have more/fewer publications in order to "publish into getting" a job at a Research Universities or a prestigious SLAC, but whether it is better to have more/fewer when applying in general.

I'm inferring a bit here, but I take it the OP's concern may be about whether one should maybe avoid "publishing too much" to be competitive for the kinds of jobs that people from their PhD program have tended to get (e.g., jobs at smaller regional colleges and universities). On that, I'm not sure. But I did some informal data collection a number of years ago which suggested that having more publications is a good predictor of job-market success, particularly for those kinds of jobs--and my own experience on the market matched that: the more publications I got, the more interviews I got at those kinds of schools. 

What do readers think? I imagine it would be helpful to hear both from job candidates and search committee members.

Norms for revising conditional acceptances?

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

i recently got ‘conditional acceptance’ for my paper. what exactly are the norms here? Should I separetely write a report in which I address the reviewer comments and the changes I made? Or should I just revise the paper and send the final version without any report? Also, are small changes (that are not mentioned in the reviewer’s comments.. such as changing the title a bit) okay?

I always write a report explaining how I addressed the reviewer comments, though in my experience journal notifications usually ask one to do this anyway. But, if the OP's conditional acceptance didn't instruct them to write a reply to reviewers, I'm not sure if it would be a big deal if they didn't include one.

What do readers think?

Negative online student comments and the market

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

I have a question about web presence. I'm in my second year on the job market.

I know that some committee members google candidates, because they leave a footprint on linkedin, academia.edu, philpeople. I do not use social media apart from those sites.

If you google my name, one of the first things to come up is a reddit comment from a student in the first week of classes in the first class I taught, a year ago. It expresses extreme frustration at my shaky lecturing. It also expresses frustration at the fact that their department (biomedical sciences) requires them to take this philosophy course -- but that's mentioned as an aside. Two other students from the same class chime in, agreeing. A student from another course I was teaching the same term, in which I had a better first week, expresses disagreement, but that's a ways down the thread.

The reddit thread is a year old. My teaching evaluations are so-so and can't entirely counterbalance it. Students tend to give fairly balanced critiques that reflect the real weaknesses in my lecture style -- though they also say other things that reflect strengths in the facilitation of classroom discussion. In other words, the reddit thread expresses (though also sort of caricatures) a genuine shortcoming.

Since this thread, which has been dormant for almost a year, is still at the top of my google results, I've started to think that it might be a good idea to ask for advice about the effect that this might have, and whether there is anything I can or should do to counterbalance it. (The problem is partly related to the google algorithm, which places reddit results near the top of the results, but that's not within anyone's control.)

I wouldn't worry about what the OP describes. Everyone knows that unhappy students can say things online (including on RateMyProfessors), so I think search committees who come across this stuff are likely to take it with a real grain of salt, especially if your official student evaluations are decent. The only time to worry, I think, is if the number and tenor of negative online comments is overwhelming, and/or this is corroborated by official evaluations.

But what do other readers think?

Grappling with student complaints?

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

I would like some advice about how to deal with student complaints. I’m a TA at a university which, to my eye, has some pretty serious issues with grade inflation. Recently, I submitted participation grades for my students and received an unexpectedly large influx of complaints, despite the fact that the average mark I assigned was an A-. Unfortunately, the academic culture here among the undergraduates seems to be to complain until someone capitulates. As much as I would like to counteract this uncharitable sentiment, my feeling has been that many students take a very transactional approach to their classes which is dispiriting. As a TA, I feel I am in a difficult position considering that I don’t have authority about the academic and grading standards for the course.

I'm sorry the OP is dealing with this. I have a lot of syllabus policies to prevent this sort of thing (I don't debate grades, and require detailed written explanations using course material within one week of a grade for grade appeals), but I'm not sure that's all that helpful for a TA. One thought I had here is that "participation grades" can be pretty subjective unless there is some objective way to measure them (e.g., "every student must make one substantive comment or question per session). So, if the OP can tailor their participation credit to be more like this, they might be able to avoid complaints.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips?

Grappling with early career mistakes?

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

I’m ... wondering if anyone else has felt like they kind of messed up their early career. I feel weird and bad about feeling this way, as I am lucky enough to have a tenure-track job, I have met all the relevant requirements for promotion and tenure, and I have really supportive colleagues. But I kind of think that nobody is reading my work, and I don't know how to engage with other people whose work I admire. I feel like I missed the boat on setting up good professional networks. So much of “professionalization” seems to be about surviving the “publish or perish” years rather than setting up a flourishing intellectual life with other people in the profession. How weird would it be for me to just cold-email people to say, “Hey, I really like your work. I've discussed your work in my work. Can we talk shop sometime?” or "Hey, we've interacted professionally a bit. I'm working on this paper and I would love to get some feedback from you, given your really cool paper on the topic." Obviously, conferences can be great for this, but the same practical constraints mentioned above about sabbaticals are relevant here, too, if to a lesser degree. Any advice, emotional and/or practical, would be greatly appreciated.

I suspect a lot of people empathize with this post - I know I do. We all make mistakes, and I think it's important to be kind to oneself about it, so to speak. In terms of advice, I think it is totally fine to email people out of the blue, though I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. I don't think I've ever emailed someone to ask for feedback, but I've heard of people who have, apparently with some success fostering relationships that way.

Do any readers have any helpful advice for the OP?

Tips for Writing Teaching Philosophy Statements for Religious Institutions?

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

I have seen several religious SLACs ask for Teaching Philosophies rather than Teaching Statements. I don't think they are using philosophy and statement synonymously; it seems like they really want your philosophy of teaching and not just the standard fare statement where you list 1-2 pedagogical goals and give concrete examples of how you achieve them.

So, I'm wondering: how do you write an excellent Teaching *Philosophy,* especially for religious SLACs? 

Do any readers in the know have any helpful tips or other insights to share?

Trends for "teaching-only" jobs?

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

I’m interested in trends for teaching-only jobs. I know that Lecturer/VAP positions have been around for many years, and I’ve held these myself. In recent years, I’ve noticed an increased number of ads for “Instructional Assistant Professors,” “Assistant Teaching Professors,” etc. Some of these seem to have more expectation of permanency than the Lecturer positions, and I’ve seen some with promotion schedules. But the position titles are not consistently applied.

Have others observed this trend? Do others perceive that these are more permanent than Lecturers? Those of you chairing searches or involved in obtaining permission to run searches, what considerations prompt you to seek a teaching-only position? I wonder, for instance if they are less common in schools with graduate programs, because perhaps the grad students fill some of those needs. And what determines the position title?

I ask because, after a decade in the profession, teaching philosophy is my greatest strength. As I make some decisions about my future, I’d love to hear about trends in teaching-only jobs.

I've definitely noticed this trend, though I'm not sure what best explains it.

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Trends for "teaching-only" jobs?

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

I’m interested in trends for teaching-only jobs. I know that Lecturer/VAP positions have been around for many years, and I’ve held these myself. In recent years, I’ve noticed an increased number of ads for “Instructional Assistant Professors,” “Assistant Teaching Professors,” etc. Some of these seem to have more expectation of permanency than the Lecturer positions, and I’ve seen some with promotion schedules. But the position titles are not consistently applied.

Have others observed this trend? Do others perceive that these are more permanent than Lecturers? Those of you chairing searches or involved in obtaining permission to run searches, what considerations prompt you to seek a teaching-only position? I wonder, for instance if they are less common in schools with graduate programs, because perhaps the grad students fill some of those needs. And what determines the position title?

I ask because, after a decade in the profession, teaching philosophy is my greatest strength. As I make some decisions about my future, I’d love to hear about trends in teaching-only jobs.

I've definitely noticed this trend, though I'm not sure what best explains it.

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

SPEP vs. Leiter Continental Philosophy?

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

I'm wondering what the difference is between SPEP Continental philosophy and Leiter Continental philosophy? I saw someone reference this distinction on a comment on this website. I can kind of intuit that there's a difference, but don't really understand what it is. For the record, I don't do continental, but I'm fairly sympathetic.

Also, in general, does anyone have any insight into what SPEP (Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy) is all about?

I'm not very well attuned to these issues. Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?

Using a paper co-authored with a supervisor for a writing sample?

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

I am an international student. I have a paper published in a well-regarded journal, though not top-tier (I am the first author, and my supervisor is the second author. His contribution was to provide feedback and suggestions; the paper was written by me). Despite this, I intend to use this paper as my writing sample for application. I would like to know if this is acceptable.

I've heard many times that this is a very bad idea, as search committees want to evaluate the candidate's abilities, and this obscures them. Worst case scenario, I've heard that regardless of authorship, people may be liable to believe the supervisor did most of the important work. Finally, though I don't know all of the details here, from what the OP describes it's not entirely obvious to me that the supervisor should be a co-author here. Supervisors often provide a great deal of feedback and suggestions on their students' work, but my sense is that in the humanities at least, this isn't generally taken to warrant co-authorship--though maybe the the amount of and nature of the contribution here justifies it. But in that case, my first worry arguably applies all the more: the OP would be better served submitting a writing sample that showcases their own abilities, without the confound of co-authorship.

Anyway, what do other readers think about the OP's query?

Pros and cons of posting unpublished work online?

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

Is it advisable to post unpublished manuscripts online (assuming one has already perfected them based on much feedback from many colleagues)? I have noticed that some philosophers do this, but most don't. What are the pros and cons?

Good questions, and I'm not entirely sure.

What does everyone think?