The Philosophers' Cocoon

Exams or no exams?

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

This is related to the thread about student capacities, but I figured it should probably be its own thread. I am just starting to teach my own courses, and so far have avoided exams. I figured they encourage more rote memorization than anything else, can be pretty stressful, and it seems fine for students to learn one or two topics in depth for their papers and then learn through smaller assignments like reading responses. However, I am starting to worry that students might have pretty major misunderstandings of some core ideas in the class, and several seem to be unable to recall other topics we discussed in class. I'm wondering if I should just accept this as a worthwhile cost to not having exams (or perhaps this would not change even with exams), or whether I should figure out a way to incorporate exams into my syllabi in the future (in a way that isn't just super easy to cheat).

I usually give exams in my courses for this reason (I teach only undergrads), and use other types of assessments (reading responses, term papers, presentations, etc.) for other skills (e.g., argumentation, etc.). I personally tend to find that exams help me to better gauge how students are grasping the course material overall, which students grasp it better than others, and in turn whether there are things I might do to improve student comprehension.

But this is just me. What about you all? Do you exams? Why/why not?

When do/should ABDs go on the market?

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

Reading the recent post about ABD job candidates has really cemented the idea that one should apply when the dissertation is substantially complete. This leads me to question: do most people go on the market for multiple years while in graduate school? Or only their last year?

Good questions. There are of course two issues here: when most people actually go out on the market for the first time, and when they should. Do any readers have any helpful insights to share? When did you go on the market while in grad school? When do you think people should?

Writing a good course evaluation as a student?

A reader writes in:

I'm an American PhD student still in coursework, and as Fall semester comes to a close, it is time for course evaluations. While there has been plenty of discussion on the Cocoon on how to interpret and use student evaluations in teaching profiles, I've seen little guidance anywhere on how to best write a course evaluation. While each individual evaluation is only of marginal significance, I'd still like to do right by our university's early career faculty. Advice on what constitutes a good "glowing" evaluation vs. a good "constructive" evaluation would also be appreciated.

Interesting query. Any suggestions?

Writing productivity tips?

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

I am becoming less efficient in writing as time goes on. When I read productivity advice for academics, the bottom line is usually, "spend more hours of your day writing." But what is "writing" mean? My real problem is not so much about finding hours for research, or about writing itself, it is about the process of translating great ideas into a single (limited) paper. When writing for a conference, I always see so many angles of exploring a theme and I struggle to choose between them. This bogs down my process as I explore all of them simultaneously, and often ends up complicating my writing to the point I publish one dense piece that really would have been better as three separate papers. I am also a really slow reader, and my time tends to get bogged down by researching (often of sources that don't end up helping much in the end but only take more time). So I guess my question is: does anyone have advice for improving the efficiency of the process of transforming an idea into an article or chapter, without sacrificing serious scholarship or rigorous original thought? If you see multiple paths to a question, what intellectual or pragmatic strategies do you use when deciding which one to take? What kind of external or internal limits do you use keep the (temporal) balance of researching new sources and pursuing original thinking vs. writing pieces?

Good questions! Do any readers have any helpful tips? It would be great to hear from everyone, but particularly from people who have grappled successfully with similar issues.

CFP: First Feminist Philosophy of Physics Workshop

Chris Mitsch (University of Pittsburgh) writes in:

We invite submissions from scholars at all career stages to the first Feminist Philosophy of Physics Workshop, to be held on June 20-21, 2024 at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and hybrid on Zoom. We welcome submissions to present talks (20 min or 3 min), to organize panel or workshop discussions, as well as to participate as discussants. We especially welcome submissions from scholars from marginalized groups (including but not limited to trans and queer scholars, scholars of color, disabled scholars), and from scholars at early career stages. We welcome presentations on works in progress, and we welcome submissions from non-philosophers.

Possible topics include but are not limited to: 

• • Perspectives from feminist theory/critical race theory/queer theory in the foundations of physics; 
  • The influence of sociopolitical values in the development of history of physics, foundations of physics, social structures of physics, and/or philosophy of physics (HFSP of physics);
  • Ideas, theories, and perspectives developed by gender and racial minority scholars in the HFSP of physics; 
  • Empirical research into the gender and racial gaps in physics and HFSP of physics publications, and exploring ways to close such gaps;
  • Empirical research into the retention of gender and racial minorities in the HFP of physics, and suggesting ways to make the field more accessible;
  • Exploring pedagogical interventions for possible gender and racial gaps in physics, philosophy of physics, and formal philosophy.

We would be especially interested in a panel on, or workshop discussion of, the work of Evelyn Fox Keller (1936-2023). We would also be interested in a panel on, or workshop discussion of, strategies to make HFSP of physics more welcoming to marginalized scholars in the field.

Unusual delays in peer-review this year?

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

Are other people having huge problems with peer review this year? I keep statistics on my reviews. My average review time in 2020-2022 was 3.2 months. My average review time this year was 7.3 months. I had 2 *very short* referee reports 8 to 11 months after submission, and the editor rejected the paper based on these reviews. I had a desk rejection that took 6 months. One of my papers has been under review for 15 months now. What am I going to tell my promotion committee, "sorry it seems that everyone is busy this year and I can't get decisions on my material"?

Do other readers have similar experiences? If so, do any editors have any inside insights on what might be going on? I've seen some social media discussions where editors discuss how difficult and time consuming it can be to find willing reviewers. Has this suddenly gotten worse? If so, why?

A search committee member on writing samples

A search committee member writes in:

I'm running a search committee right now, and so have just read something like 120 application files.  Here's something I've noticed that might be worth discussing on the blog:

For many of the application files I'm reading, applicants are submitting something published as their writing sample. But in a significant group of those files, this choice doesn't seem to make much sense in the larger context of the file. For instance, there'll be a candidate coming out of their PhD whose dissertation is about one big project, their research statement proposes carrying that project farther, but the writing sample is about something totally unrelated.  If this is your big project, what you expect to do going forward, and all of your letter-writers are talking about it, I want to see what a chunk of that project actually looks like!  Just because you have only one thing published doesn't necessarily mean that's the best thing to send along.

Why is this happening?  I dimly remember getting this kind of advice when I was on the market, along something like the lines that an actually-published piece of writing looks more impressive to committees.  But as a committee member I can read your cv; I know whether you've published things or not. Also I totally get if the published piece is your most polished piece of writing—dissertation chapters may still be in an unfinished state. But beyond that, is there a good reason to send a published piece over a piece that better represents what you do? 

I'm curious whether other search committee members have the same take. As a job-candidate, I would normally send my best piece of work (published or unpublished) from my big research program--but for jobs in other specialty areas that I worked in (e.g., AI ethics, etc.), I'd normally choose to use a writing sample on that. 

Any other search committee members care to weigh in? Update based on first comment: it could be good to hear from job-candidates too, on their rationale for how they choose a writing sample (as this might help search committee members like the OP better understand their choices!) 

How do search committees view ABD candidates?

A reader writes in,

I wanted to see if I could post a "how I can help you" thread about going onto the academic job market as an ABD. I am curious what former committee members' impressions of an ABD applicant and an applicant with a degree in hand. 

Excellent query. Do any search committee members care to weigh in?

Tips for developing expertise in a new area? A query from a grad student

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

A thread on developing expertise might be helpful. It often feels like there's always so much more to read on a topic, and it can be hard to be sure that you're saying something new or that you have a grasp of the subject at hand.

One reader submitted the following response:

[T]here are a number of ways to track relevant new research. SEP is a starter, though it isn't up to date if a particular entry was updated a few years ago. Then you have PhilPapers, where you can declare your research interests, and occasionally get email updates of potentially relevant papers. Another way is google scholar. You can search the keywords you know and limit the search to within one or two years. You can also find several articles as indicators, and see who cites them on google scholar, and reiterate the process to see the new papers citing the near new ones. And there's this website called Philosophy Paperboy, where you can screen through the titles of new papers, though it is a bit too much information daily; there's a search function in it though, which makes tracking easier. And if you can, monitor the call for special issues, and see who presents at certain conferences that look relevant to your research area. All this takes time, but who knows when you will encounter a reviewer or two who are angry at you for not citing their recently accepted paper just declared on PhilPapers five days after you submitted your paper etc.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips or insights?

Specifications grading?

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

I have heard many teachers starting to use specification grading as a way of maintaining high standards without stressing the students out too much. Has anyone tried this and liked it/not liked it?

One reader submitted the following reply:

[T]he downside of this sort of approach is that students' answers can become very formulaic. They try to hit the points, if you know what I mean, and do not think creatively about their academic assignments. It perpetuates the worse vices of the American high school experience - teaching to the test. I hope this helps.

I honestly don't know that much about the practice, so I am curious to hear from people who have tried it on how they do it and how well they've found it to work!

Insights on applying for jobs at religious institutions when not of the faith?

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

I'm curious in the perspective of those who work at schools with religious affiliations. I know it will vary with the school, but do those working at such (for instance Catholic) schools have a general sense of what they would look for from applicants who are not of that faith? I'm starting to interview at such institutions, and I'm a bit unsure of myself.

I imagine that no one wants an applicant to misrepresent the extent to which they are religious in general or have beliefs that align with a particular faith. At the same time, I wonder if true honesty is a virtue if, for instance, an applicant considers herself an atheist. Might an honest atheist have a shot at being employed in a Catholic university? Or is it best to profess some sort of amorous spirituality to be more palatable?

And I know that a non-religious candidate might be more fulfilled at a non-religious school. We just all need to be realistic about the sort of choices that job candidates are faced with these days.

Good questions. A Catholic reader at a Catholic institution responded:

As you may have guessed, "Catholic schools" are not all alike, and what one search committee prefers is not a guide to what another search committee prefers. However, as a Catholic who has served on a search committee at a Catholic school, I can tell you what has rankled me, as answers to our mission-oriented questions. We once had a candidate who could not say the word "Christian" or "Catholic" without disdain in her voice. She was also very dismissive of this part of the country (non-coastal). It was not a good fit, and I think even the atheist/agnostic committee members found this all very off-putting. Another candidate spoke of our benighted student body, who all have unthinkingly accepted the religion of their parents. She could benefit them, she told us, by teaching them to finally think and question ... She went on in this vein for a while. In addition to mischaracterizing our student body (which in itself is not a huge deal), this person also expressed some really nasty stereotypes about religious people. Again, I am one person at one institution. But I take our mission seriously and yes, I would be open to hiring an atheist, so long as they are not prejudicial or dismissive of religion. Quite a few intelligent, very reflective people are religious, and Catholicism in particular has an extremely rich intellectual tradition. Candidates who are curious, interested, respectful, and not shamefully ignorant will likely not be rejected for mission reasons (at least not by me).

A non-Catholic reader added:

When I was on the market I interviewed at a few Catholic colleges - first round interviews at the APA. I have a really solid history of philosophy background that suits the whole person education that such schools aim for. I am not religious, and I do not hide it. But I am not aggressive about it either. My experience then was that they had a way to select appropriate candidates - they would ask about your knowledge of Catholic philosophers. I surprised some when I mentioned Jacques Maritain, for example (I am Canadian, though). But I never moved on to the on-campus interview. So do not think you can "pass".

Do any other readers have any helpful insights? It would of course be good to hear from search committee members, but also from any people who have obtained jobs at religious institutions while not sharing the relevant faith.

Tips for expanding one's professional network for a neurodivergent 2nd-year PhD student?

A reader writes in,

I'm a second year PhD student and I have substantial problems finding my tribe. Sure I'm a neurodivergent introvert, but I don't want to let that get in my way anymore - at least as much as I can. Not easily find[ing] people doing the same is, in a way, a good thing I guess: nobody is really doing what I am doing. But on the other way, it's difficult to find colleagues with whom I can discuss or get advice from: they are either inexistant or way out of my league - I probably wouldn't get an answer to my cold emails from these high profile people. I've been monitoring closely CFP or talks but there is rarely something corresponding to my field of research. I found one conference this year - and this is because their topic is broad enough for me to fit in. My question what's the best way to find the people I could discuss my ideas with and develop professional relationship? Could building a research group or organizing conferences would help?

Fair questions! It's hard to say without knowing more, but I guess I'm a bit worried by the OP's statement that there aren't any CFPs or talks in their field of research. Perhaps this isn’t a problem—I’m not sure—but I guess if I were a 2nd year grad student I’d worry about working primarily in an area for which there isn’t much interest. Are there any jobs in the area? Then again, maybe they are poised to break new ground in an under explored area, and that might serve them well on the market later on down the line. Again, I think it’s hard to say without knowing more.

In any case, do any readers have any tips for the OP? It would be great to hear from readers in general, but especially from neurodivergent and/or introverted readers. As a neurodivergent introvert myself, I’ve grappled with similar issues my entire life, including in grad school and beyond. To be honest, over time I’ve mostly just learned to enjoy doing work by myself, while cultivating close relationships with a few close friends and colleagues. At the same time, like the OP I’ve always wished that I could better expand my progressional circle, as I’ve always loved talking shop. So I too could use some tips! :)

Generative AI and student assessment: what are you/your departments doing?

A reader writes in,

I would really like to know what other philosophy departments are doing around generative AI and assessment. As people will know, this issue is tricky for a number of reasons. But not least because -

1) There are a number of different ways that generative AI can be used in producing assessments, some of which seem problematic, and some not. It's hard to draw the line between what is acceptable and what isn't.

2) Generative AI is not going anywhere and our students will almost certainly have to use it in their lives after university.

3) There are no reliable tools for detecting material produced by AI at present.

The steer from my institution has been (partly) to design assessments that are harder to write using AI, but the sorts of things that AI is good at doing, are the sorts of things that we assess our students on. So what are you all doing?

Good question, and I'd love to hear from readers!

Nursing babies and campus visits

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

I'm anticipating having a nursing infant during flyout season. How have women with nursing babies approached campus visits, and how has that gone?

This is an excellent question, and I hope that readers with experience choose to share what they did and how things went.

One reader submitted the following reply:

I was not a nursing mother but times are changing - at my former state college, we had nursing rooms in some buildings. People now know that motherhood is normal ... can you imagine?! Philosophers have an infinite capacity to change with the times.

I know that my university has nursing rooms as well, and that we of course more than happy to set extra time aside in a visiting candidate's schedule for childcare. But obviously, neither of these comments really address the OP's query, which is how candidates like her have approached campus visits, and how it's actually gone for them.

Do any readers with job-market experience while nursing babies care to weigh in?

On papers that are hard sells for journals

I recently submitted a paper to a journal. It's a triple-anonymous journal so the editors don't know that it's me, and I won't discuss its content here, so anonymous review is not compromised by talking about the paper here. It's been a while--over a year--since I last sent a non-invited paper into the anonymous review void, having worked at my monograph Wonderstruck (which is coming out soon) and various invited and public philosophy pieces.

I feel confident the paper will be a hard sell. It's the kind of paper that I would not have written five or ten years ago, because doing so would be a waste of my time, as it would not help me career-wise. But now, I became intrigued by the idea the paper explores. It would not let go of me and I lay awake thinking about it several nights and tinkering with it in my head. And so, I wrote the paper in a kind of fever dream over the space of about a week in between other things to do. I sent it to some friends for feedback, reworked it, and submitted it. I expect a rejection in three months or so with the something along the lines of "In the interest of speed we cannot comment on individual papers" (what I call a slow desk rejection).