The Philosophers' Cocoon

Summarizing student evaluations from different institutions?

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

How does one summarize raw quantitative data from teaching evaluations across different institutions and therefore different evaluative scales? Does one include one summary per institution in the teaching portfolio?

Good questions. Indeed, the most common approach that I've seen is to separate out quantitative summaries by institution. I've also heard that some people think it is bad to try to merge quantitative data from different institutions, both for technical reasons but also because it can be useful to search committee members to see clearly how the candidate's evaluations were at different institutions. So, I think separating things out is the way to go. But what do you all think?

How many papers do you abandon?

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

I'm interested to know how many unpublished, abandoned papers people have.

I'm 10 years post-PhD. My papers are in top-10, but not top-5 journals (think: Phil Quarterly, Phil Studies, Synthese, etc. not: Mind, Nous or Phil Review). I have two article-length papers that I worked on for a long time, presented in public, etc. but which never got accepted anywhere (probably a few more false starts that I decided I couldn't turn into full papers, but my question isn't about those).

I currently have two more papers I am periodically submitting, but which aren't resonating with referees. One got an R&R from Phil Studies, but I stuffed up the revision and it got rejected. It's been rejected from about 8 other journals too.

So I'm approaching 4 papers that look like they will end up on the scrapheap. How does this compare with others?

Interesting question, and I'm curious to hear from readers! How many papers do you abandon, compared to how many you write or publish? Here's my own answer...

What materials should hiring committees require?

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

Serious proposal: every job should only ever require a CV and Cover Letter.

Only request more documents at the short list stage.

Less work on the candidates and search committees.

Although this isn't exactly a question, it still implies a good query: namely, which materials should academic search committees require, and why? What do you all think? Here are a few quick thoughts in reply...

A job-market dilemma: teaching and having an affiliation, or publishing in a non-academic job?

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

What is more helpful in terms of landing a TT job - teaching experience and having an affiliation or publications?

Here's why I ask: I'm nearing the end of a year long research postdoc. My publication record is pretty decent, as is my teaching record (4 publications in good journals, multiple years of teaching different courses at 4 different institutions). I am, of course, applying to jobs now but I'm operating under the assumption that I'm not going to land anything. Assuming that's the case, I'm going to be faced with a choice. I can adjunct while trying to keep up with research, but if the future is like the past, the amount of teaching I'll need to take on to keep the lights on will almost guarantee that my research progress will come to a halt. Alternatively, I can take a non-academic job that pays reasonably well that would allow me to keep writing and trying to publish. But from the outside, that will look like I left philosophy. How much does being unaffiliated hurt you on the job market?

I realize the answer to this question likely depends on whether one is trying to land a job at a teaching school or a research school. However, I'm just trying to land any job I can get. I also realize that, ideally, I'd just teach and research. Unfortunately, adjuncting means taking on 6+ courses per semester at different institutions, commuting 400+ miles a week, not to mention while having no benefits. Under those circumstances, I just won't be very productive research-wise.

What's the best route to go with an eye to making myself as marketable as possible?

This is a really good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, if the OP has a good publication record and teaching experience, then I don't see any clear reason why they shouldn't be competitive for jobs if they take a non-academic job and continue to publish. But, on the other hand, search committees don't always act as they should, and I could well imagine them being biased toward candidates who have an academic affiliation. So, I'm not sure what the best strategy here is for being competitive on the academic market. But I guess this leads to my main thought, which is that given how much the academic job market is like a lottery, maybe the thing to do here is not to wager on which of the two job-market strategies is likely to be the most effective (since it's really hard to know). Instead, maybe the thing to do is to pick whichever path forward offers the best immediate rewards, such as a good salary, benefits, and quality of life. This is sort of what another reader suggests in a follow-up comment:

Asking editors to send referees an updated paper?

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

I wonder whether it is considered permissible to send a revised version of a manuscript after it has already been sent to peer review.

Some background: I recently revised and resubmitted a manuscript to a journal, and the editor already sent it back to the reviewers. Since then, I noticed that I could significantly improve two paragraphs of the paper to elucidate a crucial principle for my argument. The changes I intend to do would not affect the conclusion but only make it clearer how I arrived there. I am worried that my paper might get rejected if the reviewers find these two paragraphs confusing.

Do you think it makes sense to contact the editor and ask I could reupload the paper in this kind of circumstances? If not, what would be my best course of action? Curious to hear what others in the field think of this or whether someone has done something similar.

This is an interesting question. I recently had an R&R under review at a journal that I had similar concerns about, but I did nothing and the paper was accepted. In retrospect, I think I was probably just being too self-critical--though I think it's understandable to be that way, given how high journal rejection rates are. So, I guess I'm inclined to think that if the OP's concern is merely that the two paragraphs "could be clearer", it may not be worth their while to do anything. It might be a different story, I think, if they found a fatal error or something--which could definitely be worth trying to do something about. But, in any case, if the reader is that concerned, I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask the editor. Or could it? I don't know. 

What do you all think?

ADPA data on non-academic careers

Over at Daily Nous the other week, Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced) provided a 10-year update on the Academic Placement Data and Analysis (APDA) project, the purpose of which "is to collect, analyze, and distribute data on job placement for graduates of PhD programs in philosophy."

As a member of the ADPA's board of advisors, I volunteered to discuss the ADPA's findings on non-academic job careers for philosophy PhDs. Eric Schwitzgebel (UC Riverside) should be discussing demographic data at The Splintered Mind.

What, then, has the ADPA found about non-academic careers for Philosophy PhDs? Here is a quick summary:

(1) How many philosophy PhDs pursue non-academic careers? 

Over the past ten years (2011-21), the ADPA surveyed 6030 PhD graduates. Of those surveyed, 2606 (or 37.6%) are now in permanent academic jobs, and 846 (or 14%) are in non-academic jobs. The remaining philosophy PhDs are either in part-time academic positions or did not report.

(2) What kinds of non-academic careers are philosophy PhDs in?

Top-ten words used to describe positions (in order of frequency): Director, Manager, Senior, Associate, Assistant, Analyst, Research, Software, Teacher, and Consultant.

Top ten industries (in order of frequency, of around 800 in database): education, technology, law, health, consultancy, government, university administration, finance, non-university education, and non-profits/NGOs.

(2) What kinds of salaries do philosophy PhDs make in non-academic industry?

• Mean salaries reported 
  
  • Academic: $79,237 (n = 477)
  • Non-Academic: $179,833 (n = 42)
• Median Salaries
  
  • Academic: $73,000 
  • Non-Academic: $100,000 

(3) What kind of job-placements do PhDs prefer: academic or non-academic?

Of those who received academic jobs, 84.8% reported academic placement as their priority. However, of those who entered non-academic jobs, only 52.9% preferred academic placement, 17.6% percent preferred non-academic placement, and 29.4% reported no strong preference.

(4) Do PhD programs support students seeking non-academic placement?

• Of those who received non-academic employment (n = 63), only 17.5% felt unsupported by their graduate program.
• A plurality of (all) respondents felt their program was neither supportive or unsupportive (n = 27 or 42.9%).
• However, individuals without placement information (n = 11) unanimously indicated that they felt their graduate program was very unsupportive of pursuing non-academic careers.
• Some qualitative responses: 

The faculty of my department were unprepared to offer support for students pursuing non-academic jobs. If anything, they looked down on such students.

Nonacademic jobs were mentioned in the professional development seminar, but no real guidance was offered beyond that. There may have been other resources available, but I did not know about them.

Pursuing professions other than teaching philosophy is discouraged. Several of my fellow students did not disclose that they were interested in professions other than teaching, for example, pursuing a law degree.

Program officials and some professors have made comments supporting non-academic jobs and they occasionally offer a talk on this. However, there is no focused and continued support.

My department has taken some pretty good steps to help us with this. But during the times where I have thought about not pursuing an academic career I have felt like I had to keep it secret or the department would take me less seriously, give me less support, etc.

(5) Are philosophical skills and knowledge job-relevant?

84.1% of those in non-academic jobs found philosophical skills to be relevant to their non-academic career (n=63). Only 53.2% found philosophical material to be relevant (n=62). 

Some qualitative responses:

My work in narrative ethics informs everything I do from managing business functions such as HR, to fostering community values, developing student leadership as well as developing our marketing strategy and posting on Instagram. Everything we do as humans involves stories and sharing experiences - I have never doubted that my PhD research was valuable, practical and of ongoing benefit to me as a person and as a CEO.

Doing logic and looking at formal systems made the transition into coding and data analysis quite easy.

None of my research was directly applicable, but studying logic helped prepare me for a career in tech.

The vast majority of the topics you study in philosophy are irrelevant to work in the business world. However, the skills you develop and the techniques you learn through the practice of philosophy are invaluable. Being a strong and logical thinker is a huge asset in a business environment.

I engage in textual analysis and rational argument on a regular basis in my employment as a business lawyer -- skills that I acquired and honed in my philosophy graduate education.

The skills of reading and thinking carefully, and communicating well orally and in writing, have helped make me more effective in my position as an academic administrator.

In a generic way, the critical thinking, writing, teaching and public speaking skills I have gained have all set me apart in the workplace.

What should we take away from these findings? As with any study using non-randomly collected samples, we must be careful making strong inferences about the total population. Still, bearing this in mind, here are a few hot takes:

1. About 1 in 7 philosophy PhDs in this sample report working in non-academic careers: that's a good number of people!

2. Philosophy PhDs can end up in a variety of good non-academic careers, some of which involve learning computer programming, but many of which appear to be in well-paying, non-STEM areas (government jobs, consulting, etc.). 

3. Philosophers can make a lot of money outside of academia: of course, it is hard to know exactly how accurate this sample is, as the sample sizes are small and those who are underemployed could be less likely to report. Further, there is presumably wide variance among the salaries of those in non-academic industries. Still, the fact that philosophers can achieve high-salary positions in industry shouldn't be too surprising. Philosophers are as a rule highly talented, conscientious people who can think slowly and carefully as well as quickly on their feet; can understand and grapple effectively with very complex problems, speak persuasively in front of groups (viz. experience in teaching and seminars), etc. Moving from academia to non-academic industry can be difficult for philosophy PhDs--but clearly, it can have real upside, as my Philosophers in Industry Directory also suggests.

4. There is significant variance on the kinds of jobs that philosophy PhDs want: Yes, according to the ADPA's 10-year sample, a supermajority of those who have academic jobs desire and academic job. And yes, a slim majority of those who leave academia have a strong preference for an academic job, as well. Still, a significant proportion of PhDs in the sample report being less invested in academia, either wanting non-academic work or reporting no strong preference either way.

5. Most PhDs reported that their programs were neither supportive nor unsupportive of non-academic employment, and a significant proportion reported that their programs were very unsupportive. Further, qualitative responses suggest that PhD students may fear even disclosing an interest in pursuing a non-academic career -- and in general (with a few exceptions), it doesn't seem that many departments do very much to help their PhDs pursue non-academic jobs.

6. Philosophical skills (and, to a lesser extent, philosophical knowledge) seem to be job-relevant outside of academia: the kinds of skills philosophers cultivate (reading, writing, thinking, speaking, logic, creative problem solving) are widely reported by those outside of academia as directly relevant to their careers. And over 50% of those who reported said that philosophical material is job-relevant too (such as knowledge of ethics, etc.).

Finally, here's one more hot-take, to echo some points I made a few weeks ago:

7. It probably behooves academic philosophy (and grad programs) to do far more to support students seeking non-academic work. Placing students into good careers not only reflects well on the discipline (including to administrators, parents, prospective students, taxpayers, etc.). It may also be conducive to philosophy-supporting philanthropy. Humanities departments (including philosophy departments) are being closed and or otherwise threatened left and right--and like it or not, for better or worse, we live in a time when public and philanthropic support for academic disciplines are increasingly crucial. Many other academic disciplines realized this long ago, and have cultivated industry ties in ways that help their disciplines and departments thrive. The more that philosophers thrive outside outside of academia, the more likely (it seems to me) the philosophy will survive and thrive in academia. Or so it seems to me.

But these are just my hot takes. What are yours? 

Interview on Micro-Digressions

This is just a quick note that Micro-Digressions: A Philosophy Podcast has a new interview up with me on my approach to morality and moral epistemology. I hope some of you find it of interest!

Grappling with impostor syndrome?

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

I'm around midway through my PhD, and have been struggling more than I normally do with imposter syndrome. It's put a real damper on my ability to work. What's the point if I'm not going to do work that others would want to read? And why should I risk revealing how little I know?

I've also been pretty convinced by the cognitive scientist Barbara Sarnecka's analysis of imposter syndrome - found in her book, the Writing Workshop - not as the result of something going wrong on the side of the individual, but as the result of something going wrong in the environment. Those struggling with imposter syndrome aren't usually making bad inferences about their own abilities from good data, but good inferences from bad data. We overestimate the success of others, and so underestimate our own, because we're only ever told the success stories.

I'm wondering if anyone has advice on combatting this kind of bad data. I'm especially interested in what I, as a graduate student, can do about it.

I'm sorry to hear that this reader is struggling, but I'm glad they asked this question, as it's an important issue that I expect a lot of grad students and early career philosophers struggle with. We've talked about impostor syndrome a few times before on the blog, and in fact there were many times early in my career when I struggled with impostor syndrome myself--so I know how hard it can be. So, let me offer a few brief comments that I hope the OP may find helpful before opening things up for comments.

What are standards of co-authorship?

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

What are the standards of honest co-authorship in philosophy? I have recently been asking around to fellow grad students, and in one case, one person reported drafting the entire paper by themselves, receiving feedback by their supervisors, and being asked to add their names as co-authors. In another case, the student recounted a similar story, except this time they acknowledged that the more senior person's ideas were what made the paper worth submitting to a journal in the first place, even though the student wrote the draft entirely by themselves. In a third case, the student researched and wrote all but the introductory/'background' sections of the paper, but the paper is still billed as an even co-authorship. Are these students being exploited, or is this normal?

These are excellent questions. Given that co-authorship is relatively uncommon in philosophy (but seemingly increasing!), I'm hoping we can have a good discussion. One reader submitted the following response:

I work on authorship, and I have co-authored with a number of people, junior, senior, and peers. This is a complex set of questions you ask. Further, one cannot reliably know what happened if you just hear one person's story. The other co-authors might see things very differently. If the various students you mention feel exploited, then they need to talk with an ethics person on campus, that is, someone involved in research integrity. At many universities there is usually a committee. But they can initially talk with a member of such a committee.

I think this follow-up is broadly correct: co-authorship is complex, and as a spouse of someone who works in a STEM field, I've experienced many of these complexities second-hand. My sense is that in science, there doesn't seem to be any exact standard of how to settle co-authorship (including the order of co-authors listed). Instead, there appear to be some general rules of thumb that co-authors often broadly negotiate these matters according to, but which are not always respected (and indeed, in some cases--all too many cases, in fact--abused). Allow me to explain, and then open things up for discussion.

On the market with mixed student evaluations?

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

I'm about to go on the job market and my student evaluations are not the best. I mostly have averages from 3.5-4 out of 5 (at my university 4.2 is the overall average). I don't want to lie or obscure this fact, I want to own up to it and discuss how I plan to do better in future. But I don't know if that is a good strategy.

I'd love to hear from anyone who has been in this position, and how they handled it. Or if you have hiring committee experience, how you would think about someone who has somewhat below average scores discussing that fact.

A couple of notes:

1. I know that student evaluations are not a good indicator of student learning. And student learning is the most important thing.
2. I suspect my student evaluations aren't great mostly for personality reasons and because of my own social anxiety getting in the way of engaging the students well.
3. However, there are plenty of people who are both great teachers and get great student evaluations, and I believe we should all aspire to that. Students can learn from and like you.
4. I believe that given some time and without the direct stress of a thesis I will be able to work on the issues that I think are affecting my student evaluations and do better, while also teaching more effectively. But I'm not there yet.
5. This wouldn't be an issue for someone with an outstanding publishing record. But my publishing record is good (2 paper in top 15 journals) but not outstanding.

This is an excellent query, as I expect there are quite a few job-candidates in a similar situation. On the one hand, my sense is that many people on search committees take student evaluations with a grain of salt, as most of us know the mixed (at best) empirical findings about them. On the other, given that there will probably be other candidates with stronger evaluations, mixed evaluations are presumably a prima facie disadvantage. So, what to do?

How can we help you? (October 2021)

Now that it's been about month and a half since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new one!

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:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire 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!

How to list non-standard forms of 'teaching'?

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

I have a question about how to categorize a type of teaching that occurs outside the classroom. I have a student who wants to study a particular text with me outside of class, and I am going to guide them through the text and teach it to them. It will be a semester long project, and I have taken it on. It's not quite a reading group, and obviously not a course. Is this worth putting on a CV? How should it be categorized?

A postdoc submitted the following reply:

It might be too late in the semester bureaucratically (or maybe this isn't something your university allows), but I would look into whether you can get it registered as an independent study course. This is what I'm doing with an undergrad this semester: we're meeting regularly about a text, and he'll write a paper at the end of the semester. I think this can be an attractive option for students, because it'll count for course credit and be a place where they can do some independent thinking and writing without it being a thesis-level project. If you were reading texts on, say, Buddhist ethics, you could list it as "Buddhist Ethics (Independent Study Course)" along with your other courses for Fall 2021. I don't think making it an independent study course would be more work than what you're doing already; you can decide how long the final paper would need to be and you'd have to grade that, but the readings and discussion are the largest part of it.

But the OP responded:

I can't actually do an independent study at this point in the semester, and we wanted to start right away. So if that's not an option, is there any way to describe and categorize such teaching on a CV?

Good question. I think the thing to do here may be to list it under Service, specifically (assuming the OP has other service) under a sub-heading Student Engagement and Mentoring. Here's why. My sense is that one should normally only list under 'Teaching' courses that one has formally taught. All additional stuff outside of the classroom doesn't seem to fall under teaching, per se. Rather, in this case, one is taking the time to do philosophy with a student (i.e. reading and understanding a text outside of formal teaching duties), and it's a case where you are going well beyond formal teaching and mentoring a student directly. So, 'Service / Student Engagement and Mentoring' seems to me more appropriate. But, maybe I'm wrong about this. What do you all think?

Which writing sample to use?

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

I have a job market question I've been struggling with. So, suppose that I work on X and Y, but my dissertation and best work is mainly in X, but the job is in Y. Do I submit my best work, or the work that falls more squarely within Y (which I think is less good etc).

Perhaps relevantly, X and Y interact a lot throughout my work, and other parts of my file will make the clear. But my best work is more squarely on the side of X.

What have people done in this situation? Also curious about people who have used 2 writing samples to navigate this -- e.g. sending one paper in X and one in Y (and in that case, which would you use as your primary and which as secondary)?

I think we may have discussed this issue once or twice before, but since it often comes up, it's a really good question! I used to think it best for candidates to simply submit their best work, even if it's not squarely in the AOS advertised in the job ad--at least if the rest of their file shows that they genuinely have an AOS in Y. However, now I'm not so sure, for a couple of related reasons:

1. I've heard anecdotally of cases where committees "really want" someone who is a perfect fit for and does excellent work in the advertised AOS. So, if you don't send in a writing sample on Y, then you run two risks: (A) not really looking like a good fit, and (B) looking like your work in Y really isn't excellent (after all, if it was, why didn't you submit a writing sample on Y)?
2. Candidates are so strong across the board (with similar publication numbers, teaching evals, etc.) that small differences between candidates (such as one candidate looking like a better overall fit for the position) can really make a difference in decisions on who to interview or hire. 

These two considerations seem to me to speak to submitting two writing samples (one in X and one in Y). However, I'm not sure how search committees feel about that, as most job ads request one writing sample, and if a candidate submits two they might look like they don't know how to follow directions or are trying to give themselves an illicit advantage over other candidates (who did follow directions). My sense is that search committees can care about evaluating candidates fairly, and so a candidate who seems to be trying to give themselves an unfair advantage could (in principle) have that held against them. But here too, I'm not too sure. How many search committees (and individual search committee members) care about this? I have to confess: I don't know.

So unfortunately, I'm increasingly uncertain abut what to advise here. My gut tells me that, all things being equal, candidates who look like they are a perfect fit for the advertised job (viz. their CV, research statement, and writing sample all focusing on Y) are likely to have an advantage over someone who looks like they do their best work in X. Then again, if the latter person is really spectacular, then all bets are off--as committees can very much be interested in hiring the best person they can get (broadly in the areas advertised). So again, I'm not sure. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees? 

Tips for reply papers?

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

The participants at a paper workshop suggested I send in my paper as a response piece. They also noted that response pieces are 'easier to get in.'

My paper responds to a problem that is associated with a particular philosopher, so I suppose that this shouldn't be too hard. But, how would I go about framing the paper as a response piece? Do I do this merely to flag to the editor that this paper is a response piece? Also, is it true that response papers are easier to get published?

Excellent questions. In my experience, publishing replies (sometimes also called 'discussion notes') is a great way for early career philosophers to start publishing. My first two publications were both replies, and they helped me learn the publishing ropes, as it were. There are several nice things about replies:

1. They are normally quite short (2,000-3,000 words or so).
2. They are easier and quicker to write than longer standalone papers.
3. They may be a bit easier to get published, as referees and editors may use different standards of acceptance.
4. Having a significant publishing record looks good on the job market.

The only real (though significant) downsides to publishing replies, I think, are these:

1. Although a few journals accept replies to papers in other journals, most journals don't.
2. If your reply is rejected at the journal that published the original paper, you may only have two options:
   1. Give up on publishing the paper (which stinks!)
   2. Try to convert it into a longer standalone piece (which can be tough!).
3. Replies may not be conferred as much value in hiring and tenure decisions as standalone articles.
4. They may make less of an impact in the literature (viz. citations) than standalone articles.

Sacrificing Teaching on the Altar of Talent

By Samuel Duncan

We philosophers are in love with the idea of talent. As a group, philosophers think talent more important for success in our field than do members of pretty much any other academic discipline. Only mathematics really comes close to us but philosophers hold talent to be more important for doing well in our field than do even mathematicians for theirs. I worry very much about this and think our field would be better off if we did not venerate talent in this way. Now I am hardly the first person to worry about the way philosophers think about talent and success in our field; Alison Gopnik and Eric Schwitzgebel among others  have written some excellent pieces on the role our talent worship plays in the woeful lack of diversity in philosophy PhD students as a whole. Here and in the next few posts I want to explore another way that our emphasis on talent hurts philosophy: Belief in talent leads to bad teaching and our belief in talent no doubt makes philosophers worse teachers than we could be. While there’s no easy way to measure this, I’m also fairly certain that it makes philosophers on average worse teachers than our colleagues in less talent obsessed fields like history, political science, and art history. And unlike many other talent obsessed fields like mathematics, computer science, and economics philosophy cannot afford bad teaching.

Why do I say that belief in talent leads to bad teaching? I think there are some simple and fairly obvious reasons for this and some more complicated and subtle ones. In this post I will focus on the more simple and obvious ones. To begin, consider the research on effective teaching; one huge lesson from this is that good teachers don’t put weight on talent as a driver of success while mediocre and bad teachers do. In his “What the Best College Teachers Do” Ken Bain notes that one thing that unites almost all bad and mediocre college teachers (or as he euphemistically puts it “unexceptional” ones) is a belief that student success is largely determined by talent. Good teachers (exceptional ones in Bain’s formulation) don’t think this way. Instead they believe that students can get better through effort and that good teaching can make a crucial difference in helping them do so. Cathy Davis makes the same point in her “The New Education” and notes that a belief that talent is largely fixed is particularly detrimental to student success when teaching students from disadvantaged social groups who tend to be less academically prepared for college work.