Job-Market Boot Camp, Part 3: The CV Itself

In Part 2 of the Cocoon's Job-Market Boot Camp, I wrote about how to put together a strong, competitive CV. What I'd like to do today is talk about the CV itself: how it should be formatted, organized, what should be included, what shouldn't be, etc.

When it comes to most of these issues, it is very hard to get clear evidence of "what works" and "what doesn't." Accordingly, I will base the suggestions I provide below the best evidence I have:

1. Seemingly "consensus" views I've come across when talking about CVs with other people (other job candidates, placement directors, etc.), and
2. My job-market experiences with my own CV.

If you think the suggestions I provide are incorrect, or that I've left important stuff out, please do feel free to say so! 

Here, then, is what I think I've learned about writing/organizing a CV:

Formatting: Everyone I've ever talked to has advised against unnecessarily "flashy" CV formatting. The aim, I've been told, is not to have your CV's formatting stand out, but to the CV's content do the talking.

AOS: My understanding on what you should list as an AOS has always been a bit fuzzy, but I think the safest way to understand it is in terms of your area(s) of demonstrated research expertise. So, if you're a new PhD with no publications, the only area in which you have demonstrated research expertise is the area of your dissertation. Aside from that, my understanding is that you should only list other area(s) as an AOS if you have both (A) an actual publication record in the area, and (B) a reasonable claim to make that you will continue publishing in that area. In other words, you shouldn't list as an AOS things you merely "consider yourself an expert in." Aside from your dissertation area, you should only list as an AOS areas that someone looking at your CV would be likely to think to themselves, "Yes, this person has demonstrated the ability to publish in this area, and do it more than just a few times." (Am I off here?) In any case, I have heard many people say to beware of listing too many AOS, or AOS that are a "reach" (it may make you look self-deceived).

AOC: My understanding on AOC is even fuzzier, but the rule of thumb I've always been told is to list something as an AOC only if you plausibly have enough background in the area to teach an upper-level undergraduate seminar. For example, suppose you're a new graduate and do not have a research program in philosophy of science, but you took quite a few advanced philosophy of science courses in grad school (e.g. general philosophy of science, philosophy of biology, philosophy of physics, etc.). Okay then, in that case one can make a plausible case for listing that as an AOC. You can probably also list something as an AOC if you've published a few articles in the area, but don't have a long-term research program (Note: it's not exactly clear to me how long one can lean on graduate coursework, though. If you graduated a half-dozen years ago and you've never done research in phil science since grad school, can/should you still list it as an AOC? I'm inclined to think not). Finally, I have also come across a great many people who have cautioned against listing too many AOC--the claim being that it can make a candidate look either self-deceived or desperate, or both.

Employment: Skip this is you're a new graduate (or ABD). However, if you have been academically employed, list all of your positions, and list whether they are tenure-track or non-tenure-track. Don't skip this, or try to obscure the real nature of your position by omitting potentially relevant details. I learned this the hard way. Although the position that I'd been in (until accepting a TT position this year) was non-tenure-track, I initially did not put this in my CV, as my official title was simply "Assistant Professor" (not Visiting Assistant Professor, or some such). I later learned that although I was just trying to be honest and list my official title, it confused some people. You don't want to confuse search-committee members or cause them to think you're trying to hide something!

Education: You should list your PhD year (or expected graduation date), as well as your dissertation title and dissertation committee members. I have also been advised that if you are a new graduate with few/no publications, it can be a very good idea to include a brief (several sentence at most) dissertation summary just below your dissertation title--the purpose being to "put your best foot forward", drawing the search committee members' to your awesome dissertation before they get to the fact that you don't have (any/many) publications yet. 

General organization of the CV: I've heard from some people that after listing your AOS/AOC, education, you may want to organize your CV according to the job-type you're applying for--for instance, research first then teaching for research jobs, but the other way around for teaching jobs. I don't know anyone who has tried this, but I will say this: I always put my research first, have been a productive researcher, and it did not seem to harm my chances at all with teaching schools (the vast majority of my interviews over the past few years were at teaching schools, including a few community colleges). 

Publications: My understanding is that it is best to clearly distinguish each type of publication in its own section. Peer-reviewed publications should be in their own section of your CV, non-peer-reviewed publications in their own section, book reviews in their own section (or at least clearly marked as book reviews), etc. You may of course list as "forthcoming" any articles that have been officially accepted, and you may list "conditional acceptances" as a publication (though this is kind of a grey area). Do not list articles in "revise-and-resubmit" under your publications (they're not published or forthcoming), and definitely do not list articles merely under review under your publications. Instead, see below...

Manuscripts under review: After your publications, it is generally a good idea to list articles presently under review at peer-reviewed journals. Do not bother listing where they are under review, unless they are in "revise-and-resubmit." Anyone can submit an article to the Journal of Philosophy or Philosophical Review. Since submitting an article to a great journal is not an accomplishment, listing that you've done so, as I understand it, looks awkward and a bit desperate. You may list list where you have a revise-and-resubmit, though, because that is an accomplishment (shoot, if I had an R-n-R at Phil Review, I'd list it in a heartbeat!). 

Manuscripts in preparation: It may be a good idea to list substantially completed manuscripts, as this can be an indication of how productive you are. The important thing is not to exaggerate. You should only list papers for which, at minimum, you have a complete, decent draft. A general rule of thumb is: if a search committee asked for a copy of the paper, would you (A) have it on hand to send them immediately, and (B) not be embarrassed by its condition. 

Conference and Invited Presentations: After your publications and manuscripts in preparation, it is standard practice to list your conference presentations. Because APA presentations are generally considered more prestigious (or so I hear) than other conferences, I suggest assigning them their own section of your CV (viz. "APA presentations"). Also, if you have had any invited presentations (e.g. job talks, etc.), those should be up front too. 

Awards, Professional Service, Etc.: Generally speaking, it seems to be common practice to leave teaching stuff after any and all other categories. So, what other categories might come after listing presentations? Well, things like awards, professional service, etc. are good to list. If you've been a journal referee, list the journal(s) you refereed for as well as the year you were asked to do so.

Teaching: List all of the classes you have taught, including the institution and year you taught them. (Is there anything else people put here?)

Graduate Coursework: As I understand it, if you are a new grad/ABD student--especially one without much teaching experience--it may be helpful to list all of your graduate courses, their instructor(s), and the grades (?) you received. This will give the search committee a better idea of what you might be well-prepared to teach, and indeed, how broad your grad school preparation was. 

Professional References: It is my understanding that if you are coming straight out of grad school, it is okay for your only letter-writers to be your grad school professors. However, the grad students I knew who did the best on the market almost always had outside letters (they were people very good at networking). This can be very helpful, I've heard, because search committees expect glowing letters from one's grad school professors (your professors, after all, generally have a vested interest in you getting a job). Thus, if you want to distinguish yourself, getting a reference-letter from a well-known person in the profession outside of your department can look really good. It's also good--or so I've heard--to have more than one teaching letter for teaching jobs (though I myself never had more than one). Finally, everyone I have ever spoken to with any experience in these matters has told me that the longer you've on the market, the more important it is to get outside letters by well-known people. My final year on the market (this year), I had eight letters total: three grad school professors, one by my current department chair, and four by well-known people in the profession. Although it is hard to tease out causal influences, I did see a clear trend: the more outside letters I got, the more interviews I got. I'll dedicate a future post to this very topic--how to get outside letter-writers--but for now let me say this. You want to make sure that all of your letters are good and up-to-date. Ask your letter writers if they could write a positive letter supporting your candidacy, and see what they have to say. I have never once had someone be dishonest with me--and yes, I have had someone tell me that they could only write a lukewarm letter.

Am I off on anything? Did I leave anything out? I'd love to hear from job candidates and search committee members what their experiences have been. Fire away!

Comments

[Malcolm Keating]

Marcus, one concern: the advice that I was given in my department (UT-Austin) and by others was not to include "manuscripts under review/in preparation" on your CV but that these are excellent for one's website* and should be included as part of your description of your current and future research.

The argument for this is precisely the one you state, slightly modified: "Since submitting an article to a great journal/any journal(!) is not an accomplishment, listing that you've done so, as I understand it, looks awkward and a bit desperate."

Also, if you have a teaching experience as an adjunct instructor and you are ABD (those of us who did an MA first, for instance, and taught on our own before the PhD), do not front-list your previous positions as "Employment." This gives the impression on a cursory read that you have been on the job market for a while, without getting anything. Instead, include it under "Teaching Experience."

*There are concerns about impacting the anonymous review process, but I leave that aside here.

[Daniel Brunson]

Regarding the teaching section, it can be appropriate to distinguish courses by lower/middle/upper level (generally, course numbers are meaningless across schools), and indicating whether the course was online (especially if you developed it yourself).

[Axel Gelfert]

Including a section "manuscripts under review" I think would be appropriate for a candidate fresh out of grad school, though perhaps an exception can (should?) be made for R&Rs and conditional acceptances at impressive journals (Marcus's semi-proverbial "R&R at Phil Review" springs to mind...). And I think it's important to note -- since there seems to be some confusion among graduate students on this -- that "forthcoming" means the final version of an article/chapter has been accepted and is scheduled for publication. It is NOT a euphemism for "I have this paper and am pretty confident that one day it will see the light of day". -- The advice on AOS/AOC strikes me as very relevant; it's important to be able to 'tell a story'. So 'AOC' should mean a little bit more than that one would be able to teach an intro module on it, even if it does not require having published extensively in the area. (On the topic of AOS I have a -- somewhat amusing -- post coming up...)

[Craig]

As a beginning graduate student I have a question. When applying for jobs do you routinely give (or get asked to give) your marks for individual graduate courses taken? Do you submit a transcript in the same way as you submit an undergraduate degree transcript when applying to graduate school?

I ask this question because it's relevant when considering which graduate courses to take: should you play it safe and take courses you know you'll get good grades in, or do you experiment and take courses you might do poorly in? I know the latter course of action is likely to make one a better philosopher, but am aware that the former might be most conducive to getting a job later.

[some thoughts]

Craig,
Whatever you do, do not choose courses in graduate school merely because you can get good grades. Take the courses (i) on topics that will aid you with writing your dissertation, and (ii) with people who have the greatest reputation in your department. Let me explain the latter point given that it is apt to be misunderstood. I am assuming the faculty in your department with the greatest reputation have earned it. They have published papers or books that are well regarded by other experts in the field. A letter from such a person will count for so much more than a letter from someone who is less engaged in research, and who may not even be known off your campus. Grades are indicators, and what you describe is a form of gaming the system. But it will backfire. Indeed, the reason to take courses from the reputable faculty is not to game the system, but to learn how to research from people who are well respected in the field.

[Marcus Arvan]

Craig,

I entirely agree with "some thoughts." Taking easy classes for good grades is the last thing you want to do in grad school. Your main task in grad school should to become the best philosopher you can be. That requires taking courses that challenge you, even if you don't get the best grades. Search committees won't care how good your grades are if your body of work isn't very good. Similarly, they won't hold a few bad grades against you if, by the time you graduate, you are doing awesome work.

[HGM]

What about scholarships and research funding? If you don't have many is it okay not to draw attention to that fact, e.g. by leaving such a section off entirely?

Is it important to include the years of convocation for each of one's degrees? Will adverse inferences be drawn if you leave that info off? I feel like including them can promote ageism and other biases.

[Marcus Arvan]

HGM: Yes, it is fine to not have sections on scholarships or research funding. You should only have sections on things you have! Fwiw, I never had a scholarship *or* research funding, and it did not seem to hinder my candidacy for US jobs. I have heard, however, that these things are important for jobs in Europe--but I don't really know the European market well.

In terms of years of convocation/receiving degrees, it is my understanding that, yes, you are expected to have that on your CV. It may be susceptible to biases and ageism, but unfortunately it can also indicate job-relevant factors, such as how long it took you to finish your PhD (which can be indicative of productivity, etc.).

[some thoughts again]

HGM,
Do not have a heading for scholarships and funding if there is nothing to list. Do not list manuscripts under review or even revise and resubmits.
Also, do not hide dates (like graduation dates). It looks deceptive, and it will inevitably raise a flag (usually a red one). If committees smell deception, they will run from you. There are more than enough qualified applicants (even for VAPs), so you must come across as honest. Better still, BE HONEST.

[Kenny]

Two questions:

1) Is it really standard practice to list job talks as 'invited presentations'? Are there issues with this about how much information about past job market failures you are revealing?

2) At what point does one start leaving off 'grad student' type information - e.g., dissertation summary, presentations at graduate student conferences, courses taken, TA experience? (Perhaps the answer is different for different categories?)

[some thoughts]

Kenny,
Leave off "grad stuff" when it becomes obsolete. For example, if you publish a few papers from your dissertation, likely some of the first publications you will have, then I think a summary of your dissertation is unnecessary. If after a few years you have no publications, and you still have your dissertation summary there, then it says something about your career, and your prospects. Similarly, after teaching full time for a year or two, it is unnecessary to list courses that you were a teaching assistant for.
You do not need to list job talks as invited presentations. I do not expect to see them when I look at a c.v.

[anon]

what about listing declined post-doctoral research fellowships under 'awards' (explicitly listing them as declined). I've seen it done with people who did well on the market. but is it gauche?

[some thoughts]

anon:
I would not list declined post-doc offers under awards. Some people do it. But one assumes that the person took something better than what they declined, so the declined opportunity need not be mentioned.

[gradjunct]

Marcus,

Most of the jobs I applied to this past year explicitly limited the number of rec letters to 3. I typically sent one letter from my diss chair, one from my current dept, and one from another committee member.

I do have two outside letters, from very well-known people, but I could not often send them.

Is your claim that you actually sent 8 rec letters, or simply that having the names on your cv made things better?

[Marcus Arvan]

gradjunct: A few of the jobs I applied to only allowed three letters--but most of them allowed more. In any case, although I don't have proof, I suspect having more well-known people in my reference list may have helped.

[A]

My undergraduate institution offered a number of semesterly scholarships, of which I received many -- ranging in monetary value from $100 to $3000. Some were awards for philosophy students in particular and some were university-wide. Should I list these in my scholarship section, or is the scholarship section more for scholarships of high monetary value and/or earned at the graduate level?

In other words, are these undergraduate scholarships worth putting on the CV, or would doing so appear juvenile?

My feeling is that these are certainly relevant to getting into grad school, but not to getting a job in philosophy. Is that correct?

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi A: I'd be curious to hear what others say, but I'm strongly inclined to say one should leave undergraduate accomplishments off one's CV. Search committees are looking to hire an advanced professional, and so are looking for achievements indicative of professional excellence. Since undergraduate achievements occur long before one's life as a professional philosopher (which only grad school trains you for), I suspect undergrad accomplishments will look irrelevant at best.

[Building the CV]

I know this is an older post, but I'm hoping to get a little feedback on something. Regarding the Conference Presentations section of the CV, should you or should you not include future presentations that you've had accepted (for instance, at conferences that won't be held for another 4 months, but where you are scheduled to present)? Thank you!

[East Coast]

Building,

Definitely. I do, and I see it all the time. It should be clear from your CV when the various conferences are (often in parentheticals), and so it will be apparent which conferences are done and which are yet to come.