Cocoon job-market mentoring project: call for expressions of interest & feedback

Update: We have now received sufficient interest that we will begin to match mentors and mentees. However, we would also like to encourage people to continue to sign up, and we plan to launch a permanent website for the project in the near future!

Update 2: Thanks to reader feedback--and to clarify our program--we will not prioritize according to gender. Members of any gender are welcome in the program, and will be equally prioritized. We merely ask that women interested in being mentees approach The Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy first (as our aim is to complement, rather than compete with, that program)!

By Helen De Cruz and Marcus Arvan

This past week, Daily Nous featured a post announcing The Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy. We (Helen and Marcus) applaud this program, as there are indeed unique challenges that women candidates face on the job-market—and we think it is really great that there is a program to help women candidates navigate these challenges! It also came to light at the Daily Nous thread that there are other classes of job-candidates who might benefit from a similar program, e.g., trans* candidates (including trans men), candidates with disabilities, non-white (non-female) candidates, and candidates who lack access to adequate job-market mentoring (due, for instance, to lack of institutional support in their graduate program).

Consequently, we have decided to propose a job-market mentorship program for these individuals here at the Cocoon to complement the Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy: that is, a philosophy job-market mentoring program for those in need who cannot utilize the Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy. The aim of this mentoring project will be just what it sounds like: a scheme to enable job candidates in philosophy who face special challenges, including those with little access to mentoring (e.g., because their department or advisor does not offer this), to receive advice and support from more experienced members of the profession.

Here is a brief proposal we have drawn up:

1. We hope to have mentors and mentees sign up to take part on a survey designed by Qualtrics.
2. Since this is a job market mentoring project, mentees need to be ABDs or PhDs in philosophy. The scheme will be open to job candidates, from any department, geographic location, gender, age, etc.
3. Although the program is open to job-candidates of any gender, we encourage women candidates to utilize The Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy, as our program is intended to complement rather than compete with that program.
4. Although we will do our best to accommodate all candidates in need, the program will prioritize candidates with special job-market challenges, for example, bi, gay, andtrans* candidates, candidates with disabilities, non-white (non-female) candidates, and candidates with inadequate access to job-market mentoring (e.g., candidates out of graduate school lacking access to their grad program’s placement director/mentoring, etc.).
5. We hope to then match mentees with mentors who are either tenure-track or tenured professors.
6. What happens then is up to the mentor and mentee.
7. However, in order not to overburden mentors and to follow best practices, people who enroll in this program would commit to the following:

• The mentoring is focused on the job market, including such things like looking at CV, cover letter and other materials, strategizing which jobs to apply to, thinking about which writing sample to send, considering what would work best for a teaching demonstration. The aim is not to help improve/comment on papers of the mentee.
• Standardly, the mentor commits to the mentoring for one job season only (i.e., until next summer) (this can be extended by mutual agreement, but the mentor should not feel pressure to do so).
• Everything that mentors and mentees discuss is strictly confidential, will not be discussed with anybody outside the mentoring agreement
• If there is any conflict of interest, it is in the best interest of mentor and mentee that they are aware of this (e.g., mentee getting shortlisted for a job that a student of mentor applies for), and if need be, break of the mentoring relationship.

Here, then, is what we would like to ask. First, we would like to ask potential mentors and mentees (i.e. job-candidates in need of mentorship) to fill out this survey, so that we can determine the overall level of interest (and whether our proposal is workable, as outlined above. Second, we would like to solicit feedback, from you our readers—and particularly, possible mentors and mentees—on the proposal we have outlined. Does this sound like the best way to run such a project, or, might another scheme work better? We’re all ears, and look forward to your feedback!

Comments

[Paul Prescott]

Great idea, Marcus.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Paul: Thanks for the kind feedback! The initial idea was actually Helen's, but we decided to draw up the details together.

[Paul Prescott]

My bad. Great Idea, Helen!

[Helen De Cruz]

Just a brief clarification following my looking over the responses to the survey so far: We aim to be inclusive with respect to everyone who either faces special challenges (e.g., being not-white, having a low SES background), or who has no access to mentoring (e.g., an adjunct or VAP whose PhD was completed years ago and who has no access to mentors at their present or former institution; also, some graduate students have advisors that help them academically but are no help for the job market), or fulfills both conditions. We gave some examples of what such challenges could be, but these aren't exhaustive. So, while we cannot promise to find a mentor for everyone who meets these conditions, we will try.

Also, if you are a tenure-track or tenured professor (or equivalent permanent position outside the US), we would encourage you to be a mentor. Your experience will be beneficial, and at present n mentees > n mentors. Thanks!

[Chrysippus]

This is so awesome!

[Lisa Miracchi]

Dear Helen and Marcus, thank you so much for taking on this important project. I think the idea of a catch-all mentorship program for those in need is a wonderful idea.

In this light, I hope you'll reconsider prioritizing men in this program. The Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy in all likelihood cannot support all of the women in need of job market mentoring. I think it would be much better to for there to be a mutual agreement between the programs to prevent dual enrollment by mentees. That way women who cannot be served by the Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy have alternative options.

Thanks!

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Lisa: Thanks for your comment and suggestion! I have conversed with Helen, and we are happy to prioritize candidates of both genders equally (indeed, we both strongly favor maximal inclusiveness).

However, because one of our aims is not to compete with the Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women (their program was launched first!), we would like to encourage women candidates to attempt to participate in that program first!

[Filippo Contesi]

Excellent initiative, Helen and Marcus. You and the mentors who sign up are doing a truly meritorious service to the profession. May I also point to the MAP UK mentorship programme: http://mapuk.weebly.com/uk-mentors.html .

[Lisa Miracchi]

Wonderful! Thanks, Helen and Marcus!

[Joanna]

What if the mentee notices that the mentor has less prestigious pedigree than her/him, and decides s/he doesn't want to be mentored by someone who applied for positions and was hired by institutions s/he believes are not worthy of her/his time? Of course the mentee would not give this reason for not beginning the mentorship. Why? Well it strikes most people as a less than satisfactory reason and reflects poorly on the mentee. So s/he will likely offer some other lame excuse (e.g. I'm just too busy this term) instead. Given this possibility, you might want to match mentors and mentees with similar pedigree, or at least make sure the mentor is better pedigreed than the mentee. It could happen in reverse, but I assume it is less likely given the power dynamic of the relationship. Unfortunately the dick-ish nature of our profession emerges even in well-intentioned projects to help job market participants.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Joanna: Thanks for raising your concerns. It is nearly impossible to devise a program that cannot be abused. We hope that mentees who sign up for the program do so in good faith. If this problem appears to us to arise, and arise consistently--in a way that undermines the program--we may look for alternatives.