Notes from both sides of the market, part 1: building a strong CV

Last year, Helen and I ran a "Job Market Boot Camp" series offering current and future job candidates in academic philosophy advice on a variety of issues. Reading through the series again this morning, I still stand by the advice we offered. However, it also occurred to me that since running the series, I have had some career experiences that might warrant revisiting some of the topics in the series to potentially add some relevant information to advice previously given. In particular, I have worked at a mid-sized liberal arts [MLAC] university for about seven years now, and served on my first search committee last year. Although I do not think it is appropriate to share anything about how I or my committee deliberated [or what "I look for" in a job-candidate], I think my overall career experience may have provided me with some additional general information that job-candidates may find helpful.

So, what I hope to do in this new series is to simply revisit the topics Helen and I covered in the boot camp, adding information and suggestions that I believe candidates may find potentially relevant/helpful. As always, I want to emphasize that the suggestions I give in the series is just that: my suggestions, not necessarily the best or "correct" suggestions. As with most things, people will presumably disagree on what job-market advice is good. All I can promise to do--and, I think, all anyone can really do, given that there are few clear facts [viz. scientific study] regarding what makes candidates competitive/successful on the philosophy job market--is provide concrete evidence for the suggestions I provide.

As in the Boot Camp, I will begin today by discussing the issue of building a competitive CV. In last year's post, I focused primarily (though not exclusively) on publications, arguing that my evidence suggests that all legitimately peer-reviewed publications--not just publications in highly-ranked journals, but lower-ranked journals as well [though not "vanity" journals]--can improve one's competitiveness on the market. I will return to and add to some of the evidence for this conclusion below. However, my post last year focused only a little bit on other aspects of the CV, such as teaching experience, university service, and letters of recommendation. In today's post, I will spend most of my time adding to the previous suggestions I made on those issues.

Additional CV-building suggestion #1: There are probably multiple academic job markets, not just one

My first suggestion this time around about building a competitive CV is very general. It is commonplace in conversation and philosophy blogs to talk about "the" philosophy job-market. My career experience--both on the job-market and beyond--strongly suggests that it is probably false that there is a single market [for an earlier discussion of these issues, see here]. The simple fact is, there are multiple types of universities--public research universities, elite liberal arts colleges, non-elite teaching-focused liberal arts universities, community colleges, etc.--each of which have different values and priorities. In my experience, many teaching focused liberal arts universities do care about research, but not at all in the same way as research institutions do. I have gathered many different strands of evidence that jointly support this general idea:

• I had no highly-ranked journal publications on the market.
• I was not very competitive on the job-market for research jobs [I only received a few interviews at them over the years].
• I was very competitive for jobs at teaching institutions [my # of interviews and flyouts at teaching schools increased dramatically over the years the more lower-ranked publications I racked up].
• The people interviewing me at teaching institutions did not themselves tend to have highly-ranked publications.
• I have seven years of experience working at a mid-sized teaching-focused institution, and know other people who have gotten tenure-track jobs [and tenure] at teaching oriented schools--and both sets of evidence [my first personal experience and third-personal testimony from others] strongly suggests that although [A] teaching oriented schools often do care about journal venue, [B] journal rankings appear not to be "fetishized" in the way that many people in the philosophical community often appear to treat them [viz. anything not in a top-20 journal or top-5 journal is not impressive]. For instance, I know more than a few people who have gotten hired, lauded at pretenure review, and obtained tenure at teaching schools without any top-20 journal publications.

None of this is to suggest in any way that one should not try to publish in highly-ranked journals. On the contrary, as I explained last year, it suggests to me that it is probably a good strategy to simultaneously publish in both highly-ranked and lower-ranked journals. First, publishing in highly-ranked journals is likely to make one competitive at research schools--as there is ample evidence that such schools care very much about journal venue. Second, the evidence I give above suggests that publishing in lower-ranked journals is likely to make one more competitive at teaching schools. Finally, my evidence also does not support the view that if one publishes in top-journals, publishing a few articles in lower-ranked journals is likely to make one uncompetitive at research schools--as, going through recent appointments threads at philjobs, I have come across more than a few people who were hired at highly ranked schools get hired with publications in both highly-ranked and low-ranked journals]. In short, the evidence, as I see it, is that high-ranked publications and low-ranked publications are both likely to increase one's competitiveness...at different types of schools. 

Additional CV-building suggestion #2: breadth and quality of teaching probably help at teaching schools

Last year, I suggested one should, "Try to expand your teaching resume and student involvement, and improve your student reviews--but do not sacrifice publishing. Find a way to improve the teaching and student-engagement parts of your portfolio while continuing to publish." I still think that. Here is just some of my evidence. First, my teaching experience and student reviews were fairly strong my last several years on the market--yet it really seemed to be my publication numbers that increased my number of interviews. Second, a number of converging lines of evidence suggest to me that search committees at teaching schools have incentives to want to hire people they think are likely to get tenure. Since at most places, including teaching schools, publishing is an important component to getting tenure, my experience on the whole is that it is very important to publish, publish, publish if one wants to be competitive on the market. However, the longer I have worked at a teaching school, the clearer it is to me how much breadth of teaching experience and strong student reviews are valued.

First, many philosophy departments at teaching-focused schools are quite small, and often need a variety of courses to be taught by full-time faculty. Indeed--and very importantly--a given search committee may need to hire someone who can teach a very specific course *outside* of their AOS (a person with an AOS in metaphysics who can also, say, teach Ancient Philosophy). In cases like this, even though the course in question is not under the AOS being hired for, a person with no background teaching that course may be at a distinct disadvantage relative to any candidate who does have a history teaching it. Second, I can tell you that, at least at my university, faculty and administrators take our teaching mission very seriously, expecting not merely "decent" but exemplary teaching. Third, although empirical studies of the value of student evaluations are mixed at best, we all know how precarious the situation is in higher-education today, especially when it comes to humanities departments [including philosophy]. Given this swath of evidence, there are ample reasons to think that a candidate can only improve their competitiveness at teaching schools by [A] gaining experience teaching a wide variety of courses [not just courses in their AOS], and [B] working very hard to demonstrate quality of teaching [e.g. strong student reviews, very well-designed course materials in a teaching portfolio, etc.]. In other words, if you have to choose between teaching the same two courses squarely in your AOS over and over again and teaching a variety of courses, including courses outside of your AOS, I would suggest the latter--at least if you want to be as competitive as possible at teaching schools. An overly narrow history of teaching experience can, for reasons described above, be a disadvantage [note: this might be something for grad programs to think about, as they might put their graduates in a more competitive position by giving their grad students more solo-teaching opportunities across a wider array of different lower-division undergraduate classes]. 

Additional CV-building suggestion #3: student engagement probably also helps at teaching schools

If my experience also teaches me anything, it is that "student experience" is also often highly-valued at teaching schools. Part of it, again, may have to do with the fact that we live in an increasingly precarious higher-education environment--one where some universities are closing down, eliminating departments, eliminating majors, etc. However, in my experience, student engagement can simply be deeply valued by faculty and administrators as part of their conception of a sound university education. For what it is worth, I can honestly say that student engagement--e.g. coaching ethics bowl debate teams, etc.--has been one of the most rewarding parts of my job. One needn't [and probably shouldn't] "go overboard" with it, especially if one is on the job-market, as student-engagement alone is unlikely to get one hired into a TT job. Still, making sure one's CV indicates a substantial commitment to student engagement can probably only help.

Additional CV-building suggestion #4: more letters of recommendations probably help, but..?

My experience with respect to letters of recommendation is...a bit odd. On the one hand, literally everyone I have ever spoken to about the job-market has said it is important to [A] have letters from your dissertation committee, [B] get "external" letters from well-respected figures outside of one's grad department, and [C] ensure that one's letters are "strong" [I have heard people say that a weak letter can "sink" a candidate]. My experience strongly coheres with [A] and [B]. In line with [A], one year I left one of my committee members' letters out of my application [out of a perhaps-unfounded worry their letter wasn't the strongest], and it was my worst year on the market: zero interviews. I have since heard more than a few people remark that omitting letters from a committee member can be a "red flag" of sorts, as it might suggest that the person whose letter is omitted thinks poorly of one as a candidate. Similarly, in line with [B], the more outside letters I got from established people in the discipline, the more interviews I got. However, above and beyond [A] and [B], my experience was a bit mixed, especially with respect to [C]. For instance, a couple of my outside letter writers initially expressed a bit of ambivalence when I approached them for a letter, saying [in both cases] that they didn't work in my AOS, etc. Despite such reservations, they each offered to write a letter. So, I'm not sure I got the strongest letters from them...but, as far as I can tell, their letters did help [I got more interviews after including their letters]. Consequently, I'm not entirely sure what to say about letters, except that [A] one should probably make sure one has them from one's dissertation committee, and [B] one should try to get outside letters. Beyond that, or so my experience is, letters can be a bit of a crapshoot. 

Additional CV-building suggestion #5: a positive online presence might help

Although it might sound strange to include cultivating a positive online presence under "building a strong CV"--as CVs are normally understood as listing professional accomplishments [publications, etc.]--my general suspicion is that many people, both graduate students and faculty, may have an overly narrow view of what counts these days as a "positive contribution to a CV." First, as much as many of us might like to believe that interviewing and hiring-decisions are primarily arrived at by reference to "professional accomplishments" [and indeed, I have argued in detail that a variety of scientific findings regarding employee selection support the view that decisions should be based on determinate measures of past accomplishments], the simple fact is that these days, in philosophy and other occupations, interviewing and hiring decisions are made by human beings. It is also known, in addition, that [A] human beings have all kinds of biases, including familiarity biases [e.g. dispositions to attach positive feelings to familiar names and faces], and [B] most jobs are secured through networking. All things being equal, is it better to be a "faceless CV in a pile" or someone the person who comes across your dossier recognizes and has positive associations with? I leave it for you to think about. Finally, there are some reasons to think that an online presence may be even considered by some these days to be a kind of genuine, bona fide occupational qualification. After all, as many people have noted in various fora we are not merely researchers or teachers; we are members of a profession--a profession grappling today--in many cases online--with all kinds of issues, ranging from the state of higher education, to adjunct dependence, to sexual harassment and misconduct, to diversity and inclusion, etc. Insofar as these are real parts of the philosophical profession, some people might treat a positive online presence--viz. active, positive online engagement regarding issues affecting the profession--as part of a candidate's overall set of occupational qualifications as a member of the profession. While I realize some [many?] readers may argue that one's online presence "shouldn't" play a role in interviewing or hiring decisions, my aim in this post is not to evaluate interview/hiring methods, but to simply draw attention to issues that candidates might find helpful. My aim is also not to suggest that one should cultivate a "positive" online presence in a cold, calculating, cloying, dishonest manner, in order to cultivate personal popularity. On the contrary, like Helen, I'm inclined to think that one should try to develop a positive online presence for its own sake, precisely because we are all members of a common profession with some duty to each other to progressively realize a better profession [however we understand that--which of course is a matter of many ongoing debates].  The only point I am trying to make at present is that--like in many areas of human life--it is probably incorrect to think that potential employers regard the entirety of one's resume/CV as "what's on paper."

Comments

[CW]

I work at what I believe Marcus would call a teaching school. We are expected to publish, but a lot of emphasis is put on excellence in teaching. When reviewing applications over the past few years, I've looked for some pubs but also evidence of quality teaching and broad teaching experience. As far as pubs go, one or two is plenty for someone recently out of school, and solid refereed journals are fine, even if they are not top-tier.

1. Yes, seems right to me.

2. Yes, seems really right to me.

3. I don't expect a lot of experience with this, but it may help if you're interested in it. This is very minor compared to teaching experience and ideas about teaching.

4-A. If you're still in grad school, or just recently out of it, I want to see a letter from someone on your committee. But I do not need letters from every member. I want to see how someone other than you describes your project. The committee chair is fine. As far as other letters go, I'd really like to hear from someone who has watched you teach a few times.

4-B. External letters from well-respected figures don't mean a lot to me. At least, I've yet to read one that made much of an impression, though I haven't read a lot of them. In the cases I'm familiar with, the figure doesn't seem to know the applicant all that well. On a couple of occasions, letters from figures have been pretty brief. One wrote just 5-6 sentences. In any case, there are a lot of really good people out on the market now, many of whom just lack connections and opportunities.

But if you're teaching outside of your grad department, a letter from someone at the new school who has observed you teach (and more than once is better) means something to me.

5. I don't care much about this. I've never looked to see if any applicants had online presences. That said, it can help some if you have experience with online learning platforms.

[Sara L. Uckelman]

My experience with 5 is that short-listed candidates are likely to have their google scholar profiles checked. So, if you're applying, I would certainly check to (a) make sure you have one, and (b) that it is up to date.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi CW: Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience! I'm glad to hear you think (1) and (2) are right, and to a lesser extent (3). With regard to (4) and (5), you may be right. However, I think it is always worth keeping in mind that common cognitive biases are notoriously opaque and resistant to reliable introspection. Almost no one thinks they fall prey to confirmation bias, framing effects, familiarity bias, etc.--but empirical results show that many of us fall prey to them anyway. It would not surprise me if most people on search committees don't think they attach much weight to letters from famous people in the field or to dossiers of candidates whose names they tacitly recognize, all the while subconsciously assigning those very things greater weight than they realize. That's just how cognitive biases work--they fool us into thinking we're not biased in ways that we actually are! (This is one of many reasons why research in my wife's field--Industrial Organizational Psychology--consistently shows that algorithmic selection processes have better predictive power in hiring than human decision makers. Turns out a vast variety of job-irrelevant factors--such as candidates' voices, looks, height, gender, etc.--consistently influence interviewing and hiring decisions despite the fact that no one *thinks* they are biased in those ways).

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Sara: good point! It often surprises me how few people seem to have a Google Scholar profile (something which, for obvious reasons, can help a search committee determine how much a candidate's work is being engaged with by others).

[JR]

Thanks for this very useful post and discussion. As someone who will be going on the market again this year (applying from my current post-doc position), I wanted to ask from those who have served on search committees how they feel, with regard to #5, about things like Google Scholar and Academia.edu.

When I first went on the market a few years ago, I took quite a bit of time to create my own website with teaching and research materials, publications, etc., and I have kept it updated over the years. Two years ago I added a simple link to my website from my Academia.edu site but--except for my CV--didn't bother to upload things separately directly to the Academia.edu site. And I've never had a Google Scholar site. I have the impression that, for better or for worse, Academia.edu is becoming a sort of professional standard, and I worry that people may go to my Academia site--where there is basically just a short bio and a single link--and conclude that I have no publications, etc., without bothering to click the link and look at my actual site where all of my materials, papers, etc. are available.

So for someone like me who doesn't really do my own blogging or tweeting, I am wondering if it would it be best to just get rid of my separate website and put everything up exclusively on Academia or Google Scholar (which? both? does it matter?), which seems simpler for me since I'll only have to upload things once and more intuitive for potential search committee members since these sites provide a more standardized and familiar platform. Is there any point in maintaining a separate website these days if I don't intend to blog or add a twitter feed, etc., and if most people will only look at the Academia page (or Google Scholar site) anyway? Thoughts?

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi JR: I suggest keeping your website. I visit people's websites a lot (just in my ordinary life in the profession)--a whole lot more than I visit academia.edu. In part this is because I just don't like the academia interface. On academia, the onus is on the visitor to search out the person's papers, research interests, teaching, etc. On a person's own website, they get to direct you directly to their papers, description of their research, etc. Plus, you don't need to login to view someone's website. You do to visit academia.edu. Further, personal websites just strike me as more personal and more attractive, and I'm more likely to spend time navigating them. I don't think merely having an academia.edu page is "the standard" at all today. On the contrary, I tend to expect people to have their own website. (Can you tell I don't like academia much? :) I would also make sure you have a Google Scholar profile, and make sure that all of your stuff (papers, CV, statements, etc) is on your webpage and academia.edu. The easier it is for people to find your stuff, including your publications, the better.

[Tom]

Here's a question I (and probably many others) have had about Ye olde cv: people sometimes talk about *presenting themselves as* a researcher or as a teacher, and talk about it as if it's something one does starting with one's cv. This confuses me. My cv lists all my teaching experience and all my research experience. Is presenting myself as a researcher a matter of the order teaching/research occur on the cv? Is there something else I do on my cv that committee members read as me presenting myself this way or that way?

[Joshua Mugg]

On #2: I have three AOS (Phil Psych, Mind, Metaphysics), and then claim several AOC (Epistemology, Phil Religion, Logic, Ethics).

Am I right in thinking that attempting to teach beyond these areas would spread myself too thin (for the teaching-centered jobs)? It seems like there is a diminishing return here.

I'm at a midsized regional state school right now, which only has a phil minor, and right now I am the only person teaching upper-level courses. Next Spring, we are offering three upper-level courses, (Phil Religion, a 'topics course' that I choose, and 'Problems in Social & Political Philosophy). My plan was not to teach the last course because it is so far out of my AOC/AOS. Thoughts?

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Joshua: No, I don't think you're right. From my perspective working at a teaching school, with one exception (which I will note momentarily) there is no such thing as "spreading yourself too thin" in terms of the kinds of courses you have experience teaching. Generally speaking, the more courses you have experience teaching, the better--as you never know what a given department's teaching needs will be. Teaching schools can have lower division major, minor, and/or general education courses that they need a tenure stream person to teach. For instance, I need to teach Ancient Philosophy regularly, and there are other specific courses in our curricula that other tenure stream faculty must teach. If you do not have experience teaching the specific course(s) a department needs taught, then you may be at a distinct disadvantage compared to candidates who have taught that course. More generally, it is a mistake to identify AOC with "courses you can teach." I've always been told that one should understand AOC as areas one has sufficient background in to step in and immediately teach an upper-division course. For instance, I list metaphysics as an AOC because I had a very strong graduate education in the area, as well as some publications. In contrast, I do not list Ancient Philosophy as an AOC because, although I teach it every year (and have sufficient graduate education for teaching it at a lower level), I do not have sufficient background to teach a more advanced class in the area. In short, if you want to maximize the probability that you can teach courses the jobs you are applying to need taught, you should teach as many different types of courses as you reasonably can (and are broadly qualified to teach). The only caveat here, as noted in the OP, is that you should not let your teaching crowd out research. Publishing is critical--so, while it's important to have a broad teaching background, one should not teach so much that it gets in the way of publishing.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Tom: Very good question. I'm going to write a post on it momentarily--but my own experience with the job-market broadly suggests that one should simply list all of one's qualifications and accomplishments, and let the reader determine whether one fits what they are looking for, rather than consciously trying to "frame" oneself one way or the other.