The Philosophers' Cocoon

Job-market query: applying widely or selectively by AOS?

An anonymous reader writes in:

I was wondering if you had any advice about what types of positions I should be aiming at. So far, I've compiled a list of about 18 jobs from philjobs.org, higheredjobs, and other websites. Is it better to aim at positions in one's AOS as opposed to open rank or open AOS/AOC positions?...

I guess my question is: I am aware that given my degree conferring institution and the hiring customs of larger schools, I stand little chances of getting a TT position in a higher-ranked place, should I thus focus on tailoring my applications to those smaller places for which I would have a shot? Given that I applied to more than 120 positions this past session, I wonder whether I should take a more conservative and focused approach (lesser applications, but specifically tailored).

This is a really good question. When I was on the market, I was generally advised to apply as widely as possible. Basically, the thought was: the job-market is a big lottery, and you might as well buy as many tickets as possible. However, I'm not sure this really is the best strategy...

Reader query on ethics textbooks

A reader writes in:

I haven't been using a textbook for my ethics classes, but I'm beginning to think maybe I should. I've put together readings of my own for the class, but I worry that they don't cover some topics as well as others and the difficulty varies a bit (there's one or two that I'm pretty sure are too hard for the average student who takes my classes). I also suspect that I'm violating of some copyright laws with my current set up...Anyway, I wanted to know what book people used for intro to ethics classes and what they thought of it.

I've been using Steven Cahn's Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues anthology for years, mostly because I've always preferred using primary sources. Actual ethics textbooks (written by a single author) tend to rub me the wrong way, as I usually find myself having problems with the way they present issues. First, I tend to think they provide students with too many "answers", typically telling students "what to think" more than developing their ability to think for and interpret philosophical texts for themselves. Second, I often find myself dissatisfied with interpretations of key concepts in ethics textbooks (e.g. how to interpret the categorical imperative), as complex and contentious philosophical disagreements may be passed over in favor of simplifications. That being said, I've been reconsidering my use of the Cahn text, in part because I find its contemporary moral issues section a bit thin and outdated. So, I'd benefit from hearing which ethics texts people use and why, as well!

So, then, all of you ethics instructors out there. Which text(s) do you use? Why?

Dissertation Reflection Series, Part 7: Getting It Done

I ended the last part of the series on a cliffhanger. Here’s an abbreviated recap: after a series of starts and stops on the dissertation, January arrived, and it still wasn’t done. In fact, there was still quite a bit of unwritten material. After returning from the APA Eastern meeting, I faced the fact that time was running out, and I really didn’t want to drag the project into the summer. So how did I finally get it done?

First, a little background is in order. During my very first semester of graduate school (all the way back in Fall 2010), after completing all my preliminary research and determining what I wanted to argue, I wrote and revised all 3 of my term papers in an intense 4-day writing binge. In total, I wrote around 15,000 words in this stretch. The routine during those 4 days went roughly as follows: get up, get a bowl of cereal, turn on the computer, bring up MS Word, write for 4-5 hours, 30-minute break for lunch, write for 5-6 hours, 1-hour break to make and eat dinner, write until tired, go to sleep, and repeat.

Now, let’s be clear: this is not a sustainable or desirable model for academic writing. It doesn’t come anywhere near the well-balanced academic life one might want, and it’s incompatible with significant teaching and service commitments. But for a short spell at the very end of the term (when I no longer had teaching commitments), it was effective.

Fast forward to January 2017. When the semester got rolling, I tried to emulate this schedule as much as possible. After allocating the necessary hours each week toward teaching and job applications, I put as many hours as possible toward dissertation writing. As many as I could without losing my mind.

For two months, I became a social hermit, worked out less, and refused to take on any additional projects beyond what I was already committed to. I was teaching a course that I had already taught several times, so my required teaching prep was relatively minimal. Grading did take longer than it normally would have, though, since it was not as high on my priority list. The grind wasn’t fun, but it was successful. I sent out the polished first half of my dissertation to committee members in early March and followed up with the revised second half two weeks later. The defense at the end of the month was uneventful.

The costs of the grind were severe. Once post-defense revisions were submitted in April, I set my research aside for almost two months, a longer break from my research than I had ever taken during graduate school. While I had succeeded in my two major goals for that semester – finding a job for the following fall and finishing the dissertation – these triumphs brought little joy. The mental and emotional toil wrapped up in the prior academic year had left me exhausted, and the only good feeling that could be savored was relief. It was time for a break.

And so the narrative portion of the series concludes. But there are still two parts to go. In the next segment, I’ll summarize the major lessons that can be drawn from prior posts and consider how those insights might help graduate students prepare for the dissertation stage and eventually finish their degree.

Resubmitting rejected manuscripts without changes?

I stumbled across a couple of social media conversations recently on the topic of authors resubmitting unchanged articles to a new journal immediately after rejection with referee comments. The first conversation asked whether it is permissible for authors to do this (viz. is it irresponsible or disrespectful to reviewers to simply ignore reviewer feedback?). The second conversation raised the issue from the perspective of referees and editors. Should a referee accept a request to review a paper at a second journal if the paper is unchanged? If so, is it permissible for them to simply resubmit the same referee report they did when they reviewed the paper previously? And, should editors be irritated with authors when this happens?

These are all interesting questions, and there was a great deal of disagreement about them in the conversations I was following. Still, I thought it might be worth discussing more openly here. What do you all think? Allow me to briefly share some thoughts, based on my own experience.

Reader query on a personal job-market dilemma

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes:

I recently completed my PhD in philosophy from a small department which, while having good faculty (as per my estimate, based on teaching and publications), is not a top-ranked school. Graduates are typically hired for full time instructor or lecturer positions.

Early in the dissertation process, I began a romantic relationship with another student in the department. After a death in the family which placed her in a bad situation emotionally and financially, we decided to move in together. The plan at the time was that we would finish our degrees, look for work, and move to wherever one of us got a decent job offer.

During this time, her children (from a previous marriage) began to do very well in school (they consistently test in the top of their classes). They are at a very good public school system, and my fiancé is, understandably, highly reluctant to move. In that time, I have also become a regular part of their lives, and I would be very reluctant to leave them, both for their sake and mine.

I can look for full-time positions in the area, but that would impose severe restrictions on where I can apply to. Another possibility is that I wait to apply for academic positions after our kids have graduated high school. For our youngest, this will be in 9 years. What I would like to know is whether and to what extent that gap in time will hurt my chances of being hired to an academic position, and, what, if anything, could be done to alleviate any negative effects of that gap?

Of course, I would try to publish during this period. I would also like to present at conferences, but my budget is extremely limited making this very difficult.

In response, another reader wrote:

My sense is that if you spend the next 9 years - which is at least 9 years after you got your PhD (since you are a recent PhD) - working in contingent positions (adjuncting, for example), you will not be competitive for a tenure track position. Assume that there are between 200 and 300 new PhDs in philosophy every year in the USA. In that time, then, there will be 1800-2700 new competitors on the market. You can see the challenges you will face.

Reader query on the state of the market

A reader writes in:

Soon I will start applying for jobs in the US again. The UK market was basically dead this year. 

Anyway, I did a search on philjobs for Junior positions and Postdocs or similar for my areas of specialization: metaphysics, M&E, and Mind. This of course includes open jobs. The search returned 47 jobs, but many of them have AOCs that are far removed from my own, some are at top top schools, and some have other requirements I cannot meet. I found 13 realistic jobs to apply to. 

It’s hard for me to compare this to 3 years ago when I threw my application at anything that moved hoping it would stick. However, I’m pretty sure it’s quite a bit worse. I wonder if we could have any discussion about this? Is the market worse this year?

I too get the impression that the market seems unusually bad so far this year. It's still early, but has anyone compared this year's numbers to last year's around the same time? Could it perhaps be that jobs are rolling out more slowly now that fewer and fewer interviews take place at the Eastern APA? 

Reader query on a post-hoc admissions dilemma

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes:

I’m currently a first-year PhD student in institution A who also holds an MA degree in Philosophy. During my application season this year, my final decision was between institution A and institution B. I was slightly inclined to choose A over B. However, B has a very flexible policy of credit transfer which was very attractive to me. I then asked the DGA at A whether I could request some credit transfer from my previous institution. The DGS told me that my request needs the approval of the whole department but he/she thought that it was highly likely that it would be fully approved. In addition, the credit transfer is not something unprecedented. Based on what he/she told me, I ended up choosing A.

I didn’t hear back from them on the issue for almost five months. Several days ago, the DGS told me that they cannot grant my request. If that information had been available to me earlier, I should have ended up choosing B over A. Given that I have already enrolled in A, what could I do? Any advice would be appreciated.

I'll be curious to hear what other people think. Unfortunately, I am inclined to think that--aside from withdrawing from institution A or raising a big stink about the issue--this reader can probably only take this as a difficult lesson learned at this point.

Reader query on conference presentations and the job-market

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes:

I know this is a bit late, but I wanted to pose a question that's been on my mind lately. The simplest version of the question is "How much does an active conference record matter for the job market?"

Here's a bit more context. I'm ABD, but, unlike most of my peers, I haven't presented at any conferences so far. There are a few reasons for this. First, I have a great deal of trouble condensing my ideas into the usual word limits. While I of course might be biased, I don't think the reason is that I'm just egregiously wordy. Rather, it simply seems to me that my ideas are rarely suited for brief presentations. For whatever reason, so far I've been drawn largely to sweeping, radical theses--the kind of thesis that requires a lot of setting up, illustrating connections, forestalling potential misreadings, responding to important-to-deal-with objections, etc., if one is to show its philosophical interest and plausibility. Unfortunately, it hasn't always seemed possible to carve out some small part of the research program(s) to present; in order to have something genuinely interesting and worth presenting, I'd have to bring in more than could fit into the usual 30-minute slot. Or at least, that has often been my perception of things.

Second, from my various presentations in classes and workshops so far, I've learned that I'm not very good at coming up with snappy responses to objections in the Q&A period. When someone raises an objection I haven't considered, I tend not to have much to say about it in the moment. And in those moments, usually all I can say is something like this: "That's very interesting, thank you. I can certainly see the challenge. I'm afraid I don't have a response at the moment; I'll have to think about it more." While this, of course, isn't ideal, it's always struck me as preferable to trying desperately to bullshit something. The feeling I've gotten, however, is that if you give the above response to more than one or two of the objections you get in a Q&A period, audiences are likely to suspect that you're stupid, or lazy, or copping out, etc. The prospect of having that be my first impression on a group of fellow philosophers at a conference isn't very appealing.

Lastly, I find online discussions to be far superior to conferences as a mode of philosophical exchange. Online discussions are more convenient in that they don't require the time and money that would be needed to travel to and from a conference. And in online discussions, there's more time to consider others' feedback and offer well-thought-out responses. This has made it more difficult to work up the motivation to apply to conferences; it's as if my brain is telling me, "Why bother going to a conference when you could just make a blog/forum/etc. post about your idea?"

In light of the above factors, I've never been all that interested in conferences. At the same time, though, I realize that the job market is approaching, and I've been wondering whether search committees might expect me to have some conferences under my belt. Thus, I wanted to ask how much you've found conferences to matter for the job market.

Some related questions:

First, is it okay not to have any conferences if one has a solid publication record?

Second, insofar as conferences do matter for the job market, roughly how many are needed for a "respectable" record? One? Two? Etc.

Lastly, insofar as conferences do matter for the job market, do you have any advice that might help someone like me to conference more (and/or be better at handling conferences)?

Reader query on M&E jobs

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes:

I have a question about AOSs for job searches. I've noticed that it's extremely common to see the following listed under the desired AOS in job adverts: 'Metaphysics and Epistemology'. Does this mean the department are looking for someone who does metaphysics and epistemology? Or are they as happy with someone who does metaphysics but not epistemology, or epistemology but not metaphysics?

For example, one often seems something like this: AOS: Ethics or Philosophy of Science or Metaphysics and Epistemology. This suggests that pure metaphysicians or epistemologists won't be considered. But if that's so, then this drastically reduces the number of jobs out there for people like me, who do only one of the two.

Should I be looking to quickly add metaphysics to my AOSs, since epistemology is currently my major AOS?

Good question - I've often wondered about listings like this too. How should jod adverts like this be read? 

Reader query on online teaching

A reader recently wrote in:

I've got a question for you...My question is about online teaching.  I'm wondering if you know of any resources for teaching online--how to structure interactions, how to evaluate students, and how to structure the course in general. 

Good question. I don't have any experience teaching online courses, so unfortunately I don't know of any resources myself. But I'm curious to hear from readers who do have experience! Do you have any good online-teaching tips or links to helpful resources?

Reader query on co-authored writing samples

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes:

I'm on the market again this year and I'm trying to select my best writing sample. The worry is my most solid *recent* work is co-authored publications. Even though it's equal contribution in each case, I've only read recommendations *against* submitting co-authored work as writing sample. I personally think it's silly given parallel recommendations to co-author work, engage in collaborative projects, be a good colleague, etc., but the norms of the discipline still seem to favor single authorship as evidence of scholarship. This would sound preposterous to many social and natural scientists, who coauthor most of their work, but still. So my question is, is this frowned upon if the piece is good? Can it be appropriate to submit a single authored publications that's not very recent and a recent coauthored piece? Should I rather submit a recent piece of work that hasn't been published?

On a similar front, how narrow should the topic of one's sample be? If the area and the subject matter are quite specific, does this risk turning off committee members not familiar with the area?

Reader query on job-market consultants

In the comments section of our Job-Market Boot Camp post on whether to use a job-market consultant, a reader named 'Ash' asks:

I know I'm way late to the party, but, to pick up on Shaun's question--where does one find a job market consultant? Of course I've googled "academic job consultant", but I only find two people when I do that (one of whom is the famous one who receives very mixed reviews). Is there anyone else out there?

Really good question! I know there are a few different academic job-market consultants out there, some very well-known and others who are not so well-known. Because I can't recall which consultants are out there off the top of my head, I thought it might be good to try to put together a list of different consultants, along with perhaps informal reader "reviews" of experiences working with different consultants.

So, then, do any of you know who the various academic job-market consultants are? Have you worked with any of them? If so, what was your experience working with them? Were they helpful? Did your performance on the market improve after you used their services? I'm really curious to hear the answers, and suspect there are a good number of job-candidates out there who are too!

Minds Online paper: "The Dark Side of Morality"

This is just a note that my paper and video presentation, "The Dark Side of Morality: Group Polarization and Moral-Belief Formation", are now posted at this year's Minds Online conference. Here's the paper's abstract: 

This article demonstrates that laypeople and philosophers commonly conceptualize moral truths as discoverable through the use of our cognitive faculties. It then argues that three empirically well-supported theories predict that this ‘Discovery Model’ of morality plays a substantial role in causing group polarization—a phenomenon known to produce a wide variety of disturbing social effects, including increasing prejudice, selfishness, divisiveness, mistrust, and violence. The same three empirical theories are then used to argue that an alternative ‘Negotiation Model’ of morality I defend in Rightness as Fairness—according to which most moral truths are not discovered but instead created by negotiating compromises—promises to not only prevent polarization but actually promote its opposite: a progressive willingness to “work across the aisle” to settle contentious moral issues cooperatively. Finally, I explain how the Negotiation Model properly distinguishes between morally legitimate and illegitimate forms of negotiation, prohibiting compromise with inherently oppressive moral views.

Two commentaries on my paper, one by Michael Bishop (Florida State) and another by Hrishikesh Joshi (Michigan, Ann Arbor), are also up. Public comments will open on Monday, along with my response to each commentary--and comments will remain open until Saturday. Finally, our own Helen De Cruz is scheduled to give the first session's keynote, so keep an eye out for her presentation as well.

I'm still in Georgia on the run from Hurricane Irma, and my thoughts are with everyone in Florida. But I hope you all find the paper interesting, and look forward to a great discussion and conference.

Job ad: postdoc at Aarhus University

Because my family and I are on the road fleeing from the path of Hurricane Irma, I may not have much time to post for a while. However, I have a bit of down time and was encouraged to share this job-ad for a postdoc at Aarhus University in Denmark. Here's the position description:

The Research Project

The focus of the advertised position is to study the epistemological dimensions of scientific publication.  Specifically we will investigate the following aspects of scientific publication:

(I) authorship norms and practices in collaborative research
(II) refereeing practices and effectiveness
(III) citation practices and norms
(IV) the impact of retracted publications

Sounds like a cool project!

Reader query on formulating a teaching portfolio as a new teacher

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, Grad Student writes:

Since it's that time of year, I was re-visiting your excellent Job Market Bootcamp. One question I have concerns the teaching portfolio. What should one do if, at the time of application, one is in the middle of the first teaching semester? Although I have a teaching philosophy and syllabi, I have no teaching evaluations to use for 'proof' of my teaching competence. Further, although I have several semesters of TA experience, there were no discussion sections for which evaluations could be provided. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Excellent question - and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks!

Dissertation Reflection Series, Part 6: When Other Things Seem More Important

As I said in the previous entry in this series, I believe there were two moments where I came close to not completing the dissertation. The first occurred in Summer 2016 when the tedium of dissertation work stifled my enjoyment of writing. As I noted in Part 5, I eventually snapped out of that spell and got back to making steady progress. In October, I had to disrupt my momentum to polish dossier materials and send out job applications, but that brief gap in progress did not affect me too much. I kept sending material to my advisor, and everything continued as planned. A defense at the end of January looked likely.

Unfortunately, things did not stay that way for long. Outside of my philosophical life, two things happened that fall that had a significant impact on me. The first was the 2016 U.S. presidential election. I had, for the most part, tried to ignore the political developments in the U.S. over the summer and focus on my work, but the all-encompassing election coverage on social media and the vitriolic nature of the campaigns made the events difficult to ignore. When the results were finally obtained on November 8th, the outcome was not what I had hoped for, and many of my peers spent the remainder of the night (and a chunk of the morning) in the close proximity to hard liquor.

Minds Online conference program

This is just a quick note that the 2017 Minds Online conference program is now up, and includes two Cocooners: Helen De Cruz (giving a keynote!) and myself. The conference begins next Monday and runs through September 29th, so keep an eye out for it!

How can we help you? (September 2017)

It's been a while now since we had our last "how can we help you?" post, so I thought now might be a good time for another post. For those of you unfamiliar with the series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section on anything you could use help with as an early-career philosopher. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss (and hopefully help you with!) your query.

Please do feel free to post a query on anything we can help you with:

• Graduate school (e.g. writing a disseration, etc.)
• The academic job-market
• Research & publishing
• Teaching
• Etc.

So fire away: we're here to help!

So fire away: we're here to help!

Reader query on obtaining recommendation letters

An anonymous reader writes in,

I am from a small European country and I have not got a funding for PhD studies here, so I am looking an opportunity to do a PhD in the U.S.

Good news: I got two peer-reviewed papers published in a leading journal of my AOS. My first paper was published 2016 and it has already been cited. Another one is currently in press. I have also served as a reviewer when requested (twice, and my first refereeing was for a Leiter top 20 journal).

Bad news: and this is where I need help to decide what to do. I got trouble finding three letter writers. In my country, people are not used to writing letters of recommendation. That is because when applying to PhD studies here, there is no need for letters of recommendation. Here the applicants are chosen by their research proposal and CV. My master’s thesis advisor could write a letter for me but she missed one letter writing deadline already when I applied to another European country so I probably cannot count on her. Another person who is willing to write me a letter of recommendation is leaving academia soon because of the job market. Although I will get a letter from the most distinguished professor in my AOS in my country it is still just one letter. In addition, I know that his letter says something like ‘I recommend him warmly’ and the letter is one-page long, and that is not enough for U.S universities – I assume. Like I said, people here don’t write letters of recommendation and they don’t know how to write one if they have to write it.

So, do all PhD programs in the U.S require three letters of recommendation? If I can only get one or two will I be rejected outright?  What if I can get three letters but one or two of them are short and not as pretentious as expected?