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)?

In reply, Amanda wrote:

While I don't think conferences help very much, I do think not having any could hurt. It suggests a lack of engagement with the philosophical community, and an unwillingness to step outside your comfort zone. I suspect this is true at both teaching and research schools. For research schools the reason might be that researchers know a huge part of success is networking, and most networking is done at conferences. I am not sure about this but this is what I suspect. And we all remember Jared, who has one of the best publication records of any scholar I have ever seen ever, but no job still as far as I know. And he has never presented at a conference.

I would for sure though put the workshops on your CV if you have no conferences. That might be enough to not raise a red flag. I think 3-4 conferences would be enough that search committees wouldn't care. Also, I recommend going to conferences because the feedback you get can be invaluable. I can't understand not going to conferences myself - it is one of the main reasons I am in the profession!

While I agree with Amanda that not having conference presentations could hurt, my concerns are somewhat different. My concern isn't that the person in question might look like they aren't engaged in the philosophical community or good at networking. Frankly, as someone who has served on two search committees, I could care less about these things. I recognize that everyone is different, and some people may not enjoy or have funding to attend conferences. I could of course be idiosyncratic in this regard--so I would be curious to hear if other search committee members share Amanda's concerns.

More broadly, though, I am skeptical that search committee members care much about conference presentations. First, the job-market is saturated with people with good publishing records--so, to be competitive research-wise, one really needs to publish or have some other major advantage (such as grad school pedigree). Second, in my experience committees are typically concerned with hiring someone likely to get tenure. Since publishing is generally necessary for tenure, committees in my experience tend to be looking for someone who has demonstrated the ability to publish--not just present at conferences.

All that being said, I do have some concerns about the candidate's self-described situation in relation to their lack of conference presentations. They describe themselves as someone who is "not very good at coming up with snappy responses to objections in the Q&A period"--adding,"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"." To me, this is worrisome. First, candidates are likely to receive challenging research questions in first-round interviews. Second, if they make it to the on-campus interview stage, they are going to have to give a job talk. In both cases, my experience is that search committees care about whether a person can come up with a well-reasoned response. While it is okay on occasion to admit that you don't have a good answer and could use more time to think about it, I think it is important to not do this too much--and that conferences do develop one's abilities to answer challenging questions effectively. In short, while I'm not concerned about lack of conference-presentations per se, I think it is important to recognize that certain conversational skills (in interviews and Q&As) matter, and that if one does not attend conferences, one may not develop those skills to be maximally competitive on the market.

But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Comments

[Amanda]

I will note that I had two on-campus interviews last year where I was told that they have "a broad view of research" and that conference presentations count toward tenure. I have no idea how rare this is, but I do know other teaching schools (besides the ones I interviewed at) that have this plan. Of course, publications would also count at these places.

[anne jacobson]

How 'bout getting commentator positions?

Also, I'm a bit worried about the reason given. Could a friend, supervisor help?

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Amanda: they certainly "count towards tenure" at teaching schools. For instance, they do at mine (where conference presentations are included in tenure files). What I remain skeptical of is how much they count, including when it comes to choosing who to interview or hire. Conference presentations are far easier to come by than publications, and in a job-market like this--where most candidates in my experience have publications--it seems unlikely to me that people on the hiring side of things place much (if any) weight on presentations. I know I wouldn't. But of course I could be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time! I'd be curious to hear what other readers think.

[gradstudent14]

Thank you, Marcus, for posting this. And thanks everyone for the thoughts so far.

@Anne: That's an interesting idea. I actually have commented at a few conferences so far, but they've been grad conferences hosted by my own school, and they were both pretty early in my grad education. I'm not sure whether these would be good to put on my CV. (Might it make it seem like I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel? Might the gap between them and any subsequent conferences look suspicious, to the point where mentioning the early ones wouldn't be worth it? Etc.) But I could be wrong here.

I think you're right to suspect that asking a friend or committee member would probably help. For any future "real" (i.e., not in a class or dissertation workshop) presentations I give, I'll try to first run the ideas by as many others as I feel comfortable with, so that I can get a preview of at least some of the objections people are likely to raise. Of course, I realize that this is no guarantee. (On one particularly memorable occasion in the past, I was presenting certain material for the second time yet was still left stumped by an uncomfortably high number of objections in the Q&A. That at least some of the objections struck my peers as obvious, when they simply hadn't occurred to me, makes it painful to look back on.) But I agree that running the ideas by others first does help at least some.

@Marcus: You raise a good point that this is something I need to get better at if I'm going to do well in first-round interviews and job talks, and that presenting at conferences is one way of improving. Naturally, of course, I find myself drawn mostly to other ways of trying to improve (e.g., talking to advisers and simply presenting in dissertation workshop), since they don't carry the risk of making a bad first impression on a roomful of philosophers by doing poorly in the Q&A. But I suppose it's possible that this risk would be worth the added help in the long run.

[Postdoc]

Years ago I thought conferences were important for the job market, thus I made an effort to attend a few a year. Back then I had a lot of naive beliefs. For one I thought the job market was mainly merit based, and that the point of attending conferences was to show your merit: you're a good enough philosopher to be accepted, you did all that unpaid work preparing a presentation, presenting it, and answering questions, and so on.

However, I no longer think that the job market is mainly merit based. Sometimes merit can help; often it does not. The main reason to attend conferences is to make friends with people who will later help you get a job. Does this mean you need not go to conferences? No. You must go to conferences, and you must network big time. If you're not the kind of chap who is good in these kinds of social situations, figure out how to become one.

The fact is, I think, that you cannot get a job based on merit alone, even if you're a very good philosopher. There are a lot of factors that go into hiring decisions beyond merit: demographics, cronyism, prestige bias, regional identity, popularity of research, and so on. You need to make sure that many of these factors are in your favor. There isn't much you can do about your demographic status. However, conferences can help you learn what's popular and, most importantly, help you make friends with potential employers.

If you're not willing to play this game, you need to think about whether academic philosophy is right for you.

Before anyone comments on this, some of my claims about the job market are based on what I've seen personally the last half decade. This is admittedly a somewhat small sample size. However, not all of my claims are based on just my experience.

1. Demographics matter:

http://blog.apaonline.org/2016/05/03/academic-placement-data-and-analysis-an-update-with-a-focus-on-gender/

2. Prestige matters:

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/09/where-untenured-tenure-track-faculty-at-the-top-20-phd-programs-got-their-phd-2017-18-edition.html

http://www.newappsblog.com/2015/02/some-figures-on-prestige-bias-in-academia.html

[Al]

In differing capacities I have been involved in three searches at research focused departments. I think no presentations whatsoever would look a little bit odd and might make me wonder for a moment how it is that someone has not presented any work. There could be many good reasons such as financial reasons but it would also make me worry a bit about this person's ability to share their work in a presentation setting which is an important aspect of research both within one's school and outside of it. I do not think a lack of presentations would keep someone off of a shortlist for me or for the colleagues I have worked on committees with as long as everything else such as publications and an excellent writing sample are in place. I would however be on the lookout during a job talk for the ability to share research in a presentation setting. The (sad?) fact is that there will be many people who have not only publications but also presentations and all of the other things one could ever want. I would be surprised if no presentations sunk a candidate and I don't think there could be enough presentations to get one a job, but my advice to anyone would be to try to get a couple of presentations on a CV to display an ability to share research level work with other researchers. I appreciate that this advice may be specifically for research oriented departments. In any event, the very best of luck!

[Amanda]

So this has been my experience with teaching schools. I have many friends who have served on committees and been interviewed a lot (and research interviews too, but I think Al sums up that market). While research schools want prestige, with teaching schools it is a mark against you. If you look at those hired at teaching schools this year, at least half are from non-ranked institutions. I think prestigious publications can hurt to. So the reason why a search committee *might* look favorably on publications is it shows "diversity" of research and fit. You do not want a research star at a teaching school. Someone with a few decent publications and conference presentations may be a perfect fit for such a school . So it is not a matter of picking someone with publications over conference presentations, someone with a good mix might very well be the best fit for a particular school. And it seems in all types of schools, having no conferences is at least a yellow flag.

[Anon]

I have zero conference presentations on my CV.

I finished my PhD in 2016. For the 2016-2017 applications season, I applied to 10 teaching schools for TT positions and got 6 interviews. I was extremely fortunate to be offered the job at the first place I interviewed -- I accepted.

Like the OP I was a bit nervous about my lack of conference presentations and I don't think it is ideal. I did, however, have a few publications going into the application season. While not ideal, this is (in my mind) far preferable to the CV which is plentiful on conference presentations, but has no publications (especially for those of us not coming from the very top schools).

As far as I can remember, during my grad school career, I submitted to two conferences (both APA). Both times my submission was rejected. Both times I turned around and published the paper shortly thereafter. The problem for me is that I don't write 3,000 word papers. I write roughly 10,000 word papers and go from there. Each time I submitted, I was faced with cutting out 7,000 words from a paper in order to submit it. It just didn't feel right to me and I began shying away from doing it.

I should also add here that I don't think we can really look at just one aspect of a CV and draw many conclusions. Most of us are short on something, but we try to make up for it with strengths. While I didn't present at any conferences, and only even attended a handful throughout my grad school career, I was able to present a very strong teaching portfolio as I taught a lot while writing my dissertation, and I think this helped to balance out my shortcomings (especially given my focus on teaching schools).

[Ben]

Here's what my (very limited) search experience tells me: No presentations won't necessarily keep you from getting a campus visit. However, the campus visit is *super* important, and a lot of people in the department you visit will judge you almost *solely* on your job talk. You *have* to be able to give a good presentation of your research in order to have any chance of getting the job. If you have no or little experience presenting your work, it will probably show. This alone is a very good reason for presenting your work at conferences.

[Tim]

OP seems to suffer from a common problem among philosophers (and especially philosophy graduate students): excessive honesty.

Here's the deal with questions: you want to set up your talk in such a way that people will ask you questions you already know the answer to. This isn't hard to do. For example, suppose your argument has premises A, B, and C. Only present support for A and B, and mention that you don't have time to present support for C. But also make it abundantly clear that C is crucial to your argument. Trust me: people will ask you about it. Why? Because most people are (and I definitely am) bad at coming up with good questions. So if you leave some low-hanging fruit, it'll get picked. Hopefully with a few of these, you can eat up all your Q&A time with people asking questions you already have worked-out answers for.

That practice might be a bit deceptive. The next one I'll advocate is worse: deliberately misunderstand questions. Someone asks you a question you don't know how to answer? Misinterpret it as a question you do know how to answer! (This requires practice to pull off.) Then, ask at the end if you addressed their worry. Remarkably, a large majority of the time, the person will say yes. Why? Because most of us are bad at asking questions, and on the rare occasions when we try, the questions are fairly poorly framed. If someone gives me *some kind* of answer in response to the question I asked, I'm liable to simply feel good and say "sure, that works", because I wasn't made to look silly.

On the rare occasions when the response is "No, I meant to ask about...", you can now retreat to the "Oh yeah, that's a good question, I'll have to think about it..." response. But notice, you'll look better because (a) you answered *a* question (admittedly, not one anyone asked. But most folks will forget that fact very quickly) and (b) you'll have taken up some of the Q&A time.

Another tactic that works is the "let's make sure we're on the same page" tactic. So what that you actually understood the objection. Make sure that the questioner knows you understood the objection by working through it in excruciating detail. It goes something like this: "you're worry, if I understand it correctly, is that p's aren't q's. Let's make sure we're on the same page. As I use the word p, it means... (go back to slide with definition) and as I use q, it means... (more slide chasing)... now you say that c is a counterexample. I think I see vaguely why that might be, but can you fill in some of the details for me?"

Again, this takes up time, and it's time during a Q&A in which you are *being a competent philosopher*. And that, in conclusion, is what you should do when you strategize your Q&A sessions: your goal is to fill as much of that time as possible with time where you're being a competent philosopher. Despite it being a Q&A session, your goal *shouldn't* be to answer as many serious questions as possible as well as possible. Maybe if you're amazing at Q&As, that's what you should aim for. But if you're not (like me), then this is a good way to not look like a goober.

[Trevor Hedberg]

While I doubt that virtually anyone gets short-listed for a job on the basis of their conference participation, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some people are moved to the discard pile when their track record indicates a lack of conference participation. It would likely be taken as a lack of engagement with the broader scholarly community. Now, of course, it might turn out that this isn't true, as it might be in the original poster's case. Maybe there's other evidence of engagement with the scholarly community on one's CV. The problem is that search committee members are only going to look at your CV for 10-15 seconds (maybe less) on the first pass, since they are likely confronted with a stack of hundreds of applications. It would be very strange to see a CV without any conference presentations listed, so I would think this sort of omission would draw a committee member's attention, and it would be difficult for a committee member in that position -- given the size of the stack and the razor thin margin between most of the applicants -- not to toss out the application right there.

[Eugene]

Is there a good source for finding things like essay competitions (e.g. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Prize) tailored to early career philosophers?