The Philosophers' Cocoon

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 2: Job Fit

When I was a candidate, I was a bit baffled by the interviews I got (and didn't get). Judging by the job-ads, sometimes I got interviews for jobs I seemed a good fit for; other times I got interviews for jobs that seemed like a bad fit; and still other times I didn't get interviews for jobs that I seemed like a perfect fit for...even though I got interviews at "better" schools for which I seemed like a worse fit. It made no sense to me. What in the world were search committees looking for? I expect many candidates can empathize.

So, let me try to address (and then open for discussion) the three questions I raised in the introductory post to this series:

1. What is fit?
2. Why does it matter to search committees?
3. What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?

Readers should bear in mind that my answers to these questions are based upon my particular experience, and I encourage others with different experience to share their thoughts in the comments section!. 

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 1: Introduction

I recently had a conversation with someone who served on a search committee for the first time, who expressed surprise at just how different the process was than they might have expected as a job-candidate. Being on the other side of the process was very illuminating, they said, and it might help candidates to learn more about it. Because I was on the market as a candidate for seven years and have now served on three search committees (two for tenure-track hires, one for a non-TT hire), I'm very well acquainted with what it is like to be a job-candidate and a search committee member (at least at a teaching school). Consequently, I thought it might be helpful to share a bit about what the process is like. While I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss any particulars about actual hires (viz. how actual hiring decisions were made), there are general things about the search and hiring process that seem to me entirely appropriate to make candidates aware of.

In my next post, I will talk about the oft-mentioned notion of "fit" (i.e. what it is for a candidate to fit a particular job). My general sense, having perused many online discussions of the job-market, is that candidates often think of competitiveness for jobs in general terms: publications, teaching evaluations, and so on. But, as is often noted, "fit" appears to play a large role in search committee deliberations--larger, it seems, than many people may be aware of. So then:

1. What is fit?
2. Why does it matter to search committees?
3. What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?

As I will explain in my next post, my experience is that the answers to all three questions are complex--far more complex than people who have never been involved in a hire may be aware of. So, I hope current and future jobs-candidates find the next post--and this new series--helpful.

Reader query: being competitive for teaching jobs coming from a prestigious program

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Peter writes:

I’m currently finishing up at a fairly prestigious graduate program. As expected, all of my advisors are interested in getting me a research job. They tend to talk up opportunities at R1s and talk about the “struggles” of teaching at SLACs and state schools with hefty teaching loads.

Here’s the problem: I desperately don’t want a research job. The only part of philosophy I like is teaching it. I’m happy to do research to make sure that the content I teach is accurate and informative, but I have no interest in churning out papers to be cited four or five times. I do not want to be a leading scholar of anything. I want to teach my students how to think for themselves and how to think well.

How does someone from a research-obsessed PhD program position themselves for jobs with a strong teaching focus? (I mean where the requirements for tenure are at least 50/50 teaching and research.)

My program has given me several opportunities to teach and I have received accolades and good evaluations for my teaching, but I’ve had no luck at all convincing schools that I’m dedicated first and foremost to my students.

Amanda replied:

Peter first I would try applying to prestigious slacs. They like fancy degrees and care a lot about teaching. But also getting involved in any programs that focus on teaching. There are camps and stuff like that you can do. Do adjunct work, even if it is just one class and you don't "need" to do it. It would help show you as a serious teacher. Put teaching first on your CV (before publications) and emphasis in your cover letter what you said above: that despite the pressure to be a researcher you prefer a teaching job. Lastly, I would avoid too many and too prestigious publications. With your degree it could be easy to "over-qualify" yourself for many teaching jobs.

As for your professors. I would not mention your goals/plans unless you really really trust them, as they will try to talk you out of it. Just apply for teaching jobs and when you accept one that will be that. Given this market, it is very hard to criticize anyone for accepting a TT position of any sort. Lastly, if you are sure you would be much happier at a teaching job, I would not apply to research jobs. If you are offered the position there will be all the pressure in the world to take it. And just like that you could end up in a life-time position that makes you unhappy.

Amanda's suggestions sound basically right to me. Someone coming out of a top-program will be probably be at a disadvantage for non-elite teaching jobs--and too many high-ranking publications may only accentuate that disadvantage (due to potential assumptions by search committee members that they must be looking for a more elite job). So I agree someone like Peter should probably have their eye on more highly-ranked SLAC jobs. However, I think if someone like Peter developed themselves as a candidate and pitched themselves in the right way, they could in principle make themselves competitive for teaching jobs more generally. How?

Science magazine on choosing the kind of academic you want to be

A reader drew my attention today to this article at Science Magazine on the freedom to choose to be the kind of academic you want to be. Here's an excerpt:

A postdoc friend recently called me to discuss his career options. He didn’t want to run his own lab, he said. Instead, he wanted to become a research scientist, mainly working at the bench— like me. I sensed that his mind was already made up, but he needed validation about pursuing a path that is not generally thought of as a professional success. Our conversation got me thinking about my own decision to become a research scientist—and about other career choices I made that went against the norm.

APA Philosophers Beyond Academia Event

A while back, I relayed how another academic discipline mentors its grad students and job-marketeers--by, among other things, devoting entire days of their annual conference (i.e. their version of the APA) to sessions and networking events designed to help prepare students for academic and non-academic jobs.

I am delighted to learn that our own APA is beginning to pursue important programs like this, with its upcoming Philosophers' Beyond Academia Kickoff with Patrick Byrne (Philosophy Phd & CEO of Overstock.com) at this year's Pacific APA. I think the APA is very much to be commended for this, and hope it continues to develop more programs--both at APA meetings but also more broadly--to help philosophy graduates succeed inside and outside of academia.

If you attend the APA’s event, please do feel to report back. I would love to hear how it goes!

The unexpected upsides of teaching jobs?

Sam Duncan (Tidewater CC) recently wrote a guest-post for us on how people in our profession often seem to perceive teaching jobs in a negative light. Because we do our PhDs at research universities, we are socialized to want research jobs--for prestige, ample time and resources for research, low teaching loads, and so on. Indeed, Sam is far from alone among my philosophy friends for encountering negative reactions to his job. As Sam recounted, when he told one of his grad school professors about his community college job, the response was "Well you deserve a better job but it’s a step up." I've heard many similar stories. One of my other friends (a well-accomplished researcher at a SLAC job) mentioned recently than when people learn where she works, they act like she's from Jaaku.

However, what are teaching jobs actually like? As Sam put it, his job is "actually a really good job by almost any objective measure." I've had a similar experience, and recently got to thinking about some of the benefits of working at a teaching school. Having worked at one for nine years now (after working for one year at a research school), here is a short list of some of the unexpected upsides I've experienced:

Teaching activities thread

In the comments section of our latest "how can we help you?" thread, Amanda asks:

Can we have a thread where we talk about different activities we do when teaching? I can use some new group work ideas. (This is similar to a past post, but I think asking this specifically might get more uptake.)

I think this is a great idea, one that might benefit new teachers, experienced teachers, and job-candidates alike. Personally, every now and then I feel like I fall into a bit of a rut as a teacher--and I've often found the experiences and wisdom of other people to be very helpful. So then, what activities do you do as a teacher? What is their pedagogical rationale, and how do the activities work?

'Westworld and Philosophy' chapter extract at beyondwestworld.com

An excerpt from my chapter in Blackwell's forthcoming "Westworld and Philosophy" book is featured today at beyondwestworld.com. 

My theory: there are many hints in the first season’s dialogue, plot, and physics that Westworld is not a park at all, but rather a complete virtual reality (VR) world that people "visit" to escape the "real world." The philosophical implications I draw: First, to be simulated is to be real. Simulated worlds are every bit as real as "the real world", and simulated people are every bit as real as "real" ones. Second, failure to understand this is already leading us to treat our own creations (artificially intelligent agents, videogame characters, etc.) in morally dangerous ways, once again repeating our ugly human narrative of denying moral standing to others we regard as "lesser beings." We have already, without even knowing it, become the kinds of "irreponsible gods" that the human characters are in Westworld. 

(There are actually more hints for the theory that I couldn’t give in the chapter given its strict word-limit. I’d be happy to share some of them, if anyone is interested:).

Should you want a research job?

I recently came across a social media post by an early philosophy grad student noting that "their dream: is to eventually land a research job. This is, of course, the kind of job grad students are typically socialized to desire (PhD programs tend to prize research). And of course an R1 job may sound great on the surface: a light teaching load, lots of time for research, lots of other philosophers around (both faculty and grad students) to talk shop with, and so on. However, some recent experiences have led me to wonder whether R1 jobs are all they are cracked up to be.

Reader query on the worst aspect(s) of the job

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Anon writes (my emphasis):

Following up on the thread about impostor syndrome and the one on Daily Nous about the graduate student mental health crisis (which is probably a faculty crisis too) I think this might be a good time to focus some light on the following issue: What is the worst aspect of your job as a professional philosopher? Or if you are a graduate student or job seeker, what is the aspect of the job you look forward to least, and wish most to avoid. Basically what is the one thing in the profession that most drags you down, saps your will to work (or to live even), such that fixing this problem would result in the single largest improvement in your professional, and hence personal, well-being?

For me, I think it is the relentless speed-up of the job driven by the relentless demands for ever-increasing "production". It is bad enough when it comes from the mindless MBA-bots which run universities now, but the worst thing is that so many academics have now internalized this imperative and it guides their professional actions and expectations (even while they complain about it). I find this incredibly alienating, in the Marxian sense. The constant pressure, combined with the fact that I have to publish on what's fashionable, rather than what I think is worth working on (let alone interesting), has utterly drained my work of any value to me. This, in turn, is compounded by the need to publish quickly, so the work is necessarily half-assed, which in turn saps my self-respect since I am not even producing the best crap that I can (and I have to spend time engaging with work that is, it seems to me, similarly rushed and drained of value...). I feel that I am not a researcher but simply an academic "content-creator", whose job is just to generate a fancy version of click-bait. I often find myself day-dreaming that being an adjunct would be preferable; yes, I would have less time to write, but outside of class my time would be entirely my own.

I know not everyone feels the same way about the need to produce, and I am interested to see what other people consider the worst thing about their job, or the profession more generally.

I think this is a good query. If there are particular things that people find frustrating about working in the profession, it can be good to know what those things are--not only for commiseration, but for (hopefully) working to make things better. I may weigh in myself down in the comments section. For now, though, I think it might be good to just open the topic for discussion: What is the worst aspect of your job as a professional philosopher, and why? Let me also ask one further question: What do you think could/should be done to make that part of your job better?  

Reader query on teaching a grad seminar

A few days ago, in the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Lauren wrote:

I've just accepted a job, and the schedule has me teaching a grad seminar my first semester. I'm excited, but also a little terrified. So, I'm wondering what advice others have for selecting the topic, prepping for class, or anything else they wish you wish you had known before teaching your first grad seminar!

jdk brown made the following suggestions:

There are a few strategies you can adopt. The first is to teach a class on the topic of your dissertation research. You know this material backwards and forwards already, so you won't have to put in as much prep--both for the planning of the course, and day-to-day--as you otherwise might have to. (This, I think, is one reason departments often give new hires seminars right away--they see it as a way of lightening the workload for you. It's also gives the grad students an early chance to get to know you, and you a chance to know them.)

The second strategy is to pick a bit of the literature that you'd like to be more familiar with, and build your seminar around that. For example, I taught my first grad seminar right as Sider et al.'s Metaontolgy collection was coming out. So after a few introductory readings, we simply worked our way through it. This strategy is a great way to have your teaching feed into your research.

While I've never taught a grad seminar--and so am not the most well-placed to offer general advice here--jdk brown's advice seems reasonable to me. I would just add that I think it's probably a really good idea to design such a course bearing in mind the tenure requirements at one's institution. Allow me to explain.

PPE society undergraduate chapters

Geoff Sayre-McCord (UNC Chapel Hill) draws my attention to this new program for groups of undergraduates that will allow them to constitute themselves as a local chapter of the Philosophy, Politics and Economics Society:

The PPE Society Local Chapters are designed for groups of students interested in Philosophy, Politics and Economics as a rigorous, integrated, and interdisciplinary area of study. Benefits of being a Local Chapter of the PPE Society include official recognition, which may help you secure institutional and independent funding; updates regarding PPE-related conferences, events, and other announcements; discount registration for the PPE Society Annual Meeting; and a network of peers to collaborate with and consult.

I've only had good experiences with the PPE Society--sounds like a good program for getting students involved!

Getting tenure standards in writing?

In the comments section responding to Ash's recent query on grappling with tenure denial, Ash writes:

Thanks so much everyone again. I hadn't expected so many people to recommend appealing. I have looked into it and I suppose I will appeal, if only to voice my disappointment with the inconsistencies and lack of transparency in the process...

One final question: did other people *get* their tenure standards in writing? They were shared with me a couple of times during the fly-out--once by another assistant professor at the time, who left for another position before I started--and at a few meetings, two with the Chair, since then. But I never thought to get them in writing. I've asked the three other people who have been assistant professors since I joined here, and they all said they were given the same formula--X number of articles, Y number of articles in top journals--but none of us were given it in writing. And we never thought to get it because... There didn't seem to be any disagreement about what the standards were. And we wouldn't have anticipated this kind of situation.

Amanda added, "I would love to hear people's thoughts about getting tenure in standards in writing. Is it weird to ask for this?" I too am curious to hear from readers on this.

A 'replies-only' journal?

A while ago, I suggested that there may be an underappreciated barrier to philosophical engagement. The barrier is this: with a few exceptions (see e.g. JESP), most philosophy journals do not accept "replies" to articles in other journals. In practice, this means that, by and large, reply pieces can only be sent to one journal. My sense is that this is a real deterrent to philosophical discussion. Although I published two reply articles early in my career, I've largely given up on writing them. Why spend time writing a piece you can only send to one journal?

This potential barrier to philosophical dialogue concerns me given how rare engagement with published articles seems to be. According to this study:

• More than 90% of published humanities papers have received no citations two years after publication.
• About 82% have never been cited five years after publication.

Kieran Healy's research on citation rates indicates philosophy is similar ("on the average hardly anyone is getting cited"). I think this is unfortunate. While I've heard some people say most published philosophy isn't worth engaging with, I think this is terribly cynical, overly dismissive of the hard work of our colleagues, and mostly serves to uphold hierarchies (viz. engagement with Big Names, ignoring No-Names). Further, the more I read, the more I think there are a lot of people doing interesting work--work that, unfortunately, given the incentives in place, just isn't being engaged with.

I've long wondered what the profession might do to incentivize greater engagement with people's work. One obvious possibility would be for existing journals to be more open to replies to articles in other journals. However, I do not see that happening any time soon. Which got me thinking about one other possibility: a replies-only philosophy journal that might serve as a central forum for engagement with other articles in the literature. While such a journal would, obviously, only increase the number of places one could submit replies to by one, I cannot help but wonder whether--with the right kinds of editorial standards and review process--such a journal might substantially incentivize greater philosophical engagement.

What do you all think: would such a journal be a good idea? If so, that brings me to my next question: what exactly are the steps one must take to create such a journal? I'm sure it would be a fairly massive undertaking (logistically speaking)--and I'm far from sure whether it's something I would ever sensibly pursue myself--but still, I'd like to learn about what it might involve. What does it take to get a new journal started? Anyone have any experience or tips they're willing to share?

Reader query on grappling with tenure denial

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Ash writes:

I've been denied tenure. It was unexpected. I've been told that I should just get back out there, write up a storm, double down, push hard.... all to get a NEW great job, and that that's how I'll show them. (Them = the Dean/TPC/few Dept'l colleagues that didn't vote for me, since almost all of my colleagues thought that I was not just a yes but an obvious yes.)

All I feel though is *done*. And exhausted. Thinking about writing sometimes makes me feel ill and other times makes me want to throw things. I suppose that's normal, at this stage in the game. But I think it's possible that it's permanent--that I don't have it in me to start striving and "selling my work" again. Not even for one more year.

I'm not sure exactly what I'd be looking for in terms of advice or discussion; I feel unmoored and I have no idea what to do.

I'm so sorry to hear this happened to you, Ash. Does anyone have any thoughts they think Ash might find helpful? It might be especially helpful to hear from other readers who have been in Ash's situation. 

Chapel Hill Public Philosophy Workshop

**Submission Deadline Extended to March 20**

Chapel Hill Public Philosophy Workshop 
 
We are delighted to announce a Public Philosophy Workshop at UNC Chapel Hill on 18 & 19 May 2018. 
 
All are warmly invited to attend. 
 
Keynote speakers will include Anita L. Allen (Henry Silverman Professor of Law and Philosophy, and Vice Provost for Faculty at UPenn), David V. Johnson (Senior Editor at Stanford Social Innovation Review, former Opinion Editor at Al Jazeera and Web Editor at the Boston Review), Myisha Cherry (UC Riverside; contributor to Salon, HuffPo, and LA Times; hosts for popular UnMute podcast), and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics at Duke University and editor of OUP’s monograph series in public philosophy).
 
The event centrally consists in workshop sessions in which participants will offer critical responses to each other’s work with the assistance of our keynote speakers. There will be down-time for redrafting material, and subsequent workshops to address improvements. 

Should journals use 'outside reviewers'?

Daily Nous recently ran a post on whether journals favor affiliated authors. In the comments section, Neil Levy wrote:

Note that there is a minimally pernicious explanation that may account for some bias: the bias may be toward topics or approaches (which it is an editor’s prerogative to favor) rather than people or institutions.

This got me thinking about something else I've worried about for a while: self-selection effects in the peer-review system. Here's my worry. From my experience as a reviewer, the selection of peer-reviewers tends to work something like this:

1. A paper is submitted on topic X.
2. The editors of the journal then seek out reviewers who specialize on topic X.
3. The editors thus rely on judgments of people steeped in topic X to judge new papers on X.

So, for example, in my case, I receive a good number of requests to review papers in the following areas: nonideal justice, transformative experience, experimental philosophy, and free will--all areas I've published in. I am almost never asked to review a paper outside of these areas. Why? Because I don't specialize in the areas in question. But is this a good rationale? It might seem like it. Specialists are, it seems, the most qualified people to evaluate papers in their area. Alas, I think there's an underappreciated danger here: the danger of self-selection bias. Allow me to explain.

Reader query on impostor syndrome

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Aristotle's Problem XXX writes:

I'm aware there was a discussion about impostor syndrome back in 2014 on this blog, and it's been somewhat useful. But I wondered if you might at some point want to run a post on the clinically defined "impostor syndrome”. I'm currently relapsing into a cyclical depressive episode and have just read a couple pieces on impostor syndrome and depression in academia. I also just re-read Peter Railton's heartwrenching APA lecture. I suspect more people suffer from depression, depressive episodes, and the like than we care to admit. I believe it has a lot to do with, among other things, the impossible standards of our discipline, how we're not equipped to transition well into new life stages, to appreciate the role of luck, the randomness of what brought us where we are, etc. If you think this could be a good topic for discussion that'd be great. Since there's probably a good deal of cultural and national variation here, experiences from abroad are welcome (I wasn't trained here myself). The problem is certainly not confined to US/UK academia. Thanks!

This is a timely and important query.

Reader query on online teaching

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, RC writes:

I'm scheduled to teach online for the first time in the near future. I'd like to hear any recommendations people have. Do you video your lectures? Do you try to put them in some kind of written form? Do you have any interesting strategies? Are there any huge and unseen pitfalls you'd warn me about?

Unfortunately, I have no experience with online teaching, so I have no tips to give or answers to RC's particular questions. But I think it would be great to hear from readers who do! If you have experience teaching online, do you have any general tips for RC or answers to the specific questions RC asked?

CFP: 6th Annual Cocoon Conference

I am pleased to announce a call-for-papers for the 6th Annual Philosophers' Cocoon Philosophy Conference, which will be held at University of Tampa on Saturday October 13th-Sunday October 14th, 2018. If you're curious about what the conference has been like in past years, see here!

As in the past, the Cocoon conference will be unique in several respects:

1. Although conference attendance will be open to all, paper presenters must be early-career philosophers (graduate students, post-docs, untenured faculty, independent scholars, etc.). 
2. Because early-career philosophers may have challenges securing travel funding, several sessions will be reserved for Skype presentations.
3. Although commentators and audience members are encouraged to present objections, the conference theme will once again be constructive engagement, where the primary intent is to help authors to improve their work.
4. Because the conference aims to help participants improve their work for publication, the conference welcomes full-length articles (10-30 pages double-spaced). As a rule of thumb, the longer the paper, the higher the standards for acceptance to the conference. Extremely long papers are discouraged.
5. Submission to the conference involves an agreement to serve as a commentator on another paper during the conference should your paper be accepted and you accept your invitation to attend.

To submit a paper to present, please email the following to me at [email protected] by June 1, 2018:

1. An anonymized paper.
2. A separate title page with the author's name, contact information, early-career status (e.g. grad student, post-doc, untenured faculty, independent scholar), and brief paper abstract.
3. A statement concerning whether you intend to attend the conference in person or only via Skype.

Decision emails indicating whether your paper has been accepted should be sent out in July or August. Finally, please bear the following in mind. In order to ensure the conference is well-attended, there will be relatively few Skype sessions -- so the probability that your paper will be accepted is higher should you state in your submission email that you can attend in person.

I look forward to receiving this year's submissions, and to another great conference! 

Reader query on focusing one's research

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, RC asks:

How do people decide what to focus on in their research? It's not that I don't have any ideas the problem is that I have a lot of different ideas and I can't decide which to focus on. And how do people stay motivated to work on research? My current job has pretty low research expectations so there's not really that push any more. But I do want to stay active in that. It somehow feels like I'm not a real scholar if I don't. And while I don't have any plans to go on the market in the immediate future, I wouldn't mind keeping my options open in the long term. (I love the day to day work of my job, but I'm increasingly less sure about the upper level admin and not crazy about the region).

Good questions! While we're all different, and what works for one person might not work for another, my own strategy is two-fold: 

1. I prioritize whichever project seems clearest to me (the one I'll have the easiest time getting down on paper), and
2. Failing that, I just work on whatever I'm most excited about.
3. If I'm not excited about or clear on anything, I take a research break and do other stuff!

In practice, here's how this works...

Undergrad query on essence & existence

I have an undergraduate student who is interested in reading up on the topics of essence and existence. These are not exactly my areas, to put it mildly. Anyone have any helpful suggestions (good books, review articles, etc.) suitable for smart undergraduate? Thanks!