UPDATED 5/11 - 5:40pm
In this series' post on cover letters, there was some discussion of whether to include a 'Works in Progress' section on one's CV in, which is apparently something people are routinely advised to do. In rough outline, my experience--which another search committee member echoed--is that Work in Progress sections are unlikely to make any difference. When it comes to research, people on the hiring side of things are more interested in demonstrated ability to actually publish. Since merely having work in preparation or even work under review doesn't demonstrate that, as Amanda notes my sense is WIP sections are probably a 'wash': include one, or don't - it probably won't make a difference.
In any case, that discussion got me thinking about CVs more generally. Given that this series is intended to give candidates an inside look of how search committees actually think and do things, what 'secrets of search committees' are there regarding CVs? My sense is that there are some unsurprising secrets, as well as some more surprising ones - though please bear in mind that the following remarks are based on my experiences at a teaching-focused institution (as well as discussion with people who have hired at other similar institutions):
Get your AOS & AOC right: Every search committee member I've talked to looks at CVs first, before anything else. Why? Because they are the easiest way to check the first thing that matters in any application: whether the candidate is qualified for the job being advertised. The easiest way to check this is to pull out the candidate's CV and check their AOS/AOC lines. If the candidate's AOS/AOC fit the job ad, then the rest of their CV will be looked at. If not? In that case, my experience is their application goes straight to the 'trash.' Maybe this isn't the case for all jobs (research jobs?) - but, at places like mine, when we advertise a given AOS/AOC, those are the areas we have to hire in. If you don't have the right ones, my sense is that applying is simply a waste of time. Which brings me to two other important issues:
1. Don't 'bend'/exaggerate your AOS/AOC: if you don't really have any background in the area advertised, don't include it on your CV just to make you 'look' like you're qualified. It will become very clear from the rest of your CV whether you are or not - so don't bother trying to be deceptive. At best, it will accomplish nothing - at worst, it can look dishonest.
2. Don't list four AOS and eight AOCs: this one is surprisingly common, and also looks bad. Almost no early-career philosopher legitimately has more than one or at most two AOS. If you did your dissertation in X, then that's a legit AOS. If you did your comprehensive exams in areas X and Y, and have written some papers in both areas, then maybe list both as AOS. But do not list more than that. You don't have four legit AOS. Making it look on your CV like you do reeks of dishonesty or self-deception. The same goes for AOCs. You don't have an AOC in area Z simply because you took a grad seminar in it. You need to have some more substantial experience than that. As a rough rule of thumb, you should only list an area as an AOC if you have a pretty substantial background in the area--something like multiple grad courses and real teaching/TA experience in the area. Two or three AOCs is legit, maybe 4 (EDITED). Anything more is seriously pushing it. Indeed, far from helping you, listing too many AOS/AOCs are likely to hurt you, making you look out of touch with professional norms.
Being ABD can be an obstacle: After looking at AOS/AOC, my sense is the next thing people tend to look at is whether you have graduated yet. I've heard more than a few horror stories of departments hiring ABD students who didn't finish by the time they started the job. This is bad for the hiring department, and worse for the candidate - as it immediately puts the candidate into a risky position in terms of performing well on the job and getting tenure. Your first semester in a job is no time to be finishing up a dissertation - and my sense is that hiring departments are skeptical about claims the candidate will be finished in time. In short, if you haven't graduated yet, that can be a big strike against you.
Publications: My sense is that after looking at AOS/AOC and graduation status, people reading CVs go straight to publications. At least anecdotally, it appears to me that R1 programs often hire people straight out of grad school with no publications - on the basis of 'promise.' Things are very different at institutions like mine. My sense is that we do not hire on the basis of vague impressions of 'promise.' Because teaching institutions like mine have small departments that don't get new hires very often, we want to make a successful hire - someone likely to both (A) stay in the job, and (B) get tenure. This means when looking at your publications list, we want to know two things: (1) can you publish enough to get tenure, and (2) are you the kind of researcher who fits the institution and will be happy there? Let me say something about each:
1. Can you publish enough to get tenure?: if you have zero publications, chances are at a place like mine you're "out." Hiring someone with no documented history of publishing is a real risk, one I think few departments at teaching schools can afford to take. One publication, irrespective of journal ranking, is a good sign that you can publish something rather than nothing. Still, my sense is that, ideally, departments at places like mine are looking for this: an extended publishing record. Why? Simple: anyone can get lucky once. I've known people in TT jobs who published one thing right out of grad school and then didn't publish anything for years. Not good. People on the hiring side of things want to know that you can publish more than once - that your research has 'legs.'
2. Do you fit the institution?: In the philosophy profession at large, journal rankings seem to matter a lot. One often hears about where so-and-so published, etc. Alas, as I've said on this blog many times before, my sense is that this kind of obsession about journal rankings in no way extends to teaching-focused institutions. I'll be frank: in my nine years at my current institution, including serving on search committees, I can count the number of times I've heard someone mention journal rankings on one hand (i.e. less than five times). They just aren't something we care that much about - and in terms of getting a job at a teaching school, they can even be a negative (viz. "This person's research trajectory suggests they belong at some place like Harvard"). One or two well-ranked publications is fine - but the more of them you rack up, the more you may look like a legitimate flight risk. Hard to hear, I know - but my sense, from talking to people who have hired at other teaching schools, is that it is undoubtedly true.
Works in Progress don't matter (much, if at all): See the discussion linked to at the outset of this post. I know everyone lists Works in Progress. Go ahead and do it - but my sense is that it is likely to make zero difference on whether you're interviewed or hired. Anyone can have works in progress or under review. People on the hiring side want to demonstrably proof you can publish - and the only proof of that is a publishing record.
Do not under any circumstances list stuff under review (including R&Rs) under 'publications': This is often said online, but bears emphasizing. The 'Publications' section on your CV should list publications - and a work under review or a revise-and-resubmit is not a publication. Listing these things under publications makes a person look either dishonest or self-deceived. If you want to list stuff under review (including revise-and-resubmits), do it in another clearly-marked section of your CV ('Articles under review'). Also, do not list where your article is under review (viz. "Under review at Mind"). This looks goofy. Anyone can send their paper to a journal. No one on the hiring side cares where an article is under review. They only care where articles are actually published.
Presentations don't matter (much, if at all): I've heard this question often asked online, "Do conference presentations matter?". While I've heard a few search committee members say online that they matter (perhaps for research schools?), my own sense is that if they make any difference at all (and I am skeptical they do), whatever difference they make is approximately 1/100th compared to anything else. Why? Because conference presentations are easy to secure. Everyone can get them, and they make very little difference when it comes to tenure. So by all means, get some conference presentations on your CV (if only to show that you can do it, and to get feedback on unpublished work); just don't expect your presentations list to play any substantial role in committee deliberations. In all frankness, having served on three search committees, the number of times I have heard presentations mentioned is exactly zero.
Breadth and fit of independent teaching experience matters a ton, TA experience not so much: You should make it really clear which courses you've taught independently, which courses you've only TA'd for, and how many times you've done each for a given course. At teaching schools like mine, amount and breadth of teaching experience matters a ton. TA experience is not very impressive, as we are not hiring TA's. You need independent teaching experience - the more, the better. Next to an actual publishing record, my sense is this is the single most important area on your CV for jobs at teaching schools. After looking at your AOS/AOC, whether you've graduated, and whether you have a publishing record, people at teaching schools are likely to skip directly to the teaching part of your CV - to see (1) how much independent teaching experience you have, (2) whether you have sufficient experience to teach the courses listed in the job ad, and (3) whether you have any experience teaching in other areas the department could use another teacher in. The more of (1)-(3) you have, the more competitive you will be; the less, the worse.
Graduate coursework can make a difference: This can actually be useful. If you have decent teaching experience that otherwise fits the job ad (see above) but the department would really like to hire someone who can also teach course X and you don't have teaching experience in that particular area, your graduate coursework can make a difference: for if you took a bunch of grad courses in X, the person reading may think, "Okay, their teaching section shows they can teach the courses in the job ad - and I see from their grad coursework they could probably teach in X too!". This is the only difference grad coursework might make - but it is a substantial one. Finally, don't list course grades: no one cares.
Leiter-rank doesn't matter (much): In the past, some people have complained on this blog about 'prestige-bias.' Helen De Cruz's recent study suggests there may indeed be some serious prestige bias in hiring by Leiter-ranked departments (in essence, if you want a TT job at a Leiter-ranked department, you had better come from a highy-Leiter-ranked department). Fortunately, when it comes to teaching institutions like mine, candidates should take heart. Having served on three search committees now--and having talked with people who have hired at other teaching institutions--I can report with a good deal of confidence that bias for candidates from highly-Leiter-ranked schools appears to be to be either zero or negative. Why do I think this? Many reasons. First, in all of the searches I have been on, candidates' Leiter-ranks have been mentioned exactly zero times. Second, we've hired faculty from all departments all over the map: highly-ranked departments, mid-ranked departments, low-ranked departments, and unranked departments. I have seen absolutely no preference for candidates from highly-ranked programs - and my friends who have hired at other teaching institutions report the same thing. Indeed, on the (very) few occasions I have heard Leiter-rankings mentioned, more often than not it's actually had a negative connotation (a person who hired me once told me, "Because you came out of Arizona, I was worried you wouldn't come here or stay. I'm glad we hired you, but it was something I worried about.")
UPDATES
Achievement per career stage matters a lot: If you're recently out of grad school and have accomplished a lot (viz. publications, teaching experience), that looks great. If you're a few years out and don't have many accomplishments, that' bad. But, here's the good news: even if you've been out on the market a while (I mean even well over 5-7 years), if you've accomplished a lot it really stands out in a good way, at least for jobs at institutions like mind.
I forgot to mention service (and don't know why, because it matters!): believe it or not, a candidate's service experience can be a real difference-maker. Have experience coaching debate teams? Running philosophy club? Editing your department's website? Etc. All of these things can make a very real difference. I've seen it happen.
Anyway, this is my overall sense about how people at teaching-institutions tend to think about CVs. Of course, my sense here could always be incorrect or idiosyncratic - so, as usual, I'm very curious to hear from other people who have been on the hiring side of things. I'd be particularly interested to hear about how people at different types of institutions (e.g. R1s, R2, regional state schools, CCs, etc.) think about CVs. In any case, I hope you all find the information helpful!
Again, to speak for the olds, how many AOSs/AOCs do you think are appropriate for three years out, or 5? Relative to publishing and teaching experience, of course, but when, roughly, is one justified in moving beyond a couple of each?
Posted by: Daniel Brunson | 05/11/2018 at 05:08 PM
Just a data point because I think it's important for everyone to keep in mind how much variance there is about this stuff: I had 3 AOSs and 5 AOCs, no publications, and offers from both a research school and a teaching school. I do think it's true that most people shouldn't list too many AOSs. On the other hand, sometimes people like me have to: my dissertation didn't fit comfortably in any area of philosophy, and no one could even say whether it was x, y, or z. So it felt like I had to claim all of x, y, and z. Also, from the hiring perspective, it's not obvious to me that it's not a good strategy for candidates to list as many AOS and AOCs as possible. I think it can help if there's someone at a school that is advertising in a given area or areas, and you are sort of on the edge, but the person really wants to push for you. In cases like that (suppose it's a phil mind job and you do phil science but there's some connection to mind), it will be easier for the person to push for you if you actually have listed what the job ad asks for as an AOS.
My experience was that I did get asked a lot about my three AOSs during actual interviews. So, you need to be able to talk and show that you know a lot about each and have actual research projects that fit in with each. But I don't think it's obvious that people shouldn't stretch as much as possible on CVs/cover letters/etc., because it seems like if one does that and applies for a job where one of one's stretch AOSs matches the job, one probably has a very marginally better chance of getting interviewed at that place than if one simply applies without claiming any of the advertised areas as AOSs.
Posted by: anonymous | 05/11/2018 at 05:47 PM
anonymous: good point, and thanks for sharing your example. Given how your work spans several areas, your number of AOS/AOC sound clearly legit. The thing to avoid (which I’ve seen) is listing like 5 AOS and 8 AOC. That just looks absurd. For most people, I think, 2 or maybe 3 AOS is about right, and 2-4 AOC tops. The important thing, as you note, is really having the stuff in your C.V. to back it up (beyond just a grad class or TA post). Anything much beyond this - 5+ AOS and 7-8 AOC - just comes across wrong (at least in my experience). But anyway, thanks for pushing back a bit - I agree there is some room for candidates to “bend” things. The problem I think is that far too many try to bend them way beyond plausibility.
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 05/11/2018 at 06:18 PM
I had 4 AOS's, and 4 AOC's, and it seemed to work okay. I think they were all legitimate too. My dissertation was a cross between 3 areas, and I had published in the fourth. If you claim something as an AOS/AOC, just have other evidence on your CV that supports it.
Also, I know more than a few institutions where presentations count toward research, and toward tenure. I was told this by the dean in an interview last year, and have heard this same things from friends.
Posted by: Amanda | 05/11/2018 at 07:27 PM
Hey Amanda: presentations definitely count toward tenure (though I would be very surprised if they ever actually tipped the scales one way or the other for an actual tenure decisions). Regardless, my sense is that even though they strictly count for tenure, they just don’t count for much at the job-application stage (where, research-wise, the focus is primarily publications and quality of research).
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 05/11/2018 at 07:49 PM
On the value of presentations ...
the principal value of presentations is that they provide opportunities to get feedback on your work. You present a paper, and people raise objections or make suggestions for further development. Then you revise the paper and get it published in a good journal. They also serve the function of keeping you connected with others in your sub-field. You can keep up with developments in your area. But if you cannot convert those presentations into publications then the presentations were not worth much.
Posted by: Present | 05/12/2018 at 01:19 AM
You might be right about hiring - it is true I think, at least at most places. But presentations do tip the scale for tenure - insofar as someone who has 5 presentations and one publication would get tenure at some places, where as having maybe one publication and one presentation would mean they did not. At least, this is what I have been told by people I trust who are in a position to know.
Posted by: Amanda | 05/12/2018 at 07:41 AM
I think I agree with Marcus that presentations carry little, if any, weight. Also, when it comes to hiring, presentations may just track the financial well-being and geographic location of the PhD-granting institution. Many candidates aren't on the East coast and so can't so easily present at events. Someone doing their PhD at UW Seattle, for instance, will have to almost certainly fly, meaning that if their institution doesn't provide much support for such things grad students won't be able to attend many conferences.
This was essentially my situation as a graduate student. It was hard for me to secure funding, and I definitely self-funded a few trips.
Also, as a panel member it is pretty tricky to determine the value of a presentation. Most conferences accept almost anything written in English. Others are surprisingly competitive (perhaps even more competitive than some good journals). My sense is that it is very difficult to determine which is which unless one's an insider. In my field, the philosophy of science, I know that ISH accepts everything while Philosophy of Science Association and Formal Epistemology Workshop is much, much more competitive. I'm not sure someone in history or ethics would realize this (and I certainly don't claim to know what the good/competitive conferences in history or ethics are!).
Posted by: I want to be fresh | 05/12/2018 at 07:13 PM
Do presentations at really selective conferences (e.g., MadMeta, SLACRR) count? And what about decently selective conferences like APAs or the Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress?
Posted by: Kate | 05/13/2018 at 03:30 AM
I've been on a search committee and will be again for the next two years at a research/teaching oriented school with more emphasis on research than teaching in tenure decisions.
To respond to Kate, I'd be impressed by selective conferences, but far more impressed by publications and the "oh nice, they presented at X" thought would not last long. When I evaluate files, it's really about how everything fits together. If you have one impressive conference presentation but no publications, that's not good. My sense is that, even at teaching schools, search committees have to think 5-6 years down the road about a candidate: will they make tenure? The more evidence in your file that you will make tenure, the better your chances are. This means that you need publications.
Also a few things about the CV:
1. It needs to look CLEAN. My advice is to follow the Professor Is In guide for style.
2. I caution against listening presentations at graduate conferences; it makes you look like a grad student.
3. If you have had job talks, DON'T list them on your CV. It's off-putting.
4. If you have taught courses that are not in your AOS or AOC, I like the "Areas of Teaching Competence" heading as a separate section to list those courses. This heading acknowledges that the course is not your thing, but that you have taught it - and, hopefully, your teaching evaluations back up that you did so competently.
Posted by: Anonymous TT prof | 05/13/2018 at 08:07 AM
“I'd be impressed by selective conferences, but far more impressed by publications and the "oh nice, they presented at X" thought would not last long...My sense is that, even at teaching schools, search committees have to think 5-6 years down the road about a candidate: will they make tenure?...This means that you need publications.”
Exactly. I’ll notice a very selective conference on a CV, but for all that it won’t make much of a difference: when it comes to research, it’s all about publications and writing sample.
“Also a few things about the CV:
1. It needs to look CLEAN. My advice is to follow the Professor Is In guide for style.”
Yes! Don't use a fancy/strange CV format or clutter up your CV with unnecessary stuff. Format and organize your CV like everyone else does, and let your accomplishments do the talking.
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 05/13/2018 at 08:16 AM
I put 4 AOSs on my CV (one of which was a specific sub-field of the first AOS) because my dissertation generally crossed sub-fields. I did fairly well on the job market, but as a sidenote, I would say I definitely heard from some faculty at R1-type schools that they felt I wasn't committed enough to a particular AOS, so while this may have expanded my options at more teaching-focused schools, this probably limited my options at (some) research-heavy schools.
Posted by: Lauren | 05/13/2018 at 01:05 PM
If someone is ABD, or their first year or two out, I think it is odd to hold grad student conferences against them. I mean it should be neutral. At the least it meant they were open to being engaged with the profession. And while many people might not know this (so it won't help you, I bet) some grad conferences are the most competitive conferences around. The Princeton/NYU and Harvard/MIT conferences get around 200-300 applications for only four spots.
Anyway I think we've settled it: conferences don't help a CV, at least it is pretty rare they help more than the smallest of ways. But they might be a good idea for networking. I think we've also settled that search committee members are idiosyncratic about a range of things, and you can't please everyone.
Posted by: Amanda | 05/13/2018 at 03:08 PM
I think conference presentations help in a vague way. That is, the difference between advancing to the next stage will never lie in one presentation (just as nobody is made bald by losing n rather than n-1 hairs). But having ten presentations rather than zero could be the difference in some cases.
Posted by: Recent grad | 05/13/2018 at 03:59 PM
"But having ten presentations rather than zero could be the difference in some cases."
It may be logically, metaphysically, nomologically, and epistemically possible. But I've been on three search committees now and have never once seen presentations make any appreciable difference at any point in the hiring process. I suppose my experience could be idiosyncratic, but for reasons expressed above, I'm doubtful.
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 05/13/2018 at 04:37 PM
Recent grad: "But having ten presentations rather than zero could be the difference in some cases."
Marcus Arvan: "It may be logically, metaphysically, nomologically, and epistemically possible. But I've been on three search committees now and have never once seen presentations make any appreciable difference at any point in the hiring process. I suppose my experience could be idiosyncratic, but for reasons expressed above, I'm doubtful."
This is surprising to hear, Marcus. You mean for all candidates at any career stage, it didn't matter? There have been occasions when my department has liked two candidates that have had nearly identical research outputs, with the exception that one candidate has been invited to present their work at a dozen or so more conferences in the past year alone, all over the world. This was some defeasible evidence that _people cared a lot more about the one candidate's work_, which suggested to us that it might go on to have a bigger impact.
It made a difference.
Posted by: E | 05/14/2018 at 02:28 AM
Our experiences are probably just different. We gave a person an on-campus for a VAP that we wouldn't have given had s/he not had a few APA presentations. S/he had no publications, so APA presentations were the best evidence of research competence.
Posted by: recent grad | 05/14/2018 at 07:24 AM
Hi E: thanks for weighing in. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re talking about “invited presentations” / “invited talks.” If so, then yes of course that would matter a great deal - it shows that someone’s work is so influential that people are going out of their way to invite the person to speak! But this is mainly (though not always) something that occurs at an advanced career stage, after the person has already made a substantial mark in the discipline. It’s worth recognizing that this can of course make a difference - but it is usually the case only for senior hires. What I think people were primarily asking about in this thread were ordinary (submitted rather than invited) conference presentations.
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 05/14/2018 at 07:25 AM
I remember attending conferences thinking they would help with the CV. The only real value of them seems to be networking if you’re good at that sort of thing. Otherwise I’d use the time and money to work on more important parts of the CV. I’m not sure about invited talks. I was always told they mattered even less. So although I had some invited talks, I didn’t put them on the CV. Maybe this was bad advice. I don’t know. Lots of conflicting advice to be found! Maybe for more senior people invited talks imply impact or popularity but for junior people it’s mainly about connections. Honestly I personally discount anything invited heavily.
Posted by: Pendaran | 05/14/2018 at 07:58 AM
That's right, Marcus. I had in mind invited talks, which in my experience, are often found on the CVs of some of the most competitive early career (1-3 year out) job candidates.
Unrelated question, Marcus (or anyone else): What is the norm for omitting TA experience on a CV? 1 year out? 3 years? n number of courses having been taught as primary instructor?
Pendarian: You received bad advice. The fact that a talk is invited is evidence that people care about a researcher, _regardless of the reasons (e.g. popularity, quality of work, whatever - it's all relevant) for which the department did the inviting_.
Posted by: E | 05/14/2018 at 08:21 AM
E: Interesting - that is certainly something well worth knowing!
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 05/14/2018 at 10:10 AM
Some quick thoughts:
1) I might omit things from a CV that scream "graduate student," like lists of courses taken, TAing, and (maybe) graduate conferences, unless they serve some particular role (like signaling competence to teach some course that is not otherwise supported). That is, I would include those "graduate student" things only if you don't have non-graduate student correlates. Marcus elsewhere has suggested you want to present yourself as a peer, and part of that is occluding what everyone knows, that you are (or were recently) a graduate student.
2) Otherwise, I would include every talk. Why not? It's true that the talks might not matter in terms of convincing someone you are great at your field, getting you tenure, etc., but you never know when someone knows someone. The conference talk might not help you get the Skype. But the conference talk might be grist for someone on a later flyout to say, "Oh, hey, I went to X, and it was great! Did you like it?" That is, the more breadth you've got, without seeming to be faking it, the more likely you're going to strike on a connection. I had exactly this experience about a minor conference paper, and it led to a conversation during a flyout, and then that fact was remembered later.
Short version: The CV serves multiple roles. One is to convince people to give you an interview. Another is to give people hooks for conversations in that and later interviews. I wouldn't overlook either role.
Posted by: Craig | 05/14/2018 at 12:08 PM
My first year I didn't include grad classes. My second year I did because I believe Marcus recommended it? (I think as a means to show teaching competence). If you are only a few years out, again it seems odd to hold this against a candidate, even if it doesn't help. It did not appear to be held against me, in my case.
So from what I've heard about invited talks, some faculty members take them very seriously (as evidence that you are a player in the field) and others think they are garbage. I guess I would err on the side of including them, since even those who don't like them probably wouldn't hold them against you...I think. They might matter more for research schools, I think...
Posted by: Amanda | 05/14/2018 at 03:29 PM
Hi Amanda: I agree, I think it is odd to hold grad classes against someone their first few years out.
Although I agree it is very important for one's CV to present one as a professional (rather than as a grad student), my experience is that a list of grad courses can very much *help* recent PhDs - in terms of giving people on the hiring side some evidence of potential teaching competence.
Insofar as recent PhDs tend to have comparatively little teaching experience, a list of grad classes can reassure the reader that the candidate could teach particular courses the department is looking to have taught by the new hire.
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 05/14/2018 at 04:37 PM
(1) A list of courses taken as a graduate student can help provide evidence for an AOC, just as having TA'd a relevant course can. (Ah! I see you took ancient Greek and ancient philosophy as a grad student; now I see why you were justified in putting "Ancient" as an AOC).
(2) I'd disagree with Anonymous TT's advice about not including job talks on the c.v. You shouldn't call them "job talks" but they should just be in your list of invited talks, as you would list any talk to which you gave a colloquium to a department.
(3) Mentioning your conferencing can also help people get to know you better. This is especially true if you presented a paper on a topic that you haven't published on yet. Once you're on campus (or at the interview stage, occasionally) someone might ask: Ah, I see you presented a paper on "Ever finer distinctions in Philosophy" - that's right up my alley! What was your paper about?" (so be prepared to talk about anything you list as a conference paper or work in progress, for that matter).
(4) After a few years out, you probably shouldn't bother to list graduate classes, though you might still want to reference back something (like that ancient Greek you took) if you haven't had the opportunity to teach Ancient in the mean time, and want to justify it as an AOC.
(5) Also: maybe its just me, and I've been lucky to go to the right conferences, but conferences actually help me with my research! People ask good questions and bring up good points that I hadn't considered - they often point me to things I didn't know about. Sometimes this happens over lunch or coffee, rather than at the formal presentation. But still, it's an important feature of conferencing. This is "networking", I suppose, but not in the sense that it matters who you meet, just that those you meet can often help you with your research.
Posted by: Chris | 05/14/2018 at 06:03 PM
Just to be clear to those who don't know: I take "invited" talk not simply to be a talk that wasn't peer-reviewed, but a talk that was given on the basis of a department literally inviting you to speak.
Posted by: Recent grad | 05/14/2018 at 06:26 PM