The Cocoon has now had several series offering job-market advice: a Job-Market Bootcamp, Notes from Both Sides of the Job-Market, and most recently the present series. I hope you have found these series helpful, and hope to continue to dedicate new series to the topic in the future. That being said, these series have offered a lot of advice, and I suppose it can be a bit overwhelming. Consequently, to simplify a bit, I thought it might be good to have a post discussing top-5 list(s) of job-market advice. I'll begin by offering (and explaining) my own top-5 list. Then I'll invite discussion of the list and also invite those of you who have experience on the market--either as job-candidates or search-committee members--to share your own lists. Here goes!
Although my list may or may not be correct, I found it surprisingly easy to put together. In my experience--as a many-year job-candidate, three-time search committee member, and given some empirical evidence I'll share below--the following tips are without a doubt my top 5:
Tip 1: if you want an R1 job, you had better come from a highly-ranked Leiter program. If you are not from a highly-ranked school, it can be incredibly difficult to publish your way into these jobs.
This tip isn't just my opinion. First, there is empirical evidence for it. In an article forthcoming in Ergo, our own Helen De Cruz found that, "There is a structural lack of upward social mobility in hiring practices: someone from a prestigious school may end up in a lower-ranked institution, but the reverse is unusual." (p. 4) Here is De Cruz's 'money chart':
Here is what this chart suggests: while it is not impossible to publish your way into a ranked research program, candidates graduating from PGR 21-50 and unranked programs are at a vast disadvantage in terms of competitiveness for ranked research programs. For instance, while 188 candidates from top-20 programs got jobs in ranked research programs, just fifteen candidates from unranked programs got jobs at one of those institutions. Second, this data coheres with my experience. I personally know candidates with multiple top-10, even top-5 publications (and, in one case, someone with a book with a top-5 press) who have still been unable to get jobs--and, visiting other blogs, I have found the following story remarkably common: "I have X number of top-ranked publications. Yet I get no interviews and will have to leave the profession." Helen's study can help us understand why. A while back I offered up a hypothesis that gained a lot of discussion on social media. The hypothesis was that many candidates coming from lower-ranked programs are being socialized into a counterproductive job-market strategy--the strategy of trying to compete with candidates from top-ranked Leiter schools. Again, none of this is to say that it is impossible to publish one's way into an R1 program. It is to say, if this is your plan, you had better know what you are up against.
Tip 2: if you are looking for "teaching jobs", be skeptical of the conventional wisdom you have been taught in grad school (e.g. that you need top-ranked publications to get a job).
Chances are, you were taught the same piece of conventional wisdom I was. That wisdom was simple: namely, "If you want to be competitive on the job-market, you need as many top-ranked publications as possible--and stay the heck away from bad journals. Search committees will hold it against you!"
Let me be clear. My experience has been unequivocal: the conventional wisdom I just summarized is laughably out of touch with reality. First, I know candidates with a bunch of top-ranked publications who get no interviews. Second, I gathered a bunch of job-market data years ago (which I did statistical analyses on in private), and guess what I found: the biggest correlate (by far) for new hires was...not top-5 publications...not top-10 pubs...not even top-20 pubs. It was total number of publications, regardless of where those publications appeared. And you know what? I tried that strategy myself. I stopped shooting for top-ranked journals, published a ton in lower-ranked journals...and my interview numbers and fly-outs skyrocketed.
Tip 3: you should decide which job-market you want to be competitive in, and go "all in" for that market.
Two other pieces of conventional wisdom, which I have questioned on this blog multiple times, are the ideas that there is one academic job-market, and that the job market is like professional sports, where the "best players" get the job. This is basically all wrong.
First, there isn't one market. There are multiple markets--the R1 market, SLAC teaching market, community college market, etc.--and search committees in different markets tend to look for different things. Second, the academic job markets do not plausibly work at all like professional sports. In professional baseball, the best hitters and pitchers get promoted to the big leagues. All of the clubs are looking for the same thing: the best pitchers, hitters, etc. However, what makes one the "best candidate" in one academic job-market (i.e. publications in top-ranked journals) can actually be counterproductive in other markets. I've seen it happen: if you are looking for a job at a teaching school, too many top-ranked publications can make you look like a flight risk. And believe you me, for right or wrong and better or worse, people on the hiring side of things care about this. When I was a candidate, I was told by people on more than one committee that they worried I would be a flight risk...and I don't even have top-ranked publications. If that is the way I was judged, can you imagine how search committees at small teaching schools might evaluate people with lots of top-ranked publications?
Second, I've seen the benefits of "choosing your job" market--and costs of not doing so--first and third-hand. As I mentioned above, I have a friend who has tried to publish their way into an R1 job. This person has a number of very highly-ranked publications. Yet they have not only not gotten a job. They hardly get any interviews--and approximately none from teaching schools. On the other hand, I have another friend whose unranked program has its graduates shoot for teaching programs (e.g. by focusing on getting their candidates teaching experience and developing their pedagogy). His grad-program's overall TT-job placement rate is something like 70% according to the ADPA report. If that is not an important job-market lesson, I have no idea what is.
Tip 4: be different.
I mentioned the importance of "originality" earlier in this series. I do not think its importance can be overestimated. As a job-candidate, you are in pile of anywhere from 100-500 candidates. Almost all of these candidates have received roughly the same job-market advice and preparation in their PhD programs. The unintended consequence is that PhD programs actually come across something like job-candidate Pez dispensers, churning out candidates who mostly look alike: candidates with similar publication numbers, similar teaching styles (usually traditional Socratic dialogue), similar dissertation projects (in many cases variations on the same currently-"hot" topic), and so on. It's not impossible to get a job this way. But, in my experience, the biggest difficulty candidates have is standing out. As a search committee member, you read dozens or hundreds of files, they all seem to blur into each others...and then someone is just...different. Their project is cool and different, their teaching style is unique and pedagogically well-explained and justified, they have been involved in university service, they have a public presence (perhaps as someone who does public philosophy)...and as a search committee member, you just think to yourself, "What a breath of fresh air!" Here's my advice: be that candidate. Be different. Stand out. Not every search committee member will like the way you stand out. But standing out is better than blending into the woodwork.
Tip 5: prepare assiduously--when it comes to your dossier, for first-round interviews, and on-campus interviews--and present yourself as a professional.
They say football is a "game of inches." The same is true of the job-market. Take it from Tony D'Amato in Any Given Sunday:
You know, when you get old, in life, things get taken from you. I mean, that's... that's... that's a part of life. But, you only learn that when you start losin' stuff. You find out life's this game of inches, so is football. Because in either game - life or football - the margin for error is so small. I mean, one half a step too late or too early and you don't quite make it. One half second too slow, too fast and you don't quite catch it. The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break of the game, every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone else around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch...And I know, if I'm gonna have any life anymore it's because I'm still willing to fight and die for that inch, because that's what living is, the six inches in front of your face.
Again, luck plays an unfortunate role on the market, as it does throughout life in this world (sigh). But I mean this seriously: if you absolutely kill it--if you have a good CV, one that shows you care about more than research; and if you present yourself the right way in your cover letter, teaching statement, research statement, not making the mistakes that many candidates make; if your prepare for and practice the hell out of your interviews, actually taking the time to learn about the place you're applying to; and so on...it all makes a difference. The job-market really is a "game of inches." Decisions about who to interview often come down to small things. A few interviewees blow their interviews, most perform roughly the same, and one or two kill it. It's the latter who tend to be hired. While there is much about Stoicism I disagree with, there is one thing I don't: as much of this life is out of your control, it's the parts that are under your control that you should focus on. Because those are the only things you can make a difference with...and they may well make the difference in the end. I've been on three search committees. I've seen it happen.
Those are my top-5 tips. They may be right, they may be wrong. As always, I am happy to listen to dissenting voices, and encourage you all to share your views, and indeed, your top-5 tips. But these are mine and the reasons I give them.
I think another tip worth mentioning is network and find an advisor or mentor who is going to work on your behalf to help you get a job, to help you publish, talk you up, introduce you to the big names in the field, and so on. Many of those I know who managed to get somewhere were great networkers, or had a lot of help from more senior faculty. Of course, you can't completely control what kind of person your advisor ends up being or how much he ends up liking you. You can't control, not entirely, whether you can find a good mentor. However, if you think you can get a job based simply on your own merit, especially if you don't have the pedigree, I think you'll be disappointed. So, I guess this tip could be summarized like so: As unintuitive as it might seem to some of you (I know it never occurred to me), don't spend all your time during your PhD reading and writing. Rather, be sociable, and find out how to get people to like you, remember you, think you're smart, and so on. (I've found that a good way to get people to think you're smart is to 1. use big words and 2. be fast on your feet, e.g. maybe memorize a series of witty but not condescending rejoinders). These things are as important to finding a job as your philosophical outputs (including your teaching, if you have the opportunity to do much of that in grad school).
I think a problem that many encounter, and I certainly think this applies to me, is that the type of person attracted to philosophy tends to derive more pleasure from reading and writing and thinking than from socializing or making friends. They may even find these activities annoying, frustrating, or boring. When we do have conversations with people, it's difficult not to just talk about philosophy, argue about philosophy, and when the conversation changes to something 'normal,' we bore fast. Moreover, we're kind of indoctrinated into thinking that the best philosopher is the loner who spends his time reading and writing and thinking and going for walks alone, think of famous figures like Kant and Wittgenstein. We're indoctrinated to think that the way you appear like a good philosopher is not to socialize too much or be too 'normal.' And we're happy to accept this indoctrination, because it fits perfectly with our personalities. Unfortunately, we're still human and subject to all the biases that humans are subject to, so when it comes to hiring even if we're not that sociable, it's going to be impossible not to prefer people we've heard good things about from friends or people we respect, and so on. In fact, it might even be entirely rational for us to do this. So, get out of your room, away from the computer, and try to 'put yourself out there' so to speak. Try to learn to be memorable and affable and friendly. Get people to like you and talk about you and want to be with you.
Maybe one day we'll do away with interviews, introduce blind hiring, and base decisions mainly on merit (number of pubs, number of relevant classes taught, evaluations). However, until that time comes, those who have successfully gotten their name stuck in the minds of numerous faculty with positive associations attached will benefit over those who haven't. Those who can get people to talk behind their backs positively about them will benefit over those who aren't talked about or who are mainly talked about negatively, e.g. so and so is kind of irritable, or so and so is too serious, or so and so is too argumentative... So, work on your personality and trying to be likable. Probably there are 'tricks' you can use.
Postscript: I don't like that the discipline works this way. I don't condone it. But if your internal morality permits it, trying to be 'that kind of person' might pay off. Of course, this is more easily said than done. Alternatively, you can just be yourself, work your hardest, and take what comes, as long as it's recognized this isn't the best way to find a job.
Posted by: Postdoc | 07/06/2018 at 12:05 PM
Post doc: YES. I almost included that in my top-5, but am planning to discuss it in an upcoming post called “people matter” in my Midcareer Reflections series. My sense is that too many grad students are too idealistic, thinking that success in the field is all about what you put on paper. No, just as in every part of human life, we are not dealing with meritocratic robots. We are dealing with human *beings*—and humans have this odd tendency to want to help out other human beings they like but not help out those they don’t. It may or may not be fair or right, but early career people need to be aware of it—that like all professions, there’s a lot more to ours than simply what’s on your CV or in your published articles.
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 07/06/2018 at 12:12 PM
Though I think you are mostly wrong on this: “I've found that a good way to get people to think you're smart is to 1. use big words and 2. be fast on your feet, e.g. maybe memorize a series of witty but not condescending rejoinders).“
In my experience, this is almost always exactly the *wrong* way to be. This general strategy of trying to “one-up” others around you, trying to show off how smart you are (even if is not overtly condescending), in my experience at most works for a few Golden Boys who people already think are geniuses. In almost every other case—including my own past first-hand experience—my sense is that the strategy you suggest just turns people *against* you.
As I explained in my recent post on bitterness and resentment, my experience is that trying to be a good, helpful person works far better. The Boy Genius aside (and probably not even in their case), no one wants to be around someone who uses big words and speaks really fast. That just comes off obnoxious and egoistic. It’s no way to get people on your side. Instead, try being kind and helpful. Unless everyone thinks you're a genius, it works better.
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 07/06/2018 at 12:19 PM
Well, we’re just speculating based on our anecdotal data. There is empirical research in psychology about how to get ahead at work and etc. We should refer to that. However, in my experience the people who were thought to be really smart did three things:
1. They used big words.
2. They memorized a lot of names and those peoples views.
3. They were fast on their feet with rejoinders.
Of course 1-3 is not that relevant to philosophy but they seem to be really good at getting people to think you have a lot of potential.
Posted by: Postdoc | 07/06/2018 at 12:54 PM
I agree with Marcus on the big word thing. I know people who do that and they almost universally come across as trying too hard and it makes them look worse. I actually know one person like this in particular... and everyone I know talks about them behind their back because their attempts to use impressive vocabulary are transparent and obnoxious.
I do agree networking is very important. One of the main differences between people I know who succeed and those who don't are the successful people recognize thats success is not achieved *ONLY* through a C.V.
Posted by: Amanda | 07/06/2018 at 03:32 PM
I have no objections to any of this as advice, but I'd like to highlight just how brutal the "game of inches" quote really is.
**"On this team we tear ourselves and everyone else around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch."**
And in this context the thing we're clawing and tearing ourselves and one another to pieces for isn't truth or beauty or philosophical insights. It's just for the same thing we'd be struggling for in any other industry - often with better pay or security or with a less extended training/apprenticeship period.
Posted by: Derek Bowman | 07/10/2018 at 12:10 PM
Derek: I mostly agree. Life is brutal. It sucks that academia is not an island of non-brutality. Alas...
I will say, though, that some of us are scratching and clawing for truth and beauty. Although I know people who seem to treat philosophy as a game—one with winners and losers—I also know people who are sincerely pursuing truth and beauty. I sincerely believe that I am, and know others in the profession who believe that they are as well.
An unfortunate lesson of this post, and of the profession and human life more generally, is that whatever truth and beauty we seek has to occur in a brutal labor system. Such is life. I would be the first to wholeheartedly agree that it is sad. I wish the world were different in oh so many ways...
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 07/10/2018 at 12:27 PM