The Philosophers' Cocoon

Query on applying for dissertation fellowships

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

I'd be curious to hear advice about applying for dissertation fellowships, especially how to pitch one's dissertation proposal/summary to both philosophers and non-philosophers.

Good query! I'm probably not the best person to ask here, as I don't have any experience evaluating fellowship applications. However, I do have experience serving on several search committees for academic jobs, and in my experience candidate research statements often run into the following programs:

1. Too much jargon (using technical terms that outsiders may not understand).
2. Too much intricacy that only specialists are likely to understand.
3. Not enough time spent explaining in a down-to-earth, convincing way why the project matters.

While again I haven't read dissertation fellowship applications, I would not be surprised if they often run into similar problems. My general thought on these kinds of things--research statements and applications in general--is that it is vital to to explain and motivate one's research in simple, down-to-earth terms. You can't just assume that because you or people in your subfield think a problem is important that any odd reader will feel the same way. You need to be able to explain the importance of the problem and the importance of your research program in a way that anyone can grasp. This isn't easy--but in my experience it is what effective research statements and the like tend to do.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have either evaluated dissertation fellowship applications or been successful in applying for one?

Ferrin on 'Surviving the PhD'

Asia Ferrin (American University) has an informative post at Diverse Issues in Higher Education entitled, 'Getting to the Other Side: Surviving the PhD.' It contains some helpful info about what grad school is like, some of the challenges PhD students face, and some helpful tips for doing well. I would advise anyone considering or pursuing a PhD to check it out!

Steps for changing peer-review?

I've been arguing for changes to our system of peer-review for about six years now--specifically, in favor of the more "open" peer-review utilized in math and physics, where papers are posted to a public repository, discussed openly, and routinely cited even before being sent to journals. I've tried to catalog the benefits I think such a system would have in philosophy--for authors, reviewers, editors, and the profession. Further, some researchers have defended a similar proposal in more detail, in part by using empirical research on peer-review. To clarify, my argument is not that our current system is terrible in absolute terms or "broken" (though at least one editor has raised serious concerns about the viability of the status quo). Rather, it is merely my belief that we can probably do better--and that the math and physics is probably the way to do that.

I recognize the case that I and others have made for changing peer-review is still controversial. However, while not everyone agrees, one question that arises for those who it should is: what steps might individuals and the profession more broadly take to realize change? Peter asked this question (and more) in a recent comment, where he wrote:

[L]et's suppose that you are correct. How do you think we might begin transitioning as a discipline to something like what you suggest? Do you think it might start best with some subdisciplines beginning something like this (I know philosophy of science already has something a bit like this)? Do you think this would work better than trying to get something together discipline-wide (perhaps through PhilArchive, for example)? It is an interesting problem since it involves both a change in behaviors and norms on the one hand and the creation of an infrastructure that is designed for this purpose.

I've been thinking about these issues a bit, as change can only occur to the extent that people begin to take action. What types of actions might we take? What types, if any, should we take? Allow me to explore a few possibilities and then open things up for discussion (i.e. both further brainstorming as well as critical discussion).

Weekend wavelengths

This song really needs to be listened to all the way through to be properly appreciated:

More below the fold...

What's wrong with letters of recommendation

All of this.

Model Journals

Today I am going to set aside the question of whether we should radically alter our system of peer-review, whether by having a more open system that fed into peer-reviewed journals, or by getting rid of peer-review entirely.  Instead, I want to ask you all about journals that have great policies in place already, journals you think of as models of how our current system should work.

I am especially interested in the policies that particular journals have in place, rather than whether or not the experience of authors lives up to the promise of the policies.  For this reason, I am not interested (in this post) in talking about my own experiences with various journals.  Instead, I want to hear from others about journals that you think have excellent policies in place.  Doing this, I think, serves two functions.  First, it can help us think more carefully about what our policies should be by looking at examples of what others find exceptional.  Second, it can highlight some journals that deserve to be highlighted.

Choosing PhD programs: further issues to consider

There is an interesting discussion at Daily Nous regarding the importance of different kinds of teaching experience for the job-market. Readers may recall that the importance of teaching experience is something I discussed in the Cocoon's Secret Lives of Search Committees series. As I noted there, having served on several search committees at a teaching-focused institution, my sense is that many PhD programs do not emphasize teaching experience nearly enough. Teaching focused departments are looking for candidates who have more experience than just TA-ing. They are looking for candidates who have independent teaching experience--and breadth of it at that (since teaching-focused departments often need faculty who are prepared to teach many different classes, including ones outside of their AOS).

Query on submitting extra application materials

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

I have a small question but it is one that I know a lot of people face. When applying for jobs, is it always best to send exactly what the department asks for? Or is it sometimes better to send more materials if you have them? (I think this has been discussed but I can't find where.)

Also, more specifically: if a job asks for, say, two research and one teaching letter, but it is possible to send them more (e.g. whatever system they are using allows for additional uploads), should you send them more?

My thoughts about this were as follows: it's probably different for research-focused and teaching-focused jobs, and you should try to identify which category the job in question falls into. I worry that sending additional research letters to teaching-focused jobs communicates that you think of yourself as a researcher/writer more than a teacher/philosopher, or perhaps that you are aiming to get a more research-focused job. But for research-focused jobs, you should send as many letters (within reason--once you hit six or so it's probably just annoying to have more) as possible, if you are sure that they are very strong.

This is a good query, one I wondered about a lot as an applicant and didn't get much guidance for. I'm curious to hear what readers who have served on search committees think. For my part, I'm inclined to think it may be good to submit extra materials (i.e. additional recommendation letters) when applying to research jobs. However, my sense is that it is probably not a good idea to submit additional materials for teaching jobs. Allow me to explain.

Query on length & structure of teaching dossiers

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

It emerged in discussions in recent-ish memory that some people have pretty short teaching dossiers.

How are those structured? When I put together just all my course evaluations, from about 12 courses, I have about 25 pages of material.

More generally, I guess I would be interested in hearing about guidelines for minimum and maximum lengths of the various sub-sections of the dossier.

This is a good query, as in my experience many candidates go wrong here. In reply to anon's query, 'On the Search' wrote:

Committees just do not want to see all your teaching evaluations. Let us imagine you submit 25 pages of evaluations. And let us assume that 120 people are applying for a job. That means there are 3000 pages of teaching evaluations. Do you think any committee will read this much?

Having served on three search committees now, I entirely agree...

Virtues and Vices of our Peer-Review System

There has been quite a bit of discussion about problems with philosophy publishing. Marcus has had a number of very interesting posts on various problems or issues with the system (see, for example, here, here, here, and here), and he has been advocating for changes based upon practices in other fields (see, for example, here and here). 

In this post, I was hoping to hear more from the Cocoon’s readers about their views of article publishing (let’s leave monographs and edited collection to the side this time) from the perspective of a writer (not a referee or editor this time). What do you think works? What do you think is broken? Are your views based upon your own experiences, those of friends, research (like this paper that Marcus recently discussed), blog posts on the Cocoon and elsewhere, something else entirely? 

Reader query on posting drafts online

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

I'm curious about something in light of the recent posts regarding the peer review process and making it more like arXiv. Given the current peer review system we have in philosophy, warts and all, how would/do reviewers, editors, etc. respond to identifiable drafts posted to an archive like PhilPapers? I generally like the idea of moving towards a more identifiable preprint system for many of the reasons Marcus identifies, but I worry that posting my own work will negatively affect me by somehow impacting drafts once they are submitted. Am I right to worry about this? Wrong? How can one manage this, if it's a concern?

This is a great query, one I have wondered a good deal about myself. Indeed, it's the main reason I don't currently post unpublished drafts online, let along offer up drafts for feedback here at the Cocoon (which I think would be a great place for early-career philosophers to share and discuss drafts publicly). I worry that reviewers and editors may take openly posting unpublished drafts as subverting anonymous review, which might in turn influence review of the paper in a negative way.

Reader query about 'key selection criteria'

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

Jobs in the UK and Australia often ask applicants to complete forms detailing how they satisfy "key selection criteria." They seem like HR documents that no one ever reads. And they're often _very_ lengthy. Should these be taken seriously?

As I don't work in the UK or Australia, I am probably not the best person to answer this question. However, my sense is that key selection criteria matter a great deal in these markets in the sense that, yes, one had better address them in detail somewhere (either in your cover letter or a supplementary document).

You should never, ever, edit a volume and other blanket early career advice

Regularly, I see well-meaning and evidence-based advice for early-career people along the following lines

• Don't ever edit a volume. It's a lot more trouble than it's worth. It hardly counts for tenure/finding a job.
• Don't ever write a book review. Okay, perhaps if you really wanted to read this book in depth anyway, but even then, it's a waste of time. It doesn't help you network, it doesn't help you for finding a tenure track job, it does not count for tenure or promotion. Worse, if you're early career and you have mainly book reviews it might signal you are not able to write "real" papers. 
• Instead, you should focus on getting either (1) a single-authored paper in a top-5 (okay, maybe top-10) general philosophy journal or (2) a book contract for your single-authored monograph with OUP or a publisher with prestige. Those are things that will make you stand out. 

Etc. 

The question is: to what extent is such blanket career advice warranted? Obviously, if your CV is filled with book reviews and not a single paper, then it's going to raise questions and weaken your file. But the blanket advice seems to not take into account the broader experiences gained from editing volumes or writing book reviews.

Accountability Tools

While I was working on my dissertation proposal, I came across Robert Paul Wolff’s blog post “How to write a doctoral dissertation in philosophy.”  For the most part, I thought it was great. (I just reread it for the first time in years.  I still think most of it is great advice.)  I thought it was so great I emailed it to several of my classmates who were ABD.  Some of them hated it, and so we all took a break from the serious business of grad school to argue about it. I have no intention of returning to that argument here.

Instead, I want to talk about just one of the things that Wolff says.  Here it is:

On the first day, write one page and stop. The next day, write another page, and stop.... If you are able to, write two pages a day.... Also, do not write four or five pages on a really good day and then figure you can take a few days off. Those few days will stretch into eternity. You are a tortoise, not a hare. Slow and steady wins the race....

He also suggests the following for those who might need extra motivation, but I think it might be of use even to those who are fairly self-disciplined:

…cut a deal with a fellow dissertation writer. You will send her a page a day by email, and she will send you a page of her dissertation every day by email. You will read her page [it only takes a minute] and send back an encouraging word, and she will do the same for you.

How can we help you? (August 2018)

Now that the academic year and j0b-market season are here, I thought it might be a good time to run another 'how can we help you?' post (I'm going to try to run one of these posts each month now, given the helpful questions we receive!).

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Tips for starting a new job or grad program
• Publishing
• Teaching
• The profession
• Work-life balance
• More personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help!

Reader query on moving jobs

In the comments section of our new job-market discussion thread, Anonymous SLAC-er writes:

I have a job market question that may or may not belong here. If not, please feel free to ignore. The reason I say it may not belong is that I was just granted tenure this year. I am very happy about this, of course, and recognize that in many ways I have won the academic lottery. However, for a variety of reasons I do not want to spend my entire career at my current institution. My question is about applying for jobs now that I am an "Associate." Should I bother to apply for a position advertised at the Assistant level or not? If I do apply to such positions, should I make clear in my letter that I am hoping to be considered at the Associate level? More broadly, is there any hope to move after one has tenure if one is not also a "name" in the field?

As I've known more than a few tenured people on the market looking to move, I think these are great questions--ones that a fair number of readers may be interested in answers to! In reply, I Am Moved wrote:

You can move. I would not bother applying for assistant prof positions UNLESS you want to redo the march to tenure. Most places won't bargain on this. They may have only been approved for a entry level position. You had better have something to offer, if you think you can move. Do you have special administrative abilities (can Chair a dept with success) or some notable research accomplishment. Otherwise you will not likely look like such a great catch. A WORD OF WARNING: applying for jobs sometimes produces discontent in your current job. That is, as you apply you imagine moving, and then see more and more reasons why you want to move!

Interesting. I guess I would have thought given how few Associate jobs seem to be advertised, that unless you are a really great catch (or alternatively, willing to move abroad), the chances of securing another Associate job are slim to none. Is this wrong? I'm also curious about I Am Moved's suggestion that administrative abilities like success Chairing a department might help in moving. 

In any case, it might be good to hear more from people who have moved. Were you able to move from one tenured Associate job to another? Or, did you have to apply for Assistant jobs where you would have to go up for tenure again? And, if you moved successfully, what did your CV look like? 

Protecting authors in peer-review

Readers may recall that I have dedicated quite a bit of time to arguing for systemic changes to our peer-review process--specifically, for moving away from "anonymized review" in favor of the kind of "open online" peer-review model utilized in math and physics. Why I have I dedicated so much attention to this topic?

One set of reasons (the ones emphasized in the posts linked to above) is that I think such changes are likely to have substantial benefits for everyone--for authors, reviewers, editors, and the profession at large (by, among other things, improving the dissemination of new research). I have tried to draw attention to these benefits in large part because, or so I have argued, the oft-ascribed benefits of "anonymized" review are dubious and probably illusory ("anonymized" review really isn't in the digital age). Interestingly, Remco Heesen (Cambridge) shared a draft of a paper co-authored with Liam Bright (LSE) defending similar conclusions using empirical research:

We think there are a number of clear benefits to abolishing pre-publication peer review. In contrast, while various benefits of the existing system (downsides of abolishing peer review) have been suggested, we do not think there exist any that have clear empirical support. Insofar as empirical research exists, it is ambiguous in some cases, and speaks relatively clearly against the claimed benefit of the existing system in others...[Consequently], we claim that the present state of the evidence suggests that abolishing pre-publication peer review would lead to a Pareto-improvement: each factor considered is either neutral or favors our proposal. (p. 3, my emphasis)

However, the likely benefits alluded to above--to authors, editors, reviewers, and the profession--are not the only reasons that I think we should favor change. More deeply, I have long worried that "anonymized" review--far from ensuring fairness (as often claimed)--plausibly places authors at serious and undue career risks, particularly early-career and less-established authors. Allow me to explain.

Job-market reporting thread (2018-19 season)

Each year, readers ask for threads for discussing and reporting news on the job-market. I just posted this season's discussion thread here. Please visit that thread if you are interested in discussing/commiserating about this year's market. The current thread (below) is for reporting news on the market (i.e. reporting interviews, flyouts, offers, hires, and so on). Although it should go without saying, commenters are asked to remember the Cocoon's supportive mission while reporting. 

Note: I've placed permalinks to both threads on the right-hand side of blog.

Job-market discussion thread (2018-19 season)

Each year, readers have asked for place to discuss and commiserate about the job-market. While I recognize it's early in the job-season, jobs are already starting to go up at philjobs. Given how active last year's discussion was, I figured I might as well open up a new thread. This is that thread.

In the comments section below, please feel free to engage in general job-market discussion, such as discussing particular job ads, applications, questions about your dossier materials, how the job-market looks in general, and more personal issues (such as personal worries, etc.). The only caveat is that readers should bear in mind the Cocoon's supportive mission. This is not a place to engage in gossip, who does or does not "deserve" a job, etc. This is intended to be a supportive place, not a place to cast aspersions or tear people down.

Please feel free to share this thread, which will be listed as a permalink on the right side-bar of the blog for the remainder of the job season. Also, please note that there is a separate job-reporting thread to list updates on the job-market, such as which departments have proceeded to first-round interviews, on-campus interviews, filled a given position, and so on.

Reflections on my upcoming 40th birthday, hitting targets, and our relevance in the profession

In less than a month, I will be 40 years old. 

In my early 30s, I took away my date of birth from social media and from my CV.

The reason behind this was that I worried about being regarded as "past my prime", especially for hiring committees. It took me a while to get funding for my PhD and then it took me a while to get a second PhD, as well as several postdoc positions. I also had two children. My partner was the primary caregiver for both through their early years, so I only took a few months off for each birth. Still, this all takes time--and time goes on inexorably. 

In the past I could not help thinking, "By age 40, I should..."

• Have a permanent job, check. Still, what is permanent these days? 
• Bought house, nope. Too expensive. 
• Published a paper in one of the top-3 philosophy journals, nope. (I should start writing in a different way and actually submit to these things, so it doesn't seem to be that big a priority). Etc. 

We use age as a measuring-rod, a series of checkpoints that we should have reached. Seeing younger people getting all sorts of accolades and accomplishments fills us with gladness for them, but also amps up our insecurity, as if we're missing the targets we need to hit. A bit like looking at the ultrasound of a gestating fetus, there are these set checkpoints that we evaluate ourselves by. By age x I surely should have accomplished y. Otherwise, there's a problem.

Why analytic philosophers of religion might want to be a little less orthodox

I recently accepted to be an executive editor for the Journal of Analytic Theology, and will be joining the team with Mike Rea and Oliver Crisp (senior editors) and Kevin Diller (executive editor). JAT is an open-access, interdisciplinary journal that fosters analytic approaches to theological topics, including analytic philosophy of religion. I'm excited to be a part of this, and it will be my first major editorial role (I'm on the board of other journals but it's not quite the same as co-managing a journal).

One thing I've noticed among analytic philosophers of religion is that they are fairly orthodox. You don't see analytic philosophers of religion (hence aPoRs) defending, say, Arianism or Pelagianism. Indeed, you will often see aPoRs arguing at length something like "Now at first, my approach may seem Pelagian, but it's really in line with the Catholic tradition"--or something to this effect. I even saw the acknowledgment section of an article in aPoR where the author thanked two other philosophers from saving him from heresy. 

Writing Groups

For my first few posts, I wanted to talk about writing.  In particular, I wanted to talk about practices—both individual and communal—related to writing.  I am interested in how the act of writing (and the act of avoiding writing, for that matter) is related to other behaviors.  I am also interested in how we might better integrate the act of writing into our lives, perhaps to make us more productive, or perhaps simply to make us happier.

Novel teaching practices?

Judging by my social media feed, many of my philosopher friends and acquaintances are doing what I am right now: syllabusing, putting together syllabi for the fall semester. In my case, it's been unusually fun. As I shared last week, I'm putting together a pop culture and philosophy course featuring all kinds of media: films, songs, poetry, short stories, etc. (by the way, thanks for all of the recommendations in that thread; they've been super helpful!). It's been cool to put together a new course like this--one I'm truly excited about. It's helped rekindle my enthusiasm as a teacher, reminding me how fun teaching can be.

Anyway, one of the things I'm doing in the course is experimenting with some new teaching practices--things I haven't done before. As with all experimentation in teaching, some of things may work out well, others not. But it occurred to me this morning: why not share our novel teaching practices? Sharing the different things we do and try out in the classroom might be a fun and mutually beneficial exercise, giving us all insight into new things we might try ourselves. So, in the comments section below, I'd like to ask those of you who are willing to share some of the novel things you do as teachers. Allow me to begin by sharing a few of mine.

Love vs. career

I came across this old Daily Nous thread on what professors would tell grad students but can't (via this newer thread), and was struck by the very first comment by 'Old Prof', which reads:

If I could say anything to a grad student, it would be this: that the only thing that is worth anything in this world is love. (Obv I can’t say this)." 

The comment didn't receive all that many "thumbs up" or much discussion. Nevertheless, it spoke to me in a very personal way. It got me thinking not only about a recent experience I had as a mentor to another early-career philosopher, but also about own personal path and second-hand experience of other people's paths. The more I reflected on these things, the more it occurred to me that there are a lot of really important issues worth discussing here that seem to be rarely discussed publicly: namely, how academics (particularly early-career academics) can often be torn between personal relationships and their career, and indeed face agonizing questions about how to resolve these conflicts. 

New contributor: Peter Furlong

I am happy to introduce a new contributor to the blog: Peter Furlong (Assistant Professor, Valencia College). Peter received his PhD from the Catholic University of America in 2013 and works on the philosophy of agency, the philosophy of religion, and the history of medieval philosophy. His work has appeared in journals including Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Res Philosophica, Faith and Philosophy, and Sophia, and he is currently finishing up a book under contract. Peter has shared some helpful thoughts with me about writing that he may blog about, so I'm very much looking forward to his posts. Welcome Peter!

On a related note, if you're interested in becoming a contributor yourself, just shoot me an email at [email protected]. I'm always hoping to get more and diverse voices on board as contributors!

Should journals discourage repeat reviews?

I recently reviewed a paper for a journal, and was struck by a check-box in the online reviewer form that I recall encountering before. The check box asked something like, "Would you be willing to have your review forwarded to another journal if the manuscript is submitted elsewhere?" This in turn got me thinking about a broader phenomenon: reviewers reviewing the same manuscript at different journals. I've encountered this phenomenon on social media before, the typical case being a reviewer saying something like, "I rejected this paper at one journal. Then I got asked to review it again at a new journal, and because the author didn't seem to revise it in light of my feedback at the first journal, I just attached my first review advocating rejection at the second journal."

Another kind of attrition rate

In my recent post addressing a reader's query on how to choose between PhD programs, I suggested the reader should focus less on the reputation of a program or particular advisor and instead focus more on programs' attrition rate (i.e. how many people don't finish the program) and job-placement rate. The other day, however, an anonymous comment inadvertently drew my attention to another salient issue that in my experience is rarely discussed: what I will (for lack of better words) call post-PhD attrition rates. Allow me to explain what I mean, and why I think it may be good as a new disciplinary norm to expect programs to track and make them clear on their placement webpages.

JHP opportunities for early-career scholars

I've been asked to post the following set of announcements by The Journal of the History of Philosophy, which includes a number of opportunities (travel grants, fellowships, and one award) for early-career philosophers:

JHP ANNOUNCEMENTS

–––––––––––––––

Master Classes in the History of Philosophy

Sponsored by The Journal of the History of Philosophy

Mindful of the challenges facing young scholars working in the history of philosophy, the Board of Directors of the Journal of the History of Philosophy has established a program of Master Classes in the History of Philosophy. The central idea of the program is that a senior scholar who works primarily in some area of the history of philosophy would undertake to direct an intensive week of master classes for the benefit of a small group of recent Ph.D.’s whose main research and teaching are in the relevant area. Normally, the classes will focus on one or more texts that are typically not part of material that the participants would have studied as graduate students. The goal of the program is the enhancement of the expertise and understanding of the young scholars in their area of specialization.

Mid-career reflections - part 8: on fear in the discipline

When I started the Cocoon a little over six years, I didn't have many hopes for it. I was just a struggling early-career scholar with few friends or professional contacts in the discipline (due, admittedly, to some bad choices I made early on). I started the Cocoon not because I expected anyone to read it, but simply because I was sick of feeling isolated and alone in a discipline that seemed to me to incentivize those things. My only hope in starting the blog was that I might find a few similarly-minded others: people like me who were sick of feeling alone, and who wanted to help each other make their path through the discipline just a little bit better.

In some ways (many ways), the Cocoon succeeded beyond my wildest hopes. It seems to be widely read, at times has had a good stable of contributors, has been a wonderful way to get to know other people (and helped me feel far less isolated), and I've often heard people say complimentary things about it (though maybe they're just being nice). However, there's one major thing about the Cocoon that has been a persistent disappointment, at least for me--and that is how few early-career people have joined as contributors. I will be frank: since day 1, I've always hoped the Cocoon would really bloom--that early-career people would come out of the woodwork left and right to congregate here to post regularly and speak their minds: sharing their work, discussing their career struggles, and so on. Yet, while there are many commenters--as well as people who have (mostly anonymously) shared professional questions and career struggles in our "how can we help you?" series--the blog has consistently had few official contributors...and these days it is basically just me and sometimes Helen.

I've often wondered why so few early-career people blog. It could of course be anything: maybe people think they have better things to do (like, you know, research and teaching). However, I've asked people about this on occasion, and every time I've done so the dominant answer seems to be very different: fear. Fear of what search committees might think. Fear of what other philosophers might think. And so on (see the comments section above). If this is the truth--and it appears to be--I think it is just terrible. It is the reason why I began the Cocoon in the first place: because I was sick of living alone and in fear. I wanted a better profession than that. And yet--or so it seems--the fear is still there. Why? And how should we grapple with it?

Would you choose your AOS again?

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Amanda asks: "if you were starting your PhD (in philosophy) over again, would you study the same AOS, why or why not?" 

Great question! A while back at an Eastern APA meeting, I had a good discussion with another early-career philosopher who said he thought many grad students don't give their choice of AOS nearly enough thought. As he put it, many of the grad students he knew just picked whatever AOS interested them the most. While there may be something admirably authentic about this, his sense was that many of them found themselves in a bad position later on because they picked an AOS where there were too few jobs. And indeed, readers may recall I've done some informal reporting in recent years of jobs by AOS...and the data are pretty striking. Some AOS (particularly ethics) have consistently comprised a large proportion of advertised jobs, whereas other AOS (aesthetics and "core" areas) appear to have far fewer jobs available. For this reason and others, I agree with Amanda: it would be great to hear how people feel about their choice of AOS in retrospect. Here, in brief, is my answer...

Songs, art & poetry on philosophical issues

As I mentioned a while ago, this fall I will be teaching a lower-division philosophy course on pop culture and philosophy. I am super excited about the course, which will pair traditional philosophical readings with things ranging from films, to television episodes, visual art, poetry, popular essays, and songs. However, I could really use some help on songs, poetry, and art.

Here are the philosophical issues I have on the syllabus:

• God's existence
• The ethics of faith and belief
• Religious epistemology (viz. revelation, argument, scripture)
• Divine hiddenness & atheism
• The problem of evil
• The afterlife and potentiality of divine judgment (viz. heaven and hell)
• Ethics (a module introducing moral theories, including non-Western thought, at a beginnger's level)
• Happiness & meaning in life
• Love
• Friendship
• Racism
• Feminism, sexuality & consent
• Death
• Disability
• Bearing & raising children
• Individuality
• Free will
• Non-Western perspectives on life and death
• The nature of reality

I realize this is a ton of topics to run through in a semester--but this is sort of how I roll, especially for lower-level courses, where my primary aims are to (i) get students excited about philosophy, (ii) introduce them to philosophical questions I hope will fascinate them and show them why philosophy is worth doing (qua the many questions it examines relevant to our lives), and (iii) get them to think independently about these questions at a beginner's level.

In any case, do you know of any songs, poetry, or artworks that speak to any of the above issues? I'm hoping to include a good mix of works that my students are likely already familiar with (e.g. popular songs), especially works that speak to students of diverse backgrounds and perspectives, as well as works they might be unfamiliar with (i.e. things "before their time" - for instance, I already have a couple of Pink Floyd songs, a Leonard Cohen song, and Joy Division song on the syllabus, along with ‘This is America’ by Childish Gambino/Donald Glover). Many thanks to anyone and everyone who chimes in!

Reader query on reading vs. writing

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

I guess this might help me in terms of understanding my own attitude toward the profession. I am curious whether most philosophers like writing or reading philosophy more? Also, I am curious whether most philosophers read things they like, or mainly read for the purposes of their own research. Either way, what percentage of the philosophy that you read do find intellectually fulfilling? 

I too am curious to hear people's answers. Here are mine...

Job-market series links

Seeing as the academic job-market will be ramping up over the next couple of months, I thought it might be helpful (especially to new readers of the blog) to link to the Cocoon's various job market series. Here they are!:

• Job-Market Boot Camp
• Notes from Both Sides of the Market
• Notes from Search Committee Members
• Secrets of Search Committee Members
• Long Job-Market Journeys
• Alt-Ac Workshop
• Full list of posts with job-market tag

Good luck to everyone this year, and please do let me know if there is anything new job-market related you'd like to see on the blog!