The Philosophers' Cocoon

Query: managing disrespectful students

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, 'This isn't high school' writes:

How do people handle disrespectful students? I have in mind primarily the sleepers, the constant chatters, and those who refuse to engage even when called upon. I've experimented with different responses, some subtle and some quite strict. But I'm curious how others have handled these sorts of situations.

Great question! I'm not entirely sure why, but I've had fewer disrespectful students the longer I've been teaching. So I haven't had to handle these sorts of issues much recently. But I do have a few thoughts, and am curious to hear from other readers!

How does the job-market look?

I know know the job-market is stressful--but I'm curious what people's impressions about this year's market are so far:

1. How does the market look as a whole (better, worse, or roughly the same as recent years)?
2. Any noticeable trends (types of positions, changes in application processes, etc.)?
3. Are any AOS's having particularly good or bad years?

Anyone interested in chiming in? Our job-market discussion and reporting threads have been a bit quiet so far, though I know it is early still!

Query on grad program attrition

Mike Titelbaum (University of Wisconsin-Madison) wrote in by email:

I am a big fan of The Philosophers' Cocoon, and occasionally jump into the comments section...[But] There's something that occasionally comes up on Cocoon threads and elsewhere that bothers me...

Often when we counsel students comparing graduate schools, we suggest that they look (among other things) at the percentage of admits who complete the program. The underlying implication seems to be that higher completion rates indicate a better program. But this seems to me out of step with another discourse floating around the internet in general and the Cocoon in particular—that deciding as a PhD student that you don't want to become an academic isn't a failure in any sense.

Sometimes a department has a low completion rate because they're unsupportive, are chasing out certain students, or have a toxic environment. But PhD students leave programs for many reasons, including that the program has done a good job of revealing to them what the academic life is like, and they've decided it isn't the life for them (even though it might be available to them). If a department was pressuring people to stay and finish their degree despite having had such a realization, that would enhance their completion rate but it seems to me would be the kind of department that I would discourage a student from joining.

There's also presumably a big selection effect here. Different departments wind up with different kinds of students.  Some populations might be more inclined to decide that academia isn't for them and leave their program before completing. That would hurt a department's completion rate, but perhaps indicate nothing bad about how the department treats students once they arrive. In fact, if a department is more willing to take a risk on certain types of students who might not finish, that might be a good sign about that department's atmosphere and goals.

As I said, this is just something that's been bothering me. I have absolutely no empirical data on any of this, and not even much anecdotal data. But if you're measuring a department by its completion rate, then you're assuming the sole goal of a PhD program is to create PhDs (and possibly then academics). Perhaps instead the first goal of a PhD program should be to help students figure out whether writing a dissertation, completing a PhD, and then becoming an academic is the right path for them?

I think Mike raises really good points here. In email discussion, I suggested that perhaps the best thing to do is to compile and make more transparent both qualitative and quantitative data regarding attrition and job-placemtn.

Letters for fellowships and grants?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Amanda asks:

If you have a TT job and are thinking of applying to fellowships and such (things where you get extra money to do research but are not looking to move jobs), is it typical to have letters of recommendation from your colleagues? In general, do LORs change, as far as who writes them, once you are in a TT position?

Seems to me like the optimal thing to do here is clear: try to get letters from influential, recognized names in the profession. But, in lieu of that, sure, getting letters from current colleagues seems fine (though I wonder how seriously they will be taken by fellowship or grant committees given that they are colleagues with a vested interest in your success). That being said, I am just speculating here, as I have no real experience applying for fellowships or grants. So I'm probably not the best person to ask.

What about those of you who have experience in these areas? Any helpful tips for Amanda and others in her position?

Good open-access journals?

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

I like the idea of publishing my research in open access venues, since I find the for profit journal industry contrary to the academic ideal. My solution is to try to at least aim first for publishing at open access journals. If my papers get rejected from these, then I will submit them to the standard “respectable” journals. In this way I give open access journals first dibs. But, since I am currently a postdoc and I need to make sure I get published in journals that others (hiring committees) consider “respectable.” My question is what are considered leading open access journals. The only one I can think of in philosophy is Philosophers’ Imprint. It would be very helpful for my aim to compile a list of other OA journals that are considered respectable.

Good query. Ergo immediately comes to mind. So too, at least in ethics and social-political, does JESP. But beyond these, I'm not too familar with which philosophy journals are open access, let alone considered "respectable." 

Anyone have any insight here?

Jumping ship: how to move from a tenure-track or tenured position to another

When I was an innocent postdoc I could never understand why people, after finally resting from their labours and anxieties of the job market, would actually want to move jobs.

Sure, there are offers you can't refuse (but few of us get those!), but why would you try to find another job if you're already in a tenure track, or even tenured?

Now I can see many reasons for why people would want to move, including, but not limited to the following: 

• Lack of job prospects for a spouse, especially a problem if the spouse is an academic. It being a buyer's market, few schools offer spousal accommodation. 
• A high teaching load, e.g., 4-4 or even higher. I recently heard of someone who had a 6-6 load!
• Low wages, or too high cost of living in relationship to the salary
• The department is at risk of cuts or being closed down altogether (tenure does not protect against this)
• The department is plagued by in-fighting, harassment or other things that disrupt departmental harmony
• You don't like the area where you live

This blog tends to prioritize people who have no tenure track job yet both in our mentoring scheme and in our blogposts. But now, we would like to hear from readers who made a move from one tenure track or tenured position to another. 

Please send your stories, or comment below with any insights you might have on how to approach the job market as a tenure-track or tenured faculty member. How did you search? What did you mention in your cover letter (anything on reasons for moving, or did you solely focus on pull factors?) Who were your referees? Were people at your department aware you were looking to move? How did you negotiate? 

We're interested in tenure track to tenure track, tenured to tenured, and also tenured to tenure track (it has happened!), and any other combination. 

Work-life balance during the PhD?

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asked if we could have a thread on work-life balance during the PhD. I'm probably not the best person to give tips here. On the contrary, I'd probably benefit from such a discussion as much as anyone!

While I do have a couple of strategies for preserving some work-life balance--I never work in the evenings, and rarely on weekends--for the most I've never been able to achieve what I take to be a good work-life balance. During my PhD, when I felt like my life was too dominated by work and tried to cultivate a life and hobbies outside of academia, I ended up spending too much time on those things, and not enough time on work. Conversely, ever since I've become a faculty member, I've been on the opposite extreme, spending the vast majority of time on work, and not enough time (by my own estimation) enjoying life. In truth, I've never been very good at half-measures. When I do something, I tend to go "all in." I wish, though--especially here--that I could do better, and could have done better during my grad studies. 

So, then, do any of your have any good tips for work-life balance--specifically, during the PhD? It might also help to hear from people whether similar tips work for faculty!

Query: publishing in community college jobs

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, '1st time on the market' writes:

Does anybody have examples of folks who teach philosophy full-time at a community college and still manage to publish decent work? I plan to receive a PhD this spring from an unranked program and have wondered whether I would be able to continue publishing (I've got one published paper right now) if I had to "settle" for a cc job.

While I recognize that some people may regard a community college job as "settling", I've heard from a number of people that they can be great jobs--jobs they are happy with, and which may be better in some respects than jobs at R1's or SLACs (I've heard the stresses of tenure at R1's--not to mention tenure denials--can be absolutely brutal; and the overall workload at SLACs--spanning research, teaching, and service, etc.--can be crushing too!). I'm also not sure how I feel about parsing out examples of people who (or do not) "publish decent work." That being said, answering this reader's general query may be helpful: is it feasible to publish consistently in good places while working full time at a community college? I think it might be good to hear from readers, including people who work at community colleges themselves--as it might give grad students and job-candidates a better picture of what such jobs are actually like.

For my part, I personally know a number of people who work at CCs who do good work and are very research-productive. One friend of mine, Gregg Caruso, has worked at Corning Community College for years. He's published a number of books and articles in places like Phil Studies, Ergo, and Erkenntnis; has made a name for himself in his field; earned tenure as a full Professor, and gained honorary and visiting appointments at four-year universities--all with a heavy teaching load. Gregg's productivity is astonishing--and he's far from the only person I know who is a successful community college researcher!

Anyone else have any insight or experience they'd like to share here?

Teaching videos for the job-market?

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

Something I've been wondering about: Do you think there is any benefit to taking videos of, e.g., lectures, talks/presentations, etc. and sharing them in one's portfolio in the relevant place? The advantage, I would think, is that it serves as further evidence of the kinds of claims one is making about teaching/research skills.

My guess is that 99% of committees will ignore them, but that it couldn't hurt to put them out there. I'm reasonably confident about the former, but less so about the latter.

In response, another reader wrote:

[T]he catch is you have no right to video record your students. You would need them to sign release forms, and to be given the option to leave the lecture that day. Certainly this is the case in America.

Fair enough - but suppose you were to get permission. Is there any chance of it benefiting a candidate by having a link to a teaching video in their portfolio? And it is true that "it couldn't hurt to put them out there"? 

Phasing out letters from dissertation committees?

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Number Three asks: At what point should I stop asking dissertation committee members for letters of recommendation? Two years post-PhD? Four? More?

I will be curious to hear what other people think. However, my own thoughts (based on my seven-year experience on the market and time on three search committees) are these:

1. It is not at all clear to me that you should ever stop using letters from your committee.
2. But it is a good idea get additional outside letters to supplement them.

My only evidence for these two claims is admittedly anecdotal, but here it is...

Reader: what are teaching schools looking for?

In an email query this weekend, a reader asked:

"Teaching schools" (whatever vague and ill-defined collection of institutions that picks out) claim to value teaching. So one would think that applications at teaching schools would be evaluated along broadly the following lines:

(1) Will this person stick (e.g. Can this person do whatever is needed to get tenure, and are they going to stay and try to get it?)? If no, discard the application; if yes, go on.

(2) Do they have evidence of their ability to teach? If no, discard the application, if yes, go on.

(3) Among those that are left, look for those with the most evidence of having ability to meet our teaching needs.

This seems sensible. But here's the deal: I meet (1) for sure. And I have taught (actually taught; not just TA'd) more than 40 courses. And I've taught broadly. And I have great evaluations. So I *feel* like teaching schools should be beating down my doors. But they aren't.

Approaching the job market: not a lottery or about philosophical worthiness

(UPDATE: comments now open!)

This is a guest post by Meghan Sullivan. She is Professor of Philosophy and the Rev. John A. O’Brien Collegiate Chair at University of Notre Dame, and has lots of experience with job searches. 

Jonathan Kramnick's observations about changes in the MLA job market transfer to the philosophy market.

And while the job process is certainly high stress for all involved (especially the candidates), I don't think it needs to be as mysterious as it is often portrayed to be.

I am part of a big research department, that is nearly constantly hiring, that serves a philosophy-theology based core curriculum, and that places a high value on collegiality and pluralism. Like many of my colleagues, I've served on a bunch of search committees for the past seven years and as part of many students' job searches. Here is the guidance I give job candidates to try to take the mystery pressure out of the whole thing.

1. Hiring departments are generally trying to solve a problem and meet some goals -- that is what triggered the search. Hiring is not a matter of giving out awards for philosophical worthiness. It isn't a matter of selecting someone who will raise the mean IQ of the faculty. At least not at any healthy department. When a job gets listed, the department is thinking "We really want to grow in metaphysics and we'd love to be able to offer courses in metaphysics and philosophy of science." Or "our university just started up an Honors program. It would be great if we could find a faculty member that will increase our strength in phil religion and help organize that program." Or "We think research on philosophy of race is incredibly important right now. Who is likely to lead us into new avenues in this subfield? What would they write on? What would they do with a conference budget?" Often times when candidates have a rough time on the market, it is no reflection on their abilities or research choices -- it is just that other candidates solved the problems better. That doesn't make you feel great, but it helps in not taking a pass-over as a personal judgment.

Improving our current peer-review process

As I'm sure most of the blog's readers know, I've advocated for dramatic changes to our peer-review system--ones I've argued would be likely to benefits authors, reviewers, editors, and the profession. While some surprising changes in policies by European funding agencies might push things in the direction I've advocated (though that remains to be seen), a fair number of readers have asked whether it might make more sense--at least in the short-term--to examine less radical ways we might improve our current system of peer-review.

A few comments the last several days got me thinking more about this. First, Angry Anon wrote:

I send only to generalist journals that I know are quick (1-2 months), and after that only to specialist journals that I know are quick (and are usually quicker).

Here's the real question though - and maybe we could start a separate post for answering this question - why are you, as a referee, taking longer than 3 weeks to review a paper? It is unreasonable and immoral to take longer than that. (Yes, you are a bad person if you take longer than 3-4 weeks to review a paper.) I have never taken longer than a week to review a paper. That it takes anyone longer is ridiculous (save for extremely long papers that might take 3 weeks or so). What ever happened to treating others how we would like to be treated? Does anyone like having their paper getting hung up for 3 months minimum? If you aren't going to review it in 3 weeks, don't accept the invitation to review.

And what about those grossly immoral referees who take longer than 3 months? I've had a paper take over a year only to get an R and R. (And no, I didn't revise and resubmit it. I'm not going to send it back to some jerk who is going to take that long to review it.) What was this jerk doing that whole time? Did it take less time to review after waiting 12 months?

How can we help you? (September 2018)

Now that the academic year and job market are in full swing, I thought now might be a good time for another monthly 'how can we help you?' post.

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.)
• Graduate school
• Transitioning into a new job
• Publishing
• Teaching
• The profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help!

Research & teaching job markets: an important difference?

I've written a number of times on how there are multiple academic job-markets, not just one. As a quick rough first pass, there is a research job-market and a teaching job-market--and hiring committees in each market look for different things. A few of my experiences have led me to believe that there may be another important difference--one that may be of great interest to grad students and job-marketeers: potential differences in being able to 'work your way' into a TT job. Allow me to explain.

Although I could be wrong, my sense is that if one does not get a research job relatively quickly (i.e. either right out of grad school or after a postdoc), one's chances of getting a TT job are likely go downhill quickly and stay that way (unless your publishing record is so undeniably good that hiring committees take notice). Why do I say this? I have to confess that my sense here is based mostly on anecdotes. But here are the anecdotes. I know of a few cases where someone was out on the market a while, published up a storm (in top-ranked journals), and then finally got a TT job at a research school. But I don't know many of these cases. I know far more cases of research-minded people--people who have also published up a storm in top 10 and top 5 journals--who still don't have a job or get many interviews. These anecdotes seem to me to fit well with Helen's work indicating it is next to impossible to "publish one's way up the hierarchy" into research jobs, as well as with what I have heard about the importance of trajectory. Basically, my sense is that if you don't get a research job relatively quickly, people on the hiring end of things at R1 schools may be likely to pass you over in favor of people coming out of grad school who "people are talking about."

Query on developing research projects post-PhD

A reader wrote in by email:

I'm not long out of graduate school, and now I've got to get some publications under my belt. I'm okay with diligence, but now that I'm not working on the dissertation and don't have a committee steering me with a moderately heavy hand, I'm having a heck of a time finding rich research projects and identifying good potential essays to work on. I've got a handful of smaller ideas (here's a minor objection, here's a quibble something buried deep in that literature), but nothing that seems remotely like the sort of idea that'd become a great article. Do other people have that problem? Do people have good strategies for getting on track?

I looked at Karen Kelsky's Unstuck program, but that seems more like it is for people who have a project but just can't quite bring it to the submission stage. Does anyone have experience with this program or some other coaching program that they wouldn't mind sharing?

This is a really great query. I struggled with the same issue my first couple of years post-PhD. While I had projects from my dissertation to work on (which is a good source for potential publications), I hardly got anywhere with coming up with substantial new projects. I read a lot and tried to write a lot...but the only ideas I came up with for a year or two were the kinds of 'minor' objections or quibbles this reader describes--stuff that seemed philosophically banal and nothing like a major research project? Fortunately, I learned a lot from the experience--both about what didn't work (for me, at least), but also methods for coming up with major new projects (something I no longer struggle with). While I don’t have any experience with coaching programs, let me describe my experiences and tips, and then invite you to share yours!

Patience in publishing

I have a problem with patience in publishing. Or maybe I don't. I'm not sure. Let me explain what I mean, and then invite you to share your thoughts and experiences. When I read this piece that I shared earlier today, it resonated with me--not because the story has any particular lessons to teach us, but simply because I empathized with the author's experience of just how long and frustrating it can be to see a piece from its inception to eventual publication.

A number of years ago in grad school, I had a couple of experiences that always stuck with me. The first was a discussion during office hours with a now-very-influential member of our discipline. To the best of my recollection, I was talking about how frustrated I was with a paper of mine--one I received a lot of positive feedback, but that I just couldn't get published anywhere and had bounced around at a bunch of journals. Basically, she told me something like, "Oh, that's totally normal. It took me seven years to publish this paper, and it typically takes years for my papers to find a home." That came as a total shock to me. I had no idea anything like that was normal. And, the thing was, she wasn't the only person I heard it from. Another influential member of my grad department told me a similar story around the same time, saying something like, "I think this is one of the best papers I've ever written, but it bounced around at journals for many years--and I just finally got it accepted."

Publishing ordeals: you are not alone

Rolf-Peter Horstmann (Humbolt University) shared this interesting story of a four-year publishing ordeal. A brief excerpt from the introduction:

This is the story of the obstacles that a scholarly manuscript has to overcome before it eventually gets printed. It can confirm the impression, shared by many, that much in the publication process of such a text depends on pure chance, good (or bad) luck, and contingent circumstances. Perhaps it can be of comfort to younger scholars who are undergoing this process...

I'm not sure the story will be of much comfort to younger scholars--but I guess it does make me feel a bit less alone when I get frustrated with things, so I figured I'd share it (shared from Leiter Reports).

Avoiding and handling burnout

Last week was my university's first week of classes, and today is the Labor Day, which means we have the day off. Given that I have a MWF teaching schedule, this is a nice stroke of luck, as the sudden change of workload from summer break last week hit me like a ton of bricks. I usually don't have any problems with motivation, but to be honest I was already feeling pretty worn out...just one week into the academic year!

I'll probably adapt to the change in a week or two, as it's always difficult to get back into the swing of things. But it got me thinking about something I was warned about during the tenure and promotion process at my university: burnout. This was something I was warned about several times, both during my 3-year review and the final tenure process--and by both my department and college T&P committees. Each time, the committees noted that I had taken on a lot of optional responsibilities beyond research and teaching, and they warned me to ease off to avoid burnout. Naturally, I didn't listen. I've only taken on more responsibilities this year. But what do you know? I am beginning to wonder whether I may have finally taken on too much...and have wondered what, if anything, I should do to make sure I don't burn out.

Query about canceling classes for campus visits

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, Anon writes:

...I am extremely stressed out about applying from my current TT position. Suppose someone is teaching a MWF schedule and lands multiple on-campus interviews. The faculty member will likely have to miss a number of teaching days. What is one supposed to do in this situation? How is one supposed to explain multiple absences, especially at an institution where there are strict policies that discourage canceling class?

Because this seems to be a common quandary (I've heard similar questions asked by many different people), I figured it might be good to gather answers to it in an independent thread. I'm not sure I have any good answers. Anyone have any helpful insight here?