The Philosophers' Cocoon

Apply to Phd programs this year or next?

A reader writes in:

I am an MA student in philosophy considering whether to apply for PhD programs this cycle...I have my PhD applications more or less ready to go, but I also have the opportunity to take a year off and do something else. (My advisor has told me that this particular something will look good on my CV given my area of interest, but I also don't get the sense that I would need to do this thing first in order to be competitive.)

I plan to go for the PhD basically no matter what happens in the world. What I'm unsure of is whether it makes more sense for me to apply this cycle or next cycle. I can see things going either of two ways: (1) things are really bad this cycle but it all basically bounces back by next year, or (2) things are bad this cycle but just continue to get worse for several years afterwards. If (1) holds, then I'm better off waiting a year. If (2) holds, I'm better off trying to get in now before things worsen even more. The problem is that I'm not really in any position to have an informed guess about which outcome is more likely. Are there others who are in a better epistemic position here, if only slightly? Should I apply this fall or wait a year?

This is an interesting query. Given how competitive grad admissions are, to me there's an obvious answer that gets the best of both worlds, as it were. Apply this year and see how you do. If you get into your dream program (which is really tough to do), then feel free to accept. If not, well there's always next year! However, let me offer a few more thoughts before opening things for discussion.

Tips for creating an book index?

On Twitter, MB Willard (Weber State) writes: "Is there a good How To Create an Index for Dummies guide out there?" Ah, indexes, the worst part of the book production process! I don't know of any good 'how to guides for dummies' here, but I will say that I found Palgrave's guide helpful when finishing my first book. I'll also say that I think one can make one's index one's own, as it were. Just figure out which terms you think readers are likely to want to look up, and which play an important role in the book, and go from there. My own experience is that it is pretty much that simple. It's just time-consuming!

But these are just my not-super-helpful thoughts. Any book indexers out there have any better tips or guides to recommend?

Tips for suggesting referees for a book?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Do you have any advice or do readers have any advice about how to select referees or readers for a book manuscript when initially submitting it for peer review? Should everyone I suggest be an expert in the particular thinker that the book is about?

I'll be curious to hear what readers think. I've published two books, and when I put my book proposals together (which normally ask for a short list of suggested reviewers), I don't think I gave this very much thought. To the best of my recollection, I just suggested referees who (A) specialize in the book's areas, and who (B) I thought would probably be receptive to the book's project given their research interests. The only thing I guess I would advise is to not suggest your friends. I think it's fine if you suggest a person who you've met at a conference here or there who has been receptive to your work, but suggesting someone simply because they're your friend (and so, potentially inclined to give a good review for personal reasons) seems unethical to me.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Going into debt for an excellent MA program?

A reader writes in:

When applying to graduate programs, the typical sentiment is that it is unwise to go into debt for a graduate degree because, due to lost wages from not working/not advancing a career for 5-6 years, one comes out of a program 'doubly in the hole', so to speak. Since even a funded program has real world costs in lost wages, these costs should not be compounded by paying large tuition amounts, especially in pursuit of a tenuous job market that is likely to leave one jobless in the end.

But, for someone who wants to go into academia in the humanities or social sciences where jobs are so scarce, is this really wise? Say someone could get into a masters program at a top school, perhaps one in the UK or the US, which isn't funded but is regarded extremely highly in one's field, isn't it worthwhile to take on debt for a program like this because it secures a significantly higher likelihood of actual job prospects? Isn't that a better move than taking a funded offer from a decent but not outstanding school, and then very likely not getting a job after? It seems to me that one can take on the explicit debt of a student loan, or the implicit debt of a funded program with unreliable job prospects. The former gives a much better chance at paying back losses, but the latter?

Would love to hear from someone who has tried this route with success. Sometimes it feels like the only people who offer this advice (never pay to do graduate research) are professors who got their degrees 15+ years ago when the job market was less abysmal, and people who went into a mid-level funded program and couldn't find work after. I wonder if there is also a group of those who paid for opportunities (MA programs, visiting student programs) at top universities and managed, through resume additions and/or networking connections, to get themselves into PhD programs with better placement records, who are now employed and paying off their debt, and who we don't hear from.

I will be applying to both philosophy programs and political theory programs, and this question might very well pertain more to political theory. Philosophy appears to have done a better job at releasing its grip on prestige when evaluating applicants, and the MA-prep programs are more prevalent in political theory or history-type programs, but, nonetheless -- having done a post-bacc in language study, for instance, seems to increase chances for those looking to study Ancient Phil in the Ivy League. Doing a program in political thought at Cambridge of UCL in the UK is attractive departments with a focus on political phil. Chicago Phil directs its not-quite-there applicants to its MAPSS program in the humanities (students who have done great books MAs at places like St. John's College, or Bard College in Berlin are well represented at Chicago). All of these are expensive and unfunded, and surely there are some students who were not independently wealthy and who did not get into these programs on scholarship.

I'm really glad someone posed this query, as I think it is very important for prospective grad students to get clear on the issues here. Although I'll be curious to hear what others think, here's my answer: I think what this reader describes is a catastrophically bad idea. Let me explain why.

My story of public engagement (guest post by Kevin Zollman)

This is the second installment of our series on publishing popular philosophy books. 

This is a guest post by Kevin Zollman, at Carnegie Mellon University, c0-author (with Paul Raeburn) of The Game Theorist's Guide to Parenting: How the Science of Strategic Thinking Can Help You Deal with the Toughest Negotiators You Know--Your Kids (McMillan, 2017). 

When Helen asked me to write about my experiences writing a trade book, I realized that my story cannot be imitated.  Not because I’m an extraordinary talent that others couldn’t emulate, far from it.  Nor am I the most successful philosopher at doing public engagement, others have done a lot more.

Mine is a story with many accidents and lucky breaks.  But, then again, so too is almost every story of academic and public success. In that, I think there is something important: starting to become publicly engaged as an academic requires serendipity. You must recognize it when it comes your way and seize it.  I will tell my story and point out how easily I might have missed an opportunity that turned into another and another.  You can’t follow my path, but in seeing how much it twists and turns, perhaps you can come to appreciate the value of your own meandering.

The story starts, as so many do, with an email.  A young journalist for the local paper, Andrew McGill, reached out.  Andrew had taken a game theory class as an undergrad at Penn State, and always thought it had interesting real-world applications.  Now at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, he had an idea: why don’t we write a “Dear Abby, but with game theory” column.  He knew he couldn’t do it himself, so he searched for local professors who taught game theory and landed on me.

Andrew and his editor, Lillian Thomas, asked to set up a meeting.  I chuckled at the idea and thought “this might be fun.”   I talked with them, and Andrew’s excitement for the idea was infectious.  I agreed to do a trial run.  They would get questions from around the office, send me a long list, I would choose ten and write answers.  They would read the answers, choose a few to print, and run it on a Sunday.  If it did well, they said, it might become a regular column in the paper.

It would have been easy for me to say no.  I was still pre-tenure.  This wouldn’t go on my CV, it wasn’t paid, and it wasn’t particularly high profile.  The Post-Gazette is a nice paper, but it’s not going to get national attention.  Beyond all this, I could have passed it off as something for someone else with more stature.  I wasn’t even the most senior game theorist in the philosophy department at CMU, much less at the university or in the city of Pittsburgh. If I wanted to say “no,” I had plenty of excuses. On the other hand, I wanted to connect with people outside of academia. This wasn’t the way I initially imagined doing it, but it was an opportunity. I decided I wasn’t too afraid of my colleague’s potential criticism.  This seemed like fun.  So I said “yes.”

Statement of purpose tips?

In yesterday's thread soliciting tips from philosophy grad program admissions committee members, one committee member wrote:

[S]ome [applicants] have (this one I should stress) an unprofessional, weird, or otherwise poorly written statement of purpose. It might, actually, be a good idea to have an independent thread on writing a good statement of purpose. I've seen so many bad ones, and I think a lot of people get very bad advice on this. Some pitfalls: oversharing (for no particular reason); saying how ever since you were a kid you've been asking questions or some other very generic origin story; poorly written or ungrammatical; extremely conversational. Some mention retired faculty or faculty who are not at all research active. This is more understandable, but you should generally do your research, because if you say "I want to work with X" and X is retired or not the kind of faculty member who should be working with graduate students, your statement is not very compelling. My preference is that if you don't know the someone's work at all, don't mention them. You might look through our roster and notice a strength in a certain area—just mention that strength rather than saying you want to work with specific people. Like "Your department has strengths in X and Y, this is attractive to me because ... I am particularly intrigued at the prospect of working with Professor A. Her work in area X has had a strong influence on my own studies and trajectory ..." etc. If you say "I'm interested in working with professors A, B, and C" when B is retired and C hasn't published in 20 years, it's pretty clear you just read through our faculty website and listed everyone with an AOS in your area.

I think a thread on this is a great idea. Although, again, I haven't served on a grad admissions committee myself, I've read some statements of purpose for students I've written recommendations for (both inside and outside of philosophy) and I agree: most of the ones I've read seem to me to strike the wrong tone (too conversational, too autobiographical, etc.), and don't seem to 'get' what a good statement of purpose should do. Consequently, I think it would be great to hear more answers to the following two questions:

1. What should a strong statement of purpose for a philosophy grad program do?
2. What should a strong statement of purpose not do, and why?

Tips from grad admissions committees?

In our June "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

For those of us who will be applying for PhDs this year- does anyone have experience being on an admissions committee? If so, how do you whittle your initial pile of applications down to a short-list where you actually read the samples and review the apps in depth?

What are you looking at? GPA? Undergrad reputation? SOPs? What is your advice for making it past that first cut?

Great questions! I actually have a couple of excellent students who are planning to apply to PhD programs this year, so I'd love to hear some tips here myself. Anyone with experience willing to weigh in?

Summer sounds

Jorge Portilla's Fenomenología del relajo

Nick Riggle (University of San Diego) recently drew my attention to Mexican philosopher Jorge Portilla's work, Fenomenología del relajo, which has been translated into English with philosophical commentary by Carlos Alberto Sánchez (San José State University) in his 2012 book, The Suspension of Seriousness: On the Phenomenology of Jorge Portilla.

Although I have not had the opportunity to read Portilla's or Sánchez work yet (though I've now ordered the book), Riggle also drew my attention to a wonderful short commentary that I did have the chance to read: Francisco Gallegos' article, 'Seriousness, Irony, and Cultural Politics: A Defense of Jorge Portilla' (American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy). 

I have to say that I found it an absolutely fascinating read that makes the case for how deep, original, and fruitful Portilla's thought is, and promised Nick that I would spread the word about it. So please do check it out!

Must job-candidates list every publication?

In our job-market discussion board, a reader writes:

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I hope someone sees it. I have a somewhat sensitive question related to the philosophy job market. I have a masters in religion and am published in that field. I was wondering if committees typically require *all* publications to be disclosed, or whether it's my prerogative to include them or not in the job application. Which leads me to the more sensitive question: unlike other candidates who have an interdisciplinary background in science, math, etc., there may be departments where, though the candidate is strong in the area of philosophy, the department may be intentionally hostile or unwelcoming to candidates with religious backgrounds, particularly candidates who studied at conservative institutions within religious academia; the religious background offsets an otherwise strong or merely promising candidate. Though I have no examples in mind, I'm wondering how common or unheard of it is for departments to be, either openly or less transparently, inclined to reject a job candidate who discloses such a background on their CV. I would be sincerely grateful for honest answers. Thanks in advance!

One reader initial followed up, saying:

I think taking publications off your CV is totally your discretion. That said, I've noticed a few people in the past few years getting R1 jobs with papers on philosophy of religion (particularly philosophy of Christianity). So I'm not sure it would hurt you.

However, another reader then weighed in:

There is one big risk if you take things off your c.v., like publications. If a committee member happens to find things - through a google search - then you look really deceitful. No one wants you then - even if someone on the committee was backing you, they will drop you like a hot potato, on the risk that you are hiding more or are just a big fat liar. So I would be more forthright with where you are coming from. There are people who are anti-religious. That is the reality. But even if you were hired at a place with such people you would probably find it a very hostile place to work. I saw similar thing happen, but [with] respect to a political piece.

I'm inclined to think the second reader is right on both counts. First, search committees interested in a candidate are likely to do their homework, looking up the candidate online. If they find a candidate has publications they didn't report in the application, that could very much make the candidate look deceitful--which is really the last way you want to appear as a job-candidate. Second, do you really want to work at a place where your colleagues will discriminate against you on the basis of your religious identity or views? 

But these are just my thoughts, and they don't answer the original poster's main question: namely, how common is it for departments to either openly or less transparently reject a job candidate who discloses a religious background on their CV?

The epistemic value of philosophy stans

Have you had an obsession, or a more enduring love for a philosopher that you only know through their work?  Have you felt a sense of friendship, or at any rate, a sense of fellow-feeling with philosophers in the past?

I asked philosophy twitter this question, and received a range of interesting answers, collected here. Among people's avowed kindred souls are a great many philosophers who had some problematic ideas: Hume, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Heidegger, among many others. How can we navigate this? 

Agnes Callard recently argued against cancelling Aristotle (I am still not sure what is meant by "cancelling Aristotle", as e.g., at SLU, Aristotle is one of the few philosophers that are mandatory for our core curriculum in philosophy and so has to be on the syllabus, see also here). Anyway, her argument about not-cancelling Aristotle is that one can read him as an alien: 

.... I can imagine circumstances under which an alien could say women are inferior to men without arousing offense in me. Suppose this alien had no gender on their planet, and drew the conclusion of female inferiority from time spent observing ours. As long as the alien spoke to me respectfully, I would not only be willing to hear them out but even interested to learn their argument.

I read Aristotle as such an “alien.” His approach to ethics was empirical — that is, it was based on observation — and when he looked around him he saw a world of slavery and of the subjugation of women and manual laborers, a situation he then inscribed into his ethical theory.

These claims about reading a philosopher with problematic ideas as an alien are, of course, empirical claims. I can't generalize about the phenomenology of reading philosophers of the past, especially of reading philosophers from cultures and circumstances much different from us.

Purely speaking introspectively, I don't read philosophers that way. Often my work is driven by enthusiasm for a particular philosopher or for some philosophical idea, or for combining them in a new way, which my daughter refers to as my "philosophy stans". My latest philosophy stans are the American pragmatists, particularly John Dewey, Jane Addams, and C.S. Peirce. I never got to learn about them as an undergraduate, and until recently my exposure to pragmatism was limited to William James, for whom I harbor a long-term admiration.  As I read about Jane Addams and how she put her philosophy into practice by through her settlement among immigrants in Chicago, working at low wages and in dire material circumstances, I could not help but feel admiration for her. 

Dissertation proposal advice?

In the comments sections of Liz Jackson's post on tips for success in graduate school, a current PhD student asked for a thread on dissertation proposal advice. I think this is a great idea. Coming up with a viable dissertation proposal was without a doubt the most difficult part of graduate school for me--and my sense is that something similar is true of a lot of grad students. I actually had to come up with two proposals, as my dissertation committee rejected my first one. I think the tale of my proposals may be helpful to share, as I pursued two very different strategies each time: one that worked well, and one that (obviously) didn't. Allow me to quickly share the story, and then open things up for discussion.

I've always had a tendency to work alone (indeed, it's a relatively bad habit I struggle with to this very day). As I explained a few years ago, believe it or now I'm an extremely shy and introverted person. In graduate school, this meant that once I finished coursework and comprehensive examinations, I initially tried to come up with a viable dissertation proposal all on my lonesome. I retreated into reading books and journal articles, and aside from department colloquia and some social events, mostly worked in an isolated fashion. It did not go well. First, I bounced from idea to idea. At one point, I started developing a proposal defending internalism about moral motivation. Then I got a bit stuck on that, and got enthralled by some stuff on voting and opinion polls (which I returned to many years later in this book chapter).  Anyway, I spun my wheels on these two topics for about a year-and-a-half, after which point I drafted up a proposal and three chapter drafts on one of the topics. Mind you, this whole time, no one had seen any of my work. I hadn't shared it with my dissertation supervisor, nor had I shared it with any other faculty or fellow grad students.

Now, I know what you're thinking: bad move, right? Yes, it very much was. However, like many grad students (in my experience, anyway), I lacked self-confidence, and as a shy and introverted person I was basically 'scared to put myself out there.' So that's what I did--and I've seen other grad students do similar things. Of course, at some point I had to show other people my work, so after drafting up the proposal and three chapters I sent them to my committee and arranged a proposal defense. It did not go well. The night before my scheduled defense, my dissertation supervisor called me and said the committee had rejected my proposal and there would be no defense. Suffice it to say, there were a few tears after that phone call. The next day (I believe), I walked into my supervisor's office (and then the office of another faculty member) and asked for help. Much to my surprise, they both expressed confidence in me despite my failure, and gave me some advice. My supervisor invited me to join a dissertation reading group he was in the process of putting together. I started attending, and even though at the time I had nothing viable, it was incredibly useful to see what kinds of things other grads were working on. It helped me to see what a viable proposal might look like! The other faculty member encouraged me to read widely, far outside the topics I had been previously exploring. This too was incredibly helpful. Indeed, it quickly led me to my eventual dissertation topic! Let me explain.

Open letter for suspending GRE requirements (Guest-post)

An Open Letter to Philosophy Departments: Please Consider Suspending the GRE Requirement for Fall 2021 Admission

By Frederick Choo (MA in Philosophy - Nanyang Technological University)

Due to the global pandemic, many philosophy departments have already either chosen to ignore GRE scores, or made submission of GRE scores optional for fall 2021 admission. The list includes, but is not limited to, NYU, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, University of Arizona, UC San Diego, Washington University at St Louis, University of Colorado Boulder, and Rice University.¹

I am writing to ask that your philosophy department consider suspending the submission of GRE scores for fall 2021 graduate admissions. Many potential applicants would much appreciate a quick response to this.

Tips from journal editors?

In the comments section of my previous post on tips for satisfying journal referees, one reader wrote, "I'd also be curious to see a thread where editors share their thoughts about all this...in some cases I've been in the situation where the referee was never going to agree with me and I needed to convince the editor that the referee was in the wrong." I thought this was a great idea. After all, in order to get a paper accepted, you not only have to convince referees it is worth publishing. You also need to make it past the desk-rejection stage where the editor decides whether to send it out for review in the first place--and, in the case of revise-and-resubmits, you need to convince the editor(s) that your revisions are successful. So, then, do any editors out there have any tips for authors? 

Later down in the comments section of the above post, several readers weighed in on how to write 'replies to referees' documents in the case of revise-and-resubmits. On the whole, the consensus among authors was that these pieces should be fairly long and detailed. However, a journal editor then weighed in with the following:

I was on a panel of editors at a conference and we were asked about R&Rs. Editors DO NOT want long replies to referee reports. Let me clarify. We do not want point by point replies going for two or more pages.

As I noted in a follow-up comment, I found this comment pretty surprising. My two most successful R&R's--both of which were accepted after 'major revisions'--involved author replies that were 11 pages and 23 pages (the latter of which had to respond to three reviewers). Given that authors only have one shot to convince referees and editors that a revised manuscript satisfactorily addresses all of the reviewers' concerns, it only makes sense for authors to want to be as detailed as possible--and again, both of the long replies I just described worked!

Anyway, long story short, it seems like editors may have very different perspectives on best practices for authors than authors do. So it would be great to hear from some editors. What sorts of things work in favor or against authors in the review process, from your perspective as an editor? 

Tips for satisfying referees?

Last Friday, I ran a thread asking readers what kinds of things bug them as journal referees. I've found the thread really informative so far, and hope readers continue to weigh in. In today's post, I'd like to run a thread on the other side of things: namely, things that authors feel like they've learned to be important in terms of getting positive reviews from referees. Of course, having a strong and interesting argument helps--but here I'm thinking of other things: specifically, ways of writing papers that tend to fare better in the review process than others. My own experience here is that this is a lot of what I had to learn early in my career to publish successfully, and I am curious whether other readers who have learned to publish successfully have had similar experiences.

So then: do you have any tips for writing papers in ways that are likely to go over well with referees? If so, what are they? Conversely, do you have any tips for things to avoid--things that don't go over well with referees? I'm really curious to see people's responses in the comments section. Allow me to kick things off with a few tips I think I've learned:

Tip 1 - 'For all x, if x is a possible way to misunderstand your argument--no matter how silly--make sure you take steps to prevent referees from interpreting you as saying or implying x': This may be the single most important publishing lesson I think I've learned. Early in my career, when I wasn't having much luck publishing, I was continually surprised at how easily referees can misunderstand a paper's argument--often, it seems, in the least charitable way possible. I also know that I'm not alone in this. I've heard more stories than I count count where people have recounted things like this: "I literally write in the paper, 'I am not saying X', and reviewer 2 recommended rejecting my paper on the grounds that I say X." How is this possible? The most plausible answer I can think of is that a good number of referees probably try to get their reviews done as quickly as possible, skimming them rather than reading closely or carefully. In any case, ever since learning this lesson, my papers have fared much better in the review process.

Tip 2 (corollary of tip 1) - Head off potential misinterpretations and objections as soon as possible in the body of the paper, rather than in footnotes or an objection section late in the paper: I've had cases of papers, and heard other people recount similar cases, where it doesn't seem like a reviewer even got to the end of the paper. A typical case: the reviewer raises an objection O to an argument on page 5, presenting it as grounds for rejecting the paper--despite the fact that you explicitly raise and respond to O later in the paper (e.g. page 25, in an 'Objections and Replies' section). This happened to me enough times that I learned that it's important not just to address potential misinterpretations and objections, but head them off before they can fester in the reviewer's head. In fact, one thing that I've often resorted to in recent papers--and seen other published papers do as well--is to briefly head off misunderstandings and objections in your introduction. Even if it is just saying something like, "The final section of this paper will address objection(s) X, Y, and Z", my experience is that this can be important for at least getting in your reviewer's mind that you plan to address the objections they will have when reading the paper. Otherwise, again, they may not even read far enough (or carefully enough) to see that you address their 'devastating' concern. Finally, my experience is that in general (though not always), it's best not to leave objections to a final 'Objections and Replies' section of the paper or merely address them in footnotes/endnotes (which reviewers may not read or read carefully). As a general rule, I've found it works best to address any potential misinterpretations or objections in the body-text of a paper as soon as a reader is likely to have them.

I'm probably forgetting a bunch of other tips at the moment. However, these are probably the two most important things I've learned for getting papers to go over better with referees. What are your tips? What have you learned works well/doesn't work well with referees?

12 Tips for Success in Philosophy Graduate School, guest post by Liz Jackson

Guest post by Liz Jackson, Ryerson University, reprinted from her personal website. 

I graduated from Notre Dame in 5 years. I finished my dissertation in my 4th year, and had 4/5 dissertation chapters published by the time I defended (Nov. of my 5th year). My 5th year, my first year on the market, I got both a research post doc and a tenure track job (a 2-2 load with an MA program). Here’s some tips for how I did it.

1. Write regularly, on a schedule that works for you.

• Some people advise to “write every day” or even “write two hours / 500 words every day.” However, better advice is to write *regularly*. On days when writing is going well, write as much as you can. On days when it is going poorly, switch over to reading, email, class prep, or some other task. Or just take the day off (see #10).
• Note that writing regularly may look different in various stages of your life. Sometimes, you might write 9-11am every day. Sometimes, you might write for 1 or 2 bigger blocks every week. Sometimes, if you find yourself super motivated or with a lot of free time, you might write a whole paper in a short period of time. Be flexible based on the season of life you’re in. But also realize that getting into the habit of writing regularly will do wonders for your productivity.

2. Fight the urge to procrastinate.

• Grad school comes with a lot of freedom. No one requires you to work 9-5, you’re normally not under regular, tight deadlines, and you can mostly set your own schedule. Because of this, it is easy to put things off to the last minute. I highly, highly recommend resisting this urge to procrastinate. (I think this is the #1 reason I was successful in grad school). My first semester of grad school (before I took this lesson to heart) I saved all my seminar papers to the last few weeks of the semester, and then I was forced to write 3-4 papers in less than a month. Don’t do this to yourself. Instead, set regular, small, measurable goals. Now, I normally set weekly goals, then break those into smaller daily goals, such as “read article X” or “polish section 2 of paper Y” or “add a paragraph responding to objection Z.”
• Utilize accountability groups and writing groups. These can help a lot with resisting procrastination, force you to wake up at a decent hour, and are also great for advice and social support.
• Be a chipper, not a binger. Meet your goals in small steps that you chip away at regularly, rather than doing an entire project all at once, especially right before a deadline. A caveat: I personally think it’s fine to, e.g. spend an entire day writing then not write the rest of the week, as long as you are not doing this right before a deadline. If you like to work in big chunks, no problem, but don’t save everything until right before it is due.

3. Utilize productivity tools.

• Pomotodo and Todoist (both free apps) have been life changing for me. Pomotodo breaks up your work in 25 min chunks, and then you get a 5 min break to check texts/social media/email. (I also recommend using an app that blocks social media/other tempting websites if you struggle with this). Todoist helps you keep track of your to-do list in “project” categories, and comes with a handy calendar. So, if a cool conference comes up on Phil events but it isn’t due for 6 months, add it to your Todoist app and you’ll see the CFP about a week before. It’s also a great way to set daily goals. 
• There are a lot of other tools out there as well; experiment and find ones that work foryou, even if it’s a physical calendar/planner.

Summer sounds

What bugs you as a referee?

One of the things I've learned over the years is that some ways of writing philosophy papers seem to go over better with referees than others. I've also heard that there are ways of 'writing like a grad student' that referees can spot, and which tend not to work well. This certainly coheres with my personal experience, as I feel like I had to unlearn a lot of writing habits in learning how to publish successfully in philosophy. Unfortunately, I had to learn these things the hard way--mostly by trial and error. So, sometime soon (maybe early next week), I'd like to crowdsource some tips on both of these things from readers--as I think a list of tips might help our early-career readers. 

Before we get to that, I'd like to crowdsource from our readers who have served as journal referees on things that bug them when they review papers--as I think this might provide greater insight into the tips we crowdsource next week, as well as help us all better understand what kinds of things to avoid. For example, a while back, Trevor Hedberg provided this list of some reasons why he rejects papers. If you review papers for journals, what sorts of things routinely bug you, and why? Also, do the things that bug you lead you to reject papers, or are they just things that you wish authors would avoid (and which might, let's say, lessen the need for issuing revise-resubmit recommendations?).

Mentoring program update (call for +mentors)

I just wanted to give readers a quick update on the Cocoon's job-market mentoring program. Helen and I have received a lot of signups thus far, both in terms of mentors and mentee applicants--which is really great, as it looks like we will be able to match many of the mentees who have signed up to this point. However, we could use some additional volunteers with the following backgrounds:

• LGBTQ+
• POC
• Philosophy of mind
• Metaphysics
• Latin American philosophy
• UK academic market
• Non-western/international background
• Social-political philosophy

Helen and I plant to begin setting up the first matches later today, and plan to move forward as quickly as we can. But in the meantime, we encourage mentees and mentors (particularly mentors with the above backgrounds) to continue signing up here!

Extra effort for teaching remotely in the fall?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I have a question about preparing for teaching remotely in the fall: how much (extra) effort should I put into it?

I chose to run the classes asynchronously in the spring when we had to move everything online. I decide to run them synchronously in the fall. I feel that asynchronous online classes are not fair to students many of whom are expected to come back on campus (at least for now for my university) and to pay full or almost full tuition.

While I am learning about some really nice tools that help run classes synchronously, I have some worries and am wondering how much time and effort I should put into it. First, it seems to me that what we are facing is a pretty unique situation, and I am not sure whether we will encounter similar situations in the future (hopefully not!). And I am inclined to teach "real" online classes asynchronously to give students flexibilities. So, I am not sure if I will get another chance to teach remotely and synchronously in the future. Second, while I put a lot of time in it, I am not sure students will appreciate it. I read some articles and it seems that many students are disappointed about remote learning. Yes, I can probably design a really nice class and impress students, but is it really worth the time and effort?

I'll be very curious to hear what people think here, but for my own part I'm inclined to think it's best to keep things simple and as close as possible to how I teach in a face-to-face format. Let me explain why.

Different online/journal publication dates?

In our "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

This is probably not super important, but on your CV, how should you list an article when the online publication date is very distant from the print publication date? For multiple papers of mine these two dates are in different years.

I'm thinking of just writing down (2020 print / 2019 online) where I would normally write the date?

I agree, it's probably not super important, but to be honest this has always confused the heck out of me too! It's confusing not only when it comes to listing things on your CV, but also when it comes to citing other people's work. For example, suppose Smith's paper in journal X was published "online first" in 2020, but then is assigned to a journal issue in 2021. Presumably, once it is published in the 2021 journal issue, everyone should cite it as Smith (2021). But, given that it was originally published online in 2020, should one cite it as Smith (2020) until then? Or should it still be cited as forthcoming?

Like the reader, I realize these questions are probably pretty small beans--but still, it would be great if we could clear them up!

Cutting papers down to journal word-limits?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, Incoming PhD writes:

I'm preparing my first article for submission and I'm struggling to cut my paper down to the word limit at journals I'm interested in submitting to. Part of this, admittedly, is lack of experience: there are undoubtedly components to my article that a more experienced author would intuitive know to cut. And some of the excess word count results from unnecessary long sentences, extraneous citations, etc. That's obviously stuff I need to cut. But I also feel like there's a point where I, as an author, should just say that I'm done and move on to the next thing.

When should one throw in the towel, admit they probably won't get their article down to the maximum word count, and just submit to journals whose word counts they reach (even if those journals are less good fits/less likely to accept)?

This is a really great question. Allow me to share some quick thoughts, and then open things up for discussion.

Diverse intro texts on 'what is philosophy?'

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, JR writes in:

I have a teaching question and request for recommendations from readers: I regularly teach the introductory philosophy course at my institution, which is required as part of the core curriculum for all undergraduates and is generally taken fall or spring semester of the students' first year. Given that this is typically their first exposure to philosophy, I have found it helpful to begin the course with a unit on "What is Philosophy?". For this unit, I have had great success using Midgley's "Philosophical Plumbing" essay, and Russell's "The Value of Philosophy" (chapter from Problems of Philosophy), but I'm looking for some different texts of this sort, ideally from more diverse voices and perspectives: short, discussion-generating takes on what philosophy is or why it is important that take a stronger stand than the usual bland introductions from textbooks, but also do not presuppose much background or use a lot of technical terms

Great question! Although it's not very short, the paper that immediately comes to my mind is Kristie Dotson's, "How is this paper philosophy?". Do any readers have any suggestions?

Ethical Theory Review interview with Jennifer Herdt (Yale Divinity)

Ethical Theory Review, Bradford Cokelet's (University of Kansas) new podcast interviewing authors of recent and forthcoming books in moral and practical philosophy, has posted its second interview, this one with Jennifer Herdt (Yale Divinity) on her recent book Forming Humanity: Redeeming the German Bildung Tradition (University of Chicago Press). 

Cokelet's next interview will be with Pamela Hieronymi (UCLA) on her recent book, Freedom, Resentment, and the Metaphysics of Morals (Princeton University Press), which "provides a new interpretation and development of Strawson’s argument [in 'Freedom and Resentment'] and the social naturalist metaphysics of morals that underlies it."

Motivation for teaching and the market?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

[A]m I the only one who isn't motivated by teaching? I try hard at it and treat it seriously, but there isn't really anything about teaching that I actively like or that motivates me to be in grad school or academia. (I don't dislike it either, it's kind of just a job.) I learned that I'm probably more of an exception in this regard, or else I'm one of the few willing to say that teaching doesn't motivate me. How should job applicants spin their relationship to teaching? Does it matter if we aren't passionate about it?

I too am curious to hear people's answers. By all accounts, being motivated by teaching matters very little for getting a job at a research institution. However, what about getting a job at a teaching institution? Here, it seems to clearly important to look as though one is passionate about teaching, and to be motivated enough to appear to be very good at it. However, as we all know from everyday life and Book II of The Republic, it's one thing to appear to be motivated by something, and another thing to actually be motivated by it!

So, then, how do readers actually feel about teaching--particularly those of you who have gotten jobs (and tenure?) at teaching-focused institutions? Are you actually motivated by or passionate about teaching? Or, is teaching 'just a job' for you that you've tried to be good enough at to get a job and tenure?

Summer sounds

Stay in grad school or go on the market?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

All things considered, is it better for your future academic job prospects to delay graduating and stay in graduate school or to graduate with a PhD in these Covid times? I have heard people in the profession talk about how extended "length of time to get your degree" can count against someone on the market. Alternatively, I have heard people talk about how having a "stale" PhD (i.e. your chances of getting a TT job decrease every year that you are on the market after you earned your PhD) can also count against you on the market (aka the "staying fresh" rule). I currently have completed my dissertation and am one of the older graduate students at my university (between 5-9 years in the program). I am not sure if it is better for my future academic employment to defend and graduate sooner rather than later. Everyone thinks that the job market in the Fall will be terrible. Some think that hiring committees in the future will be more understanding about getting your PhD in a post-Covid era, but I am not sure how sympathetic they will actually be. Any advice or insights are most welcome!

From my perspective, the answer here is clear: generally speaking (and within reason), it is far worse to come out of grad school too early and run the risk of 'going stale' than it is to stay in graduate school and look like you have a 'long time to completion'. Allow me to explain.

Can good publications offset grad program rank?

In our "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

On the topic of "tippy top" schools, how much can good publications offset coming from a lower ranked school on the job market? I'm set to defend in the fall and my department isn't particularly notable. I have however been fortunate enough to get two publications in top tier journals. Should I keep aiming to publish at high ranked journals or I am better off submitting to mid-level journals where I may be more likely to accumulate publications?

I'd be very curious to hear what readers think, particularly those who have been involved in hiring. For my part, I have to sadly confess--as I have before--that I am skeptical that publishing in the highest ranked journals is a very good job-market strategy for candidates coming out of lower-ranked programs. Allow me to explain why.

Do awards matter on the market?

A reader writes in:

How important are "awards" sections on a CV?  Do hiring departments put much weight on them? I only ask because I routinely see faculty CV-s include them, but for the couple that I have, I have to say I'm not impressed with them knowing what getting them required. They largely involved me engaging in a lot of schmoozy self-promotion and essentially out-self-promoting others who were nominated for the same award. Is this really a CV section an early career philosopher should be worried about lengthening?

I'm curious to hear what readers think. On the one hand, I'm inclined to think that a teaching or service award is likely to be a real boon to a candidate when applying for jobs at teaching institutions. Having served on several search committees, my experience has been that there are so many well-qualified candidates, and the differences between them often so small, that distinctions like awards can probably make a real difference. But what about at research schools? Here, I suppose that a book award or article in the Philosophers' Annual might make a difference. But I'm not sure. I'm also not all sure that most awards are gotten through schmoozing. I received a teaching award at my university in 2017, and it came as a complete surprise to me--and another member of my department received the same award a few years later, and she didn't schmooze for it either.

In any case, what do you all think? Do awards matter on the market? If so, is there anything that grad students or job-marketeers should do in terms of pursuing them? 

Publishing advice for grad students?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

My department discourages students from professionalizing too early--but they are vague on when professionalization should start ramping up. They actively discourage us from publishing (and they encourage us to get the dissertation finished first). (I think they're trying to counter people who get distracted by publishing and then let the dissertation collect dust.) So, is this normal? What IS the best publishing advice for a graduate student, when should we start publishing?

'Current grad & incoming prof' then responded:

Particularly if research is your goal, you should start publishing as soon as possible. Once you have a couple chapters, the dissertation can be hastily wrapped up at any point you get a job; but publications are what help you to get the job in the first place. Jason Brennan gives the good advice of always having 3 things under review (which I haven't ever been able to maintain, but may be a good motivator). The dissertation should always be thought of in terms of material for potential future publications, never as an obstacle to publication. Or at least this is how I went about things and what helped me.

The original reader then responded:

This is one of those things that becomes SO OBVIOUS once somebody points it out, thank you! It's going in my "tips and tricks" file :) It fits with thinking of research projects along a pipeline: try to move different projects along so that there's always three at the review point in the research pipeline.

Although I think Brennan's advice here is fairly good, I also think there are other nuances to be aware of here. Let me explain.

Humanities for All - Project Director Position

Shay Logan (Kansas State) wrote in to draw my attention to this Project Director position with the National Humanities Alliance in Washington, DC. I think it would be great if a philosopher were to get the post! Here's a brief description of the position:

The National Humanities Alliance (NHA) is a nationwide coalition of organizations advocating for the humanities on campuses, in communities, and on Capitol Hill. Founded in 1981, NHA is supported by over 200 member organizations, including: colleges, universities, libraries, museums, cultural organizations, state humanities councils, and scholarly, professional, and higher education associations. It is the only organization that brings together the U.S. humanities community as a whole.

What we do:

• Cultivate support for federal funding for the humanities. 
• Promote the public value of the humanities.
• Promote the value of studying the humanities.
• Convene the humanities community to explore best practices for advocating for the humanities on campus, in communities, and on Capitol Hill.

As a part of its ongoing work to promote the public value of the humanities, NHA seeks a project director to work on the Humanities for All initiative. Humanities for All documents and promotes publicly engaged humanities work in U.S. higher education, including research, teaching, preservation, and programming conducted with and for diverse public partners. It is a resource for scholars carrying out their own publicly engaged work, educators teaching on the public humanities, and scholarly societies and funders looking to support public engagement efforts in the humanities

The project director will have the opportunity to develop expertise in the state of the field of publicly engaged humanities work and gain experience in project management and advocacy. This expertise and experience will provide a foundation for subsequent work in both academic and non-academic settings.

Interested readers can apply at the website linked to above!

Questions about suggesting reviewers

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, two readers asked questions about journals asking authors to suggest reviewers:

I work in philosophy of science, but recently I have started to submit papers in another subfield of philosophy. These are all journals with a good reputation. However, to my surprise, it seems that a pattern is being established: editors ask me to provide suggestions for possible reviewers. This never happened to me in philosophy of science. What's the best practice here? Naturally, I'd propose people I know (assuming they have not read the paper and they do not know I'm working on that specific topic), because I know that those people will take their job seriously. However, even if those people do not know that I'm writing that specific paper, they may recognize who I am. But this, I say, happens even in blind peer-reviewed, especially in highly specialized fields such as philosophy of science. Am I terribly wrong? - Posted by: Don't really know what to do

I have a question related to that of Don't really know what to do. Should a philosophy journal ask the author of a submission to suggest possible reviewers? What are the rationales for and again this? -Posted by: jack 

Another reader answered:

This is a common practice in science journals, to ask for (i) possible referees, and (ii) sometimes a list of people who you do not want to review your paper. In science it is common place to have only single blind - so the reviewer sees who the author or authors are. I publish regularly in an empirical field (call it scientific), and the key journal will not send your paper out for review unless you have your name on it.

However, while this may be a common practice in science, I wonder how readers feel about it, and whether anyone has tips for 'best practices.'

Quantum chemistry paper & the P2P Hypothesis

Magnus Hanson-Heine, research fellow in quantum chemistry at the University of Nottingham, writes in:

I came across your work on the peer-to-peer simulation hypothesis having recently published an article in the journal Chemical Science detailing the first instance of a computational physics simulation being performed using a blockchain virtual computer.

I thought you might find this work interesting given that the simulations were performed on the Ethereum blockchain and therefore (to my knowledge) represent the first example showing that, depending on your definitions, the physical world can be simulated within a computational environment that operates using a decentralized peer-to-peer proof-of-work consensus protocol in order to determine the agreed history of that simulation between the peers that make up the computational network.

Article: Computational chemistry experiments performed directly on a blockchain virtual computer. Chemical Science, 2020 (co-authored with Alexander P. Ashmore, School of Computing and Communications, The Open University).

Very cool! Readers interested in the P2P Hypothesis may also be interested in this post, Mesh World P2P Simulation Hypothesis, by computer programmer Eric Grange, Development Lead and Chief Architect at Creative IT.

Tips for moving academic jobs?

A reader writes in:

What advice is there for someone who already has an academic job but would like to get another one in a particular geographic region?  Is it better just to beef up one's qualifications on paper? Or is it more important to start networking with the departments in the desired region? Or are there other things that are more important? How does one increase their chances of getting that second job? Would attempting to publish in two separate AOS-es be a good idea? Or maybe a better question is, of those philosophers who had a permanent job (TT or whatever) but left it for a second permanent job, what were the mechanisms that got the majority of them that second job? (I'm nervous here the answer might be something like "they were invited and didn't even have to apply".)

Great questions! Does anyone in the know have any insights they are willing to share?

Having an advisor who is a non-specialist?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Not sure if you've covered this already. What are your thoughts on a PhD student having a supervisor who is competent and knowledgeable but not really established in the student's area of interest? For example, student x is working in contemporary metaphysics, and x's supervisor works mostly in ancient but has also done some work in contemporary metaphysics. Also, suppose that the student is not at a tippy top school. Bad idea? Makes no difference?

Another reader then responded:

Don't do it. It is vital that your advisor be an expert in your area. Why? Because she is supposed to, first, help you get to the front of the research frontier in a way only an active research can. Second, when it comes to a letter of support, someone working in Ancient, saying that a dissertation or student work in contemporary metaphysics is really important and cutting edge, counts for very little. Think of it comparatively. There are bound to be, for every job you apply for, at least 3 others who have a similar background and set of accomplishments as you who ALSO have a letter from a supervisor who actually works in the area. What is a search committee supposed to do.

I do not know how far down you are from the tippy top, but there are prejudices against lower ranked schools. I worked at an okay 4 year state college, and my colleagues showed a real disdain for applicants from such places. And a few of these were really quite unaccomplished colleagues. Personally, I just looked at the accomplishments, and the work.

While I understand where this latter reader is coming from, I nevertheless think their advice may be too simplistic. Allow me to explain.

Summer sounds

Recovering from grad school mistakes?

In the course of a spirited and important discussion responding to some professionalization tips (and yes, grievances) a new tenure-track faculty member shared, a reader shared the following story:

Re: disappearing from your committee

I was guilty of this when I was a grad student in a Leiterrific philosophy department. There were about a year and half at the beginning of my dissertation that I felt like I was adrift and I became very depressed. My advisors were not giving me very constructive feedback ... and I felt like I didn't know what I was doing. I felt like I couldn't talk to my committee unless I have completely "figured things out" so as not to come across stupid - I knew I depended on their positive opinion for my career, which further paralyzed me. When my advisor finally reached out to me to stage some kind of "intervention," I tried to explain the depression and how I had recently joined the dissertation support group run by the university counseling center. What I was told by my advisor that (a) if I couldn't take the pressure and produce writing consistently, then I was not cut out of grad school, and (b) when my advisor joined a dissertation support group when they were in grad school, the support group was useless ("they don't understand how philosophy works"). I was flabbergasted and cried in their office. I felt ashamed and humiliated.

I want to stress to faculty to be sensitive to the mental health needs of your grad students. Avoidance is a key sign of depression.

Faculty members ought to "lower the stakes" when interacting with grad students - not every interaction is about evaluating your worth as a philosopher. Making students feel like every interaction with you is about making a good impression or about what will go into a letter that will decide your career is exactly the wrong thing to do. Interact with your grad students like they are human - they will have strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's okay to get have a silly conversation where the expectation is not that one is being evaluated. Helping grad students realize that they can come to you with "stupid" or "half baked" ideas, and that will not be held against them, will help with the disappearing problem.

In a follow-up comment, I mentioned that I had an eerily similar experience. Throughout graduate school, it seemed like every single little thing I was doing was being judged. Although I made it through course work and comprehensive exams well enough, things really went awry at the dissertation stage. I too spent about a year-and-a-half completely floundering, which left me so depressed that I too systematically avoided my committee and disappeared from my department more generally. And I wasn't the only one. I knew others in program who did the same. Some of them eventually finished the program, others didn't. Like this reader and many other graduate students, I had not only lost my confidence: my overall mental health was shot. Anyway, I too eventually showed up in my advisor's office and came clean about everything. The difference was that instead of shaming me, my advisor expressed empathy and confidence in me. To this day, I think this kind and supportive treatment may well have saved my career.

Fortunately, despite being treated callously by their advisor, the above reader reported in a follow-up comment that they too made it through grad school and recently got a tenure-track job. They wrote: 

I think that conversation in my advisor's office helped to crystalize for me that I needed to find allies and people out of my committee who will give me the kind of support I needed. The dissertation support group helped me see how my advisor's behavior did not reflect on my worth as a philosopher. I was lucky that there were other philosophers around who encouraged me and read my drafts and gave me constructive feedback.

If any other grad student is reading, I hope that you know you can make "mistakes" in grad school and still come out on the other side. (As far as I know) all my committee members wrote me positive letters, even though I went through a period of disappearance and depression - grad school is tough!

I cannot over-emphasize how important I think this comment is. First, although it may not be true for every graduate student in every situation, cases like these show that it can be possible to royally mess up in grad school and make it through to the other side. Even if there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel, it can be possible to find your way through. But second, as both of our cases show, a crucial part of doing so seems to be finding support. When I was isolated and trying to find my way all on my lonesome, nothing seemed possible. It was only when I found empathy and support--just like this reader--that the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel began to appear.

Which brings me, finally, to the point of this post: what mistakes did you make in graduate school, and how did you recover from them? My hope here is that if readers share stories of their own here, it may accomplish several important things. First, it may give struggling graduate students some much-needed hope. Second, it may give them good practical advice and strategies for recovering from mistakes. Finally, it may clarify just how important it is for grad faculty to be understanding, forgiving, and empathetic--and by extension, helpful in 'getting the word out' on how important it is for grad program cultures to support struggling students. Anyone willing to share?

How can we help you? (July 2020)

Now that it's been a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for another one.

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:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help!

How Can I Be a Philosopher in a Non-Academic Career? (APA Blog Interview)

The Blog of the APA has a great interview up today with Gina Helfrich, who received her PhD at Emory and "is now program officer for global technology at Internews, an international nonprofit dedicated to empowering local media worldwide." A couple of choice passages:

Q: Tell me about the twists and turns.

....

There were a lot of unexpected moments. Sometimes, it seemed as if a perfect job fell from the sky with the job description written just for me. Other times, I had to work very hard to find a position.

My first full-time job, as assistant director of the Harvard College Women’s Center, fell from the sky. I saw it come across a mailing list I was on as a result of my graduate fellowship working in the Center for Women at Emory University, and it was a great fit with my scholarly focus in women’s and gender studies.

After a promotion to director and four years at the women’s center, I felt restless. So I read books like What Color Is Your Parachute? I did informational interviews. And eventually, I networked myself into a tech job at a startup—but I got laid off after a year, and I then was stuck with this bizarre resume.

So I did what you do: I put myself out there, chased a lot of opportunities that didn’t pan out, and eventually landed a communications position with NumFOCUS, a nonprofit that supports open-source scientific research. Around the same time, I cofounded a staffing and consulting business to support better diversity and inclusion in technology. We started getting a lot of attention, and even got some venture capital, so at a certain point I was basically forced to leave my full-time/regular job. But the business didn’t work out, and after seven months of “funemployment,” I found my way back to NumFOCUS for few more years.

Then, something else fell from the sky. When I heard about my current position, I thought it was perfect—the candidate needed to understand open source software communities and be conversant in issues of diversity and inclusion. I submitted my resume and cover letter, and got the job.

Honestly, even that summary of my career feels a little too neat; it was very messy and unexpected. So that’s the non-academic path—terrifying, but beautiful!

.....

Q: What can philosophy faculty do to help their students pursue non-academic careers?

The most important thing is to be supportive. Graduate school can really undermine one’s self-confidence. But you need self-confidence to get a job—and faculty support helps.

Another thing faculty can do is get familiar with some basic resources to help graduate students find careers—things like the book Designing Your Life by Stanford University professors Bill Burnett and David Evans.

Faculty have to reckon with the fact that PhD students fund their lifestyles, but there are not enough academic jobs for every PhD student. So faculty really owe it to PhDs to support them in the search for all types of work. Our community should also do more to encourage and support hybrid careers for PhDs—you work in tech, for example, but also teach a course or write philosophical articles.

Job-Market Mentoring Program: Signups Open!

Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) and I are happy to announce that signups are now open for this year's iteration of the Cocoon's Job-Market Mentoring Program. Job-candidates in need and potential mentors are both encouraged to sign up here. As a reminder, because of the COVID pandemic's expected effects on the academic job-market, this season our program will allow mentees to request non-academic industry mentors. Although volunteers who sign up as academic job-market mentors need to be tenure-stream faculty, we also encourage anyone in non-academic industry who is willing to mentor academic philosophers to sign up as potential mentors as well.

In any case, for those of you new to the program, here are the details:

Program Description:

This program, associated with The Philosophers’ Cocoon, aims to provide job-market mentoring to all those in need (regardless of background). The aim of this mentoring project is just what it sounds like: a scheme to enable job candidates in philosophy who face special challenges, including members of historically-marginalized groups as well as those with little access to mentoring (e.g., because their department or advisor does not offer this), to receive advice and support from more experienced members of the profession.