The Philosophers' Cocoon

Extrinsic goals once securing a job?

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

I managed, against the odds, to achieve the holy grail of a TT position at an R1 institution. Because I was a postdoc for a bunch of years and a lot of my previous work will count towards tenure, I am not particularly worried about publishing enough to get tenure.

I find myself in the curious position of trying to reset my goals. I enjoy research, so I don’t have a problem to motivate myself intrinsically. However, I wonder what my extrinsic motivations can/should be. I am happy to stay where I am, I don’t particularly care about fame in the profession, and salary is what it is. I guess I am wondering what goals people in the tenure track or those already tenured set for themselves.

Interesting query! A couple of readers submitted these follow-up comments:

[I]f I were you, I'd take a break and try to enjoy life! What aspects of a well-rounded life did you give up on or neglect in order to get where you are? What sorts of things were you interested in before you started dedicating yourself to philosophy? Now is a good time to reconnect with other goals you have for yourself outside of your career. - Other prof

You are a lucky person. My sense, as some later in their career, is (i) set some great goals that you think, wow I would love to do that (write a book), etc. and (ii) keep a look out for opportunities that you never imagined arising. Many of my most pleasurable experiences in the profession came from jumping at an opportunity when it arose. (iii) You can always try to support your spouse or family in reaching their goals (if they exist)... (and assuming they supported you). - late

I think these are great answers, as they very much mirror my own experiences. Although I have stayed very active with research, teaching, etc., since getting a TT job and tenure, the most wonderful thing about finally getting to this place has been the ability to finally reconnect fully with things that I value and deeply enrich my life: writing and recording music, cultivating better friendships, spending more quality time with family, and doing other enjoyable things (skiing, etc.). During my years on the market and pre-tenure, I was so stressed out all of the time that I just didn't have the mental energy to either do or enjoy these things properly. I was always preoccupied, and sort of turned into a ghost of a person. Perhaps the greatest blessing of finally getting a full time job and tenure has been the psychological well-being to be able to answer the OP's question on my own terms: through the time and career stability to finally reflect and pursue what I care about (beyond getting and keeping a job).

But anyway, these are just my answers to the OP's query. What are yours?

Discussing leaving the market w/significant others

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

In conversations with a significant other who is not in academia, how do you help them understand that deciding to leave the academic job market is not 'giving up?'

More specifically, how might one communicate to their partner that their relatively stable non TT position is actually quite good, all things considered?

To an outsider, it seems as though someone who put in 7 years for a PhD only to decide they no longer want to pursue TT positions is somehow akin 'giving up on one's dream' and that remaining in a non-TT position is somehow just 'settling.' I struggle to help them understand that these kinds of phrases and this general framework are simply not as applicable here.

And I ask this sincerely, so responses like 'there's no jobs' or 'its soul-crushing' are not especially helpful.

So please, serious responses only.

These are really good questions. My spouse and I had a number of somewhat similar discussions during my time on the market. I didn't have the option of staying in a stable non-TT position, so in my case the discussions were about whether to leave academia altogether. But anyway, here are a few thoughts...

How can we help you? (Jan-Feb 2021)

Now that it's been close to a couple of months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new 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! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Tips applying to UK jobs?

A reader writes in:

I could use some help understanding how US citizens apply for jobs in the UK. I'm looking at an application, for instance, and I don't understand the difference between "secondary education" and "higher education." When filling out information for secondary education, what is a "level of qualification", and what is a "grade"? When filling out information for higher education, what is a "quantification result"? And what constitutes "training/development courses or qualifications" outside graduate work?

Good question! I always found these kinds of questions very confusing myself. In addition to hearing answers to them, it could be good to hear additional tips from people who have served on hiring committees at UK universities--especially when it comes to things that foreign (e.g. US) applicants might not know. Anyone willing and able to weigh in?

Experiences and tips for co-authoring?

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

I was wondering whether this blog might be a good outlet for graduate students/faculty to detail and describe their experiences with co-authoring and collaborating on papers and symposia. What worked well? What didn’t? Who approached who with the idea to co-author/collaborate? How well did you all know each other before the project? Did you work on similar areas or different areas (and then pursue a project at the intersection of your differing areas)? Any general advice on this process?

These are great questions, and I look forward to hearing how readers answer. I have co-authored four times, and by and large I have found it to be a very positive experience. Here are some quick answers to the OP's questions:

What worked well?: I found co-authoring to be an excellent way to write papers in areas a bit outside of my areas of expertise. In half of the papers that I've co-authored, I had a paper idea that I thought promising, but I didn't have the technical background in the relevant area. Seeking out co-authors with expertise filled in those gaps, as it were. In the other two cases, I did have expertise in the area but had been corresponding with co-authors with related ideas. So, we teamed up!

What didn't?: For the most part, stuff went very well. In one case, I didn't know how to use the drafting software (LaTex) that my co-authors used, so I found that a bit difficult. In one other case, the paper I was working on with a co-author didn't really pan out. 

Who approached who, and how well did we know each other?: My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think in three out of the four cases I approached my eventual co-authors. Also, in three out of the four cases, the collaborations were with people who were formerly acquaintances--people who I had either met a few times or interacted with online, but otherwise didn't know very well. In the fourth case, I did know the person very well beforehand. 

Did you work on similar areas or different areas?: In two out of the four cases, I worked in similar areas as my co-author(s). In the other two cases, I worked in quite different areas from my co-author(s), but we teamed up because the project was at the intersection between our areas of focus. 

Any general advice on this process?: Here are a few tips...

A. Be up front about and negotiate clear timelines and expectations: For example, if you are on the job market or coming up for tenure, and you need to get the paper out and publish relatively quickly, my sense is that it is probably a good idea to let your co-authors know this, and see if they can commit to a mutually acceptable timeline for working on things. First, I think a prearranged 'deadline' for getting the paper done can be good. Second, I think it's a good idea to try to hammer out who will do what. In half of my co-authored papers, I served as the primary drafter, and my co-author served as a 'second author', revising (and adding in content) after the fact. In the other two cases, we split things up, with each author serving as the primary drafter for different parts of the paper. For what it is worth, my sense is that both can work well, but (for obvious reasons) I think it can be more efficient to designate one person as a 'first author' responsible for most of the drafting.  

B. Be understanding with co-authors: everyone has different commitments, especially during Covid (where they or family members can get sick, bogged down in teaching, etc.). Co-authoring may take longer than solo-authoring in this regard, but I think it can be worth it!

C. Be a responsible co-author: my spouse works in a STEM field where co-authoring is the norm, and sometimes one or more co-authors can be slow or non-responsive. Sometimes people just get bogged down, and for whatever reason aren't able to keep up with the prearranged schedule (if you had one). This is okay: it happens, and nobody is perfect! The key thing is just to be open and communicative, and to do your best to be a good co-author. Finally, on that note, sometimes a co-authored paper just doesn't quite come together, just as can happen with solo-authored papers. If you have doubts about the paper, just be honest with your co-author(s) about it. 

D. There's no single right way to co-author: my spouse regularly meets with co-authors via Zoom. Me? I've done all four of my co-authored pieces entirely over email, via email communication and communication in paper drafts (i.e. side comments). I prefer the latter because I think I work best on paper. But some people like to talk things through in person. Again, I think the best way forward is simply to find common ground.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of co-authoring, but these are just my tips and experiences. What are yours?

Listing R&Rs on your CV?

In our December “how can we help you?” thread, a reader writes:

I am wondering whether and how to include a Major Revisions decision in my application materials. Should I put it on my CV? In my cover letter? Should I "frontload" it in the way I have tried to do my other publications or will that give an amatuerish impression, perhaps as though I am proud of what is really a modest achievement. 

(Hopefully others could benefit from generic advice on this but I imagine it depends on the (perceived) caliber of the journal in question, as well as on my other publications. For my case, I have two other publications. Both are in good but not tip-top journals. My impression is that the journal for which I have this Major Revisions decision is received as either the same or a bit higher caliber than either of those.)

Another reader then submitted the following reply:

No one is going to give you a job because you have a paper invited for major revisions. If you have other publications already, which you do, that is what will count. If you don't, then those reading your application will think you are deluded about what you have - there is no presumption of acceptance with major revisions, as there is with minor revisions. Just do not list it at all. Each year when the market begins, you should accept that you have what you have ... and nothing more.

I disagree. Of course, no one is literally going to give you a job because you have an R&R listed on your CV. But still, an R&R at a good journal looks good, especially if you only have a couple of publications (or none at all). Listing it on your CV signals a couple of things: (1) that you have additional non published work that has impressed at least one (and perhaps multiple) referee(s) at a good journal, and (2) that there a non-negligible probability that you will eventually publish that piece (either after revising or at some other good journal).

Of course, I think hiring committees will take R&Rs with a serious grain of salt, as major revisions can end up being rejected up to 50% of the time (or so I’ve heard). But still, it seems to me that an R&R at a good journal only signals good things—so if it were me, I’d totally list it. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Writing advice for graduate students: Writing that energizes

I was intrigued to read Perry Hendricks' advice for grad students on how to write papers for publication. It is practical, no-nonsense, and contains a lot of valuable insights. But as all writing guides, it can only cover so much and doesn't go into some of the aspects of the writing itself. For this reason, I decided to put a somewhat different, hopefully complementary, perspective out there. I adapted this from a regular newsletter I write for grad students at Saint Louis University, where I am placement director. 

An important element of success, in getting the dissertation done and in getting publications, is to cultivate good writing habits. Here I just want to speak to one aspect of it, namely that writing--if done strategically--can help energize you and can help you to write what you want, to lift writer's block and self doubt.

Handling a grievance in a grad program?

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

I would be interested in hearing readers' insights about how to approach your department, as a grad student, if you have a grievance against a particular faculty member. Of course this varies a lot place to place and situation to situation - but if it's possible to give a general answer: whom should you go to? How should you pursue it? How should you frame it?

These are really great and important questions. Because I don't have any first-hand experience here, I don't think that I'm very well-positioned to offer tips or advice. However, I will say that I have heard horror stories about departments 'protecting' faculty members, so much so that it may seriously impact the student's well-being, ability to finish the program, and succeed in the profession. This isn't to say that one shouldn't pursue a grievance. If the problem is serious enough (such as sexual misconduct), one may feel duty-bound to do something, so that the faculty member in question cannot continue to victimize others. It is to say, however, that lodging grievances may be very much fraught with peril (laws against retaliation notwithstanding). But again, these are just things I've heard. 

Anyway, I am very curious to hear from readers, especially from current or former grad students who have pursued grievances, as well as from grad program faculty or administrators who have handled them. If a grad student has a grievance, what should they do? Who should they go to, and how?

Over-submitting to conferences?

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

I'm a graduate student from a third world country with only very little experience in conferencing. With COVID still going nowhere, most (if not all) upcoming student conferences are moved online and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to submit to *all* of them--which is obviously something I wouldn't do in the past--and then choose between conferences if need be. Also, do you think that there is a maximum number of conferences for the same paper to be presented at so that I don't come across as making a big deal out of just one piece of work?

Great questions, and I'm curious to hear readers' answers. I saw a thread on a similar issue on Twitter the other day, and the general consensus seemed to be that it is fine to apply to as many conferences as one likes--the idea being that submitting for a conference is not in itself a commitment to attend. I wouldn't be surprised if some readers think otherwise, holding that one should only apply to conferences on the presupposition that one will attend if accepted. But, for my part, this seems overly restrictive. Many of us (at least in normal times) can't know whether we will be able to attend before submitting, in part because our universities only consider travel funding requests after one is invited. Anyway, I'm curious what readers think.

In terms of the question of whether there's a maximum number of conferences worth presenting one's work at, I don't think there is any limit in principle. But I do think there are some practical reasons to only present a given work several times at most, at least if one is an early career person. First, the more places you present a paper, the more likely it is that potential journal reviewers will know who you are. This could of course be a boon to you if you are at a prestigious program (since there may be biases toward people at such programs), but it could well backfire if you are at lesser-know, less prestigious program. Second, I suspect that the more times you presents a piece of work, there will be diminishing returns: you'll get bored presenting the paper, the same kinds of commentator and Q&A comments, etc. You don't need to get the same feedback over and over again to know which parts of the paper journal reviewers are likely to balk at--so, at some point, usually after a handful of conferences, you'll probably have enough feedback to go on to send the paper out to a journal instead.

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Transitioning into administration without tenure?

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

I am a tenure-track faculty at mid-sized R2 that is aspiring to be an R1. I have become increasingly disinterested in research and increasingly interested in teaching and service/administration. As such, I no longer desire to go up for tenure. Since I do enjoy teaching and service/administration, I would like to stay employed at the university, if possible (moving geographically is not an option given my familial circumstances). Are faculty who do not go up for tenure ever allowed to move to a lecturer line and/or admin job at the same institution? If so, who makes this decision? How is it negotiated? Some have advised I just do what needs to be done for tenure and then focus on teaching and service after, but I’d rather just start working now on the projects I’m actually interested and not try to pull off some bait and switch in my department. Any insight would be appreciated!

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:

Here is some advice from someone who did make a partial move into admin. DO NOT not go up for tenure. Get tenure. Just do what you have to. Then, really get involved in administrative things around campus. It will be a great service to your department and to our profession. We need philosophers involved in admin at universities. Then our voice is at the table (the adult table). But it is imperative that you do it as a tenured faculty. There is my advice.

This seems broadly right to me. While I think it may be possible to get a well-paid, full-time administrative job at a university without tenure (such as running a Center for Teaching & Learning, Wellness Center, etc.), my sense is that it is highly unusual and that many universities require upper administrators (e.g. deans, etc.) to have tenure. So, I think the safe thing to do is to get tenure (if possible), and then transition into administration. But then again, these are just my impressions, and they may be incorrect or idiosyncratic. What do you all think, particularly those of you with experience in these matters? Also, if you do have experience, how would you answer the OP's questions about the process of transitioning into admin?

Is lack of affiliation a problem on the market?

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

I'm curious if anyone has thoughts about how important it is to have university affiliation (either as part of a graduate program or as a VAP, postdoc, etc) when you are on the job market.

Given that so many of us will be unemployed next year, and for a lot of us it's not practical/possible to stay in our PhD programs for another year, what should we do? If we can find a way to support ourselves (through non-academic work) without moving for the sake of a short-term position with a very high teaching load, that would free up a considerable amount of time and energy to make progress on research and hopefully be a more competitive candidate for the next round of applications. But if it would look terrible on a job application to have no current university affiliation, then it might just be a priority for those of us who want to apply again next year to do our best to get *something*.

What do others think?

This is a good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it is undeniable that having an academic affiliation on the job market is a +. Consider this. There are 200 applicants for a job. 150 have an academic affiliation, and 50 do not. Isn't it likely that for every one of the 50 without who has three publications, and good teaching evaluations, etc. there are 3 in the pool of 150 who have one. So other things being equal, you will be setting yourself at a disadvantage.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think this is a bit strong. Yes, a search committee member may notice absence of current institutional affiliation. And yes, all things being equal, it could be a negative. But are search committee members so narrow-minded that they wouldn't bear the candidate's entire record in mind when evaluating this? I mean, suppose the candidate is otherwise excellent: they have good publications, a good teaching record, etc. I have to imagine that most search committee members would still seriously consider the person. We all know how bad the market is, and surely this would figure into most of our minds. 

So no, I don't think it would 'look terrible' to lack an academic affiliation for a year, and indeed, I seem to recall a few job-candidates who were out of academia for a year or two end up with good academic jobs--in large part, it seems, because they still published in good venues. The real issue, I expect, is how long one lacks an academic affiliation. A year seems fine to me. But beyond that, I expect it could begin to count as much more of a negative.

But these are really only some off-hand thoughts, and could be entirely idiosyncratic to me. What do the rest of you think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Funded MA at Texas Tech

The following recently came to my attention via email, and may be of interest to undergraduates:

The Texas Tech Philosophy Department is now accepting applications for its Master of Arts Program in philosophy.

Our M.A. students are regularly admitted to some of the best PhD programs in philosophy including most recently NYU, Rutgers, and Pittsburgh. Recent placement can seen on our website here: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/philosophy/degrees/placement.php

We are able to offer students generous funding packages. Teaching Assistantships are provided to almost all of our graduate students which include tuition and fee waivers that cover more than 80% of tuition and fees as well as a stipend of an additional $13,000 a year. Additional fellowships of up to $5,000 may also be available as well. 

For financial aid purposes, US students should fill out a FAFSA form as early as possible. For full consideration, all other applications materials should be received by Feb 15th, though applications are still accepted and considered on a rolling basis after this. Further nformation about our program can be found on our website here: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/philosophy/degrees/gradprogram.php as well as on the attached poster.

Please contact Dr. Daniel Nathan at [email protected], Director of Graduate Admissions, with any questions. 

Please do feel free to post any additional opportunities that undergrad philosophers might find of interest in the comment thread below!

Advice on giving good Zoom talks?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Al writes:

Wondering if anyone has advice on giving Zoom talks (in my case it's an invited talk rather than a job talk, if that matters). I usually use powerpoint, so the obvious thing would be to share my screen with my slides up on the screen. Alternatively, I could email around (or post a link to) a handout, and talk through that.

Any other suggestions/advice?

Great question! Another reader submitted the following response:

From my experience, you should use powerpoint. Do not present from a handout. If you want to give them an aid, send the paper in advance. I did this recently. It was for an audience whose first language is not English. They really appreciated, and the questions in the Q&A were, as a result, quite sophisticated. Consequently, it was a far better experience than I expected.

I don't know. Until yesterday, I might have agreed with this. But yesterday, I sat in on an Eastern APA session where the author used a handout, which they shared via Zoom's chat function. I thought it went just fine! I opened the handout on one side of my screen while watching the speaker on the other--and I thought it worked just about as well for the speaker as using a PowerPoint. I was able to follow everything well via the handout, and the talk itself was engaging.

In any case, if the OP does use PowerPoint, I would advise not to simply share the presentation via Zoom. My experience here is that if one simply shares a PowerPoint, the slides take up the whole screen (as is standard in PowerPoint's 'present' function), and the speaker is in a little box in the corner, then the presentation can seem less engaging. In my author-meets-critics session at the Eastern APA last week, I did something different that I thought worked well. I saved my PowerPoint slides as a PDF, opened the PDF in one window, selected the 'read mode' function (which make them take up the whole PDF window), and then did 'share screen' via Zoom, placing my PDF/slides on the left-hand side of the screen with my Zoom camera feed taking up the right-hand side of my screen. The advantage here is that the audience can view a large enough version of the PowerPoint to read and see the speaker in a large window at the same time--thus approximating the experience one would have viewing a philosophy talk in person, at least as far as is possible via Zoom.

But these are just my reactions/tips. What are yours?

Applying in future years to jobs one didn't get?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Annie writes:

My questions concern applying for jobs in departments that one has in previous years been short-listed but ultimately rejected from. Is this something one should acknowledge in one's cover letter? Should one hedge by keeping the same materials like a writing sample (since they worked last time and they might not be remembered) or do something new (to show you've developed or something)? Anything else worth knowing? Thanks everyone

Interesting questions. My reaction here is pretty unequivocal: I don't think it is worth mentioning or doing anything special with one's application materials. Let me explain.

Which AOCs are good to develop?

On Twitter yesterday, an early-career philosopher asked:

I would like very much to develop teaching competence in Ancient Philosophy, including especially ancient science. It seems like this is a bad idea given this would be far off from what I would like to specialize in...I wonder how people navigate such thing. [A]ny Cocoon posts about things like this?

I think this is a great query, as it raises some important job-market issues that I suspect many graduate students and job-candidates might not know very much about. Indeed, far from it being a bad idea for this person to develop an AOC in Ancient, I think it is a great idea. Let me explain why.

Should grad students & job-candidates be open or silent on political issues?

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

I'm a graduate student who will soon go on the job market. My simple question is this: Can I, from a professional standpoint, stay completely silent on the various 'political' questions that are currently floating around the profession? Things related to Professor S*toc* come to mind, but that's likely not the full extent of it.

I have particular concern because, with some dedicated internet searching, it would be easy enough to figure out my political sympathies. I'm not ashamed of them (they are mine, after all), but I guess I'm curious as to whether that is something I should be willing to talk about in job interviews. To frame this as one last specific question: do you think it would be abnormal for search committees to inquire into her political views?

I know there has been some talk about whether a candidate would be judged harshly based on a pro-life stance, for instance, but I'm more concerned about being judged for my personal political work, which I'd rather keep to myself.

These are very good questions, and I'm curious what readers think. But here are a few of my thoughts:

1. I think there is no risk-free approach here. If you are open about your political views, then those views or your public declarations may turn off some search committees. On the other hand, if you are silent, you run two risks: (A) failing to stand out as a job-candidate, and (B) appearing silent on important political issues that some search committee members themselves think people should take public positions on rather than remaining silent. Bearing this in mind, I recall something my father told me as a child: "You'll never make everyone happy", the point being that everything you do runs a risk of turning this person or that person off. In terms of the job-market, the relevant thing to bear in mind here is that your task is not to get every search committee to like you (which is surely impossible). Your aim should be to get one department to like you so much that they want to hire you. And when it comes to this task, it is entirely unclear to me whether being open about one's political views or silent about them is a better approach. Some departments, after all, are plausibly comprised largely by political progressives; others by political conservatives; and others still by political moderates. As a job-candidate, openly espousing one set of views may turn off search committees in the other camps--but it may make you look attractive to search committees (or influential search committee members) who share your views. This isn't to say that I think politics should influence hiring like this. It is merely to note that this is probably how things work, given the way that human beings are.
2. Do you really want to work with people who will discriminate against you? This has come up on this blog before, but I think it's important. If you are hired into a job, at some point your political leanings are probably going to come out, or at least be suspected by colleagues interested in these things. And do you really want to work somewhere where you're going to have to worry that your colleagues might discriminate against you (or worse)?
3. Nothing is risk-free, but professionalism matters. My sense is that there is probably a huge difference between expressing your political views online, and doing so in a way that appears unprofessional (i.e. mocking people on Twitter, thread-jacking blog discussion boards, etc.). Faculty and administrators want to hire people who will reflect well on their university, not embarrass it (or worse).
4. Is it abnormal for search committees to ask about political views? I have no idea. But what I do know is that members of search committees can and sometimes do ask things that they shouldn't (indeed, even things are illegal to ask, such as one's relationship status). If I were asked about my political views during an interview, I'm not sure what I would do. I'd probably get uncomfortable. But then again, I'm not the best interviewee. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear both from search committee members and from current or former job-candidates what their experiences have been.

Book launch and on-the-spot writing contest for Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories

Eric Schwitzgebel, Johan De Smedt and I are launching our book "Philosophy Through Science Fiction Stories: Exploring the Boundaries of the Possible", which will be published with Bloomsbury.

The book launch will take place on Zoom on January 18, from 2 PM to 3:30 Central Time. 

This launch will feature authors of stories in the book who will read excerpts or standalone flash fiction. 

In addition, we organize an on-the-spot writing contest (submit within 2 hours of receiving the prompt online) for stories of 500 to 1000 words, for potential publication in Flash Fiction Online. 

All participants to the book launch will also receive a 35% discount code for the book for the Bloomsbury website. 

Details on how to register here: http://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/PhilThruSF-booklaunch.htm

Excellent works by early-career people?

I came across an excellent and important paper this past weekend by an early-career philosopher, and thought it could be great to begin the week a discussion thread amplifying other examples of excellent work by early-career people. The paper I came across this weekend is by Nicolas Delon (New College of Florida). The paper is, 'Strangers to ourselves: a Nietzschean challenge to the badness of suffering' (forthcoming in Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy). Here's the abstract:

Is suffering really bad? The late Derek Parfit argued that we all have reasons to want to avoid future agony and that suffering is in itself bad both for the one who suffers and impersonally. Nietzsche denied that suffering was intrinsically bad and that its value could even be impersonal. This paper has two aims. It argues against what I call ‘Realism about the Value of Suffering’ by drawing from a broadly Nietzschean debunking of our evaluative attitudes, showing that a recently influential response to the debunking challenge (the appeal to phenomenal introspection) fails. It also argues that a Nietzschean approach is well suited to support the challenge and is bolstered by the empirical literature. As strangers to ourselves, we cannot know whether suffering is really intrinsically bad for us.

I think it's just a wonderful paper. It challenges some very influential arguments on the nature of normative reasons and value, including the general methodology behind those arguments--and the paper's central argument not only seems to me to be highly plausible; it's also (for obvious reasons) highly provocative. Anyway, I wanted to amplify it here, as I know that papers, particularly those by early career people, can sometimes fall through the cracks, not getting the attention they deserve. Anyway, I encourage readers to check Delon's paper out!

Do any of you have in mind any excellent works by early-career people that you would like to recommend? If so, please do share away in the discussion thread below.

Developing philosophically out of academia?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Tom writes:

I have a Bachelor's degree in philosophy, and I am going on my second semester as a teaching assistant at my alma mater for sections of ethics and philosophy of religion. I'm not a graduate student, but I was for a few weeks before I quit due to a lack of proper treatment for my mental disorders. However much I might like to return to a master's program to improve my knowledge of philosophy, my mental health professional has advised against it. I read a lot in my area of interest, which is a particularly narrow domain of inquiry. I still write from time to time. I have some people who are willing to give me feedback on my writing, but without attending graduate school, my goal of publishing my two most cherished pieces of philosophical writing seems impossible. Now to my question: how do I improve my writing and develop my ability as a philosopher independently and largely in isolation?

I'm not sure that I have a great answer to Tom's question. I guess my suggestion would be to simply keep up with new articles coming out in their area and try to seek out feedback from professional philosophers or grad students who are willing to read their work. I do think it is probably very hard (though not impossible) to publish and develop as a philosopher independently and in isolation, especially with only a Bachelor's degree. However, it's been done by many philosophers (and scientists!) in history, and I'm strongly inclined to not discourage people or make pronouncements about what 'cannot be done.' If human history shows anything, it is that dedication and resourcefulness can go a long way.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

What should (not) be in a teaching portfolio?

In the comments section of Trevor's post on teaching portfolios vs. 'evidence of teaching effectiveness', a reader writes:

I'm dramatically downsizing my portfolio, since I've heard from folks now that search committees just don't care about seeing all your syllabi, or sifting through full evaluation sets. For me, this means I'm summarizing all of the data, whether quantitative or written comments, and including just two full syllabi, plus of course a statement. And that is that.

If a Department really wants to see full, unaltered evals, then their language should say exactly that. Or so it seems to me. If they don't ask for that, then they shouldn't expect more; nor should they let biases of cherry picking figure into their assessment if they're not asking for the full set.

But I'd like to hear from Trevor and Marcus on this.

Another commenter, Annie, responded as follows:

I would have thought that 'evidence of teaching excellence' means unaltered evaluations, awards, informal letters of support for students (if you opt to include that sort of thing), reports of teaching observation, etc. To my ear, a teaching statement and syllabi don't fit the bill.

Finally, in response to Annie's comment, another reader wrote in:

I had sort of been wondering about this, and now someone has responded in the post about 'evidence of teaching effectiveness' VS 'teaching portfolio' that the former might involve letters of reference written on your behalf by students. But is this something hiring committees actually like to see? It seems pretty strange to me.

All of these comments raise an interesting question: given that 'teaching portfolio' and 'evidence of teaching effectiveness' seem to be used interchangeably, what should and should not be included in a teaching portfolio?

Are PhD programs receiving more applications?

A reader writes in:

I wanted to draw your attention to a Twitter thread by Kevin Zollman at Carnegie Mellon University...

Zollman announced that the philosophy department at CMU has seen a 40%-60% increase in PhD applications this season. A few other philosophers have confirmed a similar increase in their departments. Though it should be pointed out that a few (Rutgers for example) have not seen such an increase.

As a 2021 PhD applicant, I am justifiably anxious about this. I won't be applying to CMU, but I feel confident that we will see similar increases across the board. 

Do you or any of your readers see this happening at other departments? If so, what advice do you have for us graduate students who feel like their already slim chances have just vanished?

I think it would be great to hear from PhD admissions committee members on whether this is happening at their program. Also, if it is, what advice would you give nervous applicants? I guess I'm inclined to say that if this is the case, then applicants who don't get into a program they want to enter might be better off waiting and applying again next year. Then again, next year could be a similar story. What do you all think?

Author Meets Critics this Friday

If anyone is interested, the Eastern APA is holding a virtual Author Meets Critics session on my book, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory, this Friday from 11am-1pm EST. Here are the session details:

5B. Author Meets Critics: Marcus Arvan, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory

Chair: Denise Vigani (Seton Hall University)

Critics: David Killoren (Australian Catholic University), Neil Sinhababu (National University of Singapore), Caroline Arruda (University of Texas at El Paso), Gregory Robson (Iowa State University)

Hope to see some of you there!

Teaching Portfolio's vs. "Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness"

Just before the end of the year, I got an email from a former colleague of mine who is doing her first run on the job market. She asked if I had any input on the difference between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness." The latter phrase is commonly used on job ads these days as a required component of one's application, but it is often ambiguous as to what exactly should be included. Here's what I told her in my response:

When I was last on the job market, my teaching portfolio contained (1) my statement of teaching philosophy, (2) a brief summary of my student evaluations from the last several years, (3) two full sets of student evaluations from recent courses taught, (4) two full sample syllabi, and (5) two brief course proposals (with reading lists) for courses I was ready to teach but had never actually taught. When I was asked for evidence of teaching effectiveness, I usually included fewer materials -- the teaching statement, summary of evaluations, a single set of student evaluations, one sample syllabus, and sometimes one course proposal. If I could, I tailored these documents to the job ad. If I were expected to teach a course like Contemporary Moral Problems, for instance, then I'd be sure to include evaluations from that course, and if I were expected to teach a philosophy of technology course, then I'd slip in my course proposal for that class.

 

In my experience, asking for an entire teaching portfolio has become relatively rare. In my last job search, less than 15% of the jobs I applied for requested it. Requests for either "evidence of teaching effectiveness" or a specific list of teaching-related items appears to be the norm now. I suspect that this is because there are so many job applicants now that most committee members don't want to sift through a portfolio of 25-30 pages and have assumed that evidence of teaching effectiveness should be more focused and concise than a full portfolio. The institutions that requested full portfolios were, as you might expect, teaching focused schools, and I suspect that the portfolio was one of the weightiest parts of those application.

 

This, however, is only my impression of the difference, and I could be mistaken. Does anyone else have a take on the distinction between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness" who would like to weigh in?

Showing appreciation while we have time

Happy New Year, everyone! Given how...challenging 2020 was (to put it mildly), I figured it might be good to try to begin 2021 on the Cocoon on a positive note: that is, in a way that starts out 2021 trying to do some good. One of the things that 2020 brought to the forefront of many of our minds, I expect, is just how tenuous life is. Of course, we always know that our lives or lives of our friends and loved ones could end at any time. But, for the most part, I take it that most of us normally try to avoid this reality, living our daily lives out, going to work, etc. Last year was different. Some of us got sick from COVID; others of us worried about or even lost loved ones to it. Hopefully, this year will be better. But all of this got me thinking about something: namely, how important it can be to let people know how much they mean to us while we still have the time to do so.

My sense is that, for those of us who have lost people (either last year or before COVID), not doing this can be one of the things we deeply regret. For example, last year was the first time a former professor and mentor of mine passed away. Although I did my best to express gratitude to them while they were here, I'm not sure that I ever made it clear just how much of a positive difference they made in my life and career. And indeed, every time I read death notices of philosophers (and comments sections where people express the difference those people made in their lives), I always think to myself: why don't we do this--openly express gratitude to those who mean so much to us--before they pass, that is, when they are still here to see how much they mean to us?

So, here is what I would like to try in the comments section below. I'd like to ask readers who are willing to do so to express gratitude to others in the profession who have made a positive difference in your life--whether it is a mentor, a friend in grad school, whomever! While I think readers should feel free to do so openly under their own name, I'm a bit inclined to suggest that it may be best to do so anonymously, and here's why. I read yesterday a selection by Kant (in his Lectures on Ethics) in which he argues against doing people profligate favors on the grounds that it places them under a kind of unasked-for obligation. Lurking here in the background also, I think, is another classically Kantian idea: that when we do nice things publicly (as opposed to anonymously), there's always a real concern about purity of motive--that is, of us doing so to look good rather than to do good. So, here's what I'll suggest: if there are any people in the profession who have made a positive difference in your life--who you would like to show gratitude to while they are still here--do it anonymously, simply to start off 2021 in a way that, if that person sees your comment, will make their start to 2021 feeling a bit happier and more appreciated than they might otherwise feel today. :)

I'll probably post an anonymous comment (or two) of gratitude myself, but only after others kick things off (in part so that it's not obvious which commenter I am!). I hope that at least some of you do take the opportunity to comment and share the thread. Why not begin 2021 trying to make someone's day (and start of the year) just a little bit brighter?