The Philosophers' Cocoon

Which grad programs have good alt-ac support?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) writes:

How do different grad schools compare in their placement of people into alt-ac careers? I suspect (but have no data) that if you actively help people (e.g., with making resume and mock interview) you'll place more successfully in alt-ac jobs but we have no data.

Good question. Does anyone know? My memory is a bit hazy here, but I seem to recall hearing that at least a few grad programs in philosophy do have decent support systems for pursuing alt-ac (or non-academic) careers. If anyone has any insights, I'd love to hear them in the comments section!

Applying again to jobs that rejected you?

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

I got a virtual interview a few years ago for a TT position. I did not advance to the next round. They have advertised a similar position this year. There is a slight difference in emphasis for the job this year. Still, should I bother applying again?

This is an excellent question, and I've heard it asked more than a few times before. Here's my hot take, as someone who has served on 5 search committees now: yes, you should bother applying again. In fact, even if you didn't get an interview, apply again. Why? Here's a short list of reasons:

1. Search committees aren't always comprised by the same people. Even if you weren't at the very top of the list of last year's committee, the committee might be a little different this ear.
2. Search committees can sometimes wish they had decided differently. Seriously, suppose they invited a couple of their top candidates and neither of the candidates impressed. Or suppose they hired their top candidate, and the person then left for a job at another university. This year's committee might be worried about 'hiring another flight risk' - so they might weigh things differently when evaluating candidates.
3. How committees 'rank' candidates depend upon the candidate pool. Maybe you were the committee's third or fourth choice the previous time you applied, but they could only invite 2 people to campus. Given that this year's applicant pool is different, you could well end up ranked higher and get an on-campus interview.
4. If the committee liked you enough to interview you, they may do so again...and anything can happen. Perhaps last time you interviewed, you only came across decently in the interview. Maybe this year you'll knock the interview out of the park. And maybe the other candidates that the committee ranks higher than you bomb their interviews. Seriously, I've seen stuff like this happen. You never know what will happen at the interview stage.
5. Your dossier might be better: maybe you've added things to your CV. Maybe you have a better research statement, teaching portfolio, etc. If it's been a year or a few (as the OP implies), this is probably the case--so you may be a more competitive candidate on your merits.

I'm sure that I'm leaving a few things out here. But anyway: what do other search committee members think? Should candidates who applied for a job with you previously apply again? If not, why not? If so, why? For the kinds of reasons I gave, or for other reasons?

Grad program support for alt-ac careers?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz asks:

[When it comes to applicants deciding between grad programs,] how important should support for alt-ac careers be? Given that even the best placing schools will have grad students who will never be able to have a career as an academic, does this mean that all grad programs should at least do something toward alt-ac training/placement?

These are excellent questions. There has been some debate lately about whether grad programs should take greater steps to aid students in Alt-Ac placement. Some (such as myself) think that the answer is: obviously yes. Insofar as only something like 50% of philosophy PhD students ever finish their degrees, and of those who do only something like 32 to 35% get permanent academic posts within 5 years of graduation, this means that a high proportion of philosophy graduate students could really use support in finding non-academic work. On the other hand, there are those who think this isn't really the job of faculty in philosophy PhD programs, as these programs are said to exist primarily to train students for academic jobs. From my perspective, this latter line of argument amounts to a bare appeal to tradition. Yes, philosophy programs have existed primarily to prepare students for academic jobs--but I think there is no good reason for things to stay this way. Let me explain.

Getting letters to leave a philosophy grad program for a pre-professional degree?

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

I have a question about transitioning from academia to a professional degree program, and would really appreciate your input.

I recently started at a lower-ranked philosophy PhD program and I've realized pretty quickly that although I enjoy the academic aspect of it, I would have little to no prospects of academic employment if I keep going down this route. So, I am thinking of leaving my program with an MA and applying to professional degree programs instead (I'm primarily considering master's programs in public policy, business, and law at this point).

Now, I am in a bit of a predicament: most professional grad school applications would require me to submit letters of recommendation from current professors/supervisors. I am worried that if I ask my current professors/supervisor for a recommendation, they may look down upon my choice of leaving academia and even think of me as a sellout (especially for something like business or law school). I'm also concerned that this attitude may further reflect in their recommendation and really hinder my chances of getting into a good program. In this case, how should I approach the process of getting a recommendation?

This is a good question, and I'm not exactly sure what to recommend. Given that the OP says the recently started their PhD program, I wonder whether it would be best for them to approach their previous letter-writers (that is, the ones who wrote them letters when applying to PhD programs). Then again, I suppose the OP's concerns might extend to those references too. So, I'm really not sure what to recommend. What do you all think? 

(Better addressing) why grad students drop out?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) asks:

What are the main factors that cause grad students to drop out of programs, and how can these be mitigated? How can programs better support e.g., mental health, wellbeing and other outcomes?

These are both excellent and important questions. My sense is that many grad programs could probably do a lot more to better support struggling grad students, but that these issues are often just not talked about openly. In my experience, a lot of graduate students end up suffering in relative silence, not knowing what to do or who to turn to--and, perhaps in part because they are afraid to speak out, grad programs may not know what they could be doing to help.

Finally, of course, there may in some cases be simply a lack of will. Some grad faculty might not think it is their responsibility to help grad students through personal crises that affect their academic performance and ability to finish the program. Although I strongly disagree with this, it is worth thinking about what might be done to incentivize a more proactive and helpful approach in grad programs--such as, perhaps, the APA (or AAUP?) developing some kind of 'best practices' document or instituting some of kind requirement for programs to be transparent about their dropout rates in order to remain in good standing with the organization (which, insofar as it could reflect poorly on the program, particularly to prospective students, might incentivize programs to do better).

Anyway, I'm not sure--but I think these are very important questions, given how much is at stake in the lives of grad students. So, then, how would you answer Helen's questions? What are the main factors that lead grad students to drop out, and what should programs do better?

Where to put non-standard items on a CV?

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

I have a question concerning where (and if at all) to mention philosophy teaching experiences that fall outside of the academic setting on a CV?

To give a personal example, I was recently given the opportunity to teach an introduction to philosophy to refugees and asylum seekers. Although this teaching experience is not academic, I feel it is worth mentioning on my academic CV. However, I am unsure where exactly to fit it in. Moreover, beyond my specific example, I am sure there are many similar cases of teaching philosophy outside of the university setting.

Very curious to hear what others think about this.

Good question. It's not clear from the above comment whether they taught an entire introduction to philosophy course to refugees and asylum speakers, or just one class. If they taught an entire course, I guess it might be appropriate to list it in their CV under 'Courses Taught' along with all of their other courses. Alternatively, they could list it under 'Service to the Community & Profession' or some such. Regardless, I think teaching service like this is a really great thing to do, reflecting really well on a job candidate. What do you all think? Where and how should these kinds of things be listed on a CV?

Job-market reporting thread (2021-22 job season)

(Updated 10/3/201)

As I noted in opening this season's job-market discussion thread, I had planned to wait until October 1st to open this year's job-market reporting thread. However, given that I have already received some requests to open up the reporting thread, I hereby open this thread for job-market reporting. 

The current thread (below) is only for reporting news on the market (i.e. reporting interviews, flyouts, offers, hires, and so on), so please, report away! If you would like to discuss the job-market, please comment on the other thread. Permalinks to both job threads will remain on the right side-bar of the blog through the end of the job season. Because of Typepad's functionality limitations (which only permits 100 comments before starting a new comment page), readers may elect to bookmark each new page of comments as each new page emerges. I recognize that it can be frustrating to scroll through page after page to get to new comments, and I think this is probably the best solution given Typepad's functionality limitations.

Finally, although it should go without saying, commenters are asked to please remember the Cocoon's supportive mission while reporting. Thanks, and best of luck to all on the market!

Update: please do feel free to report on jobs in other departments that philosophers can be expected to apply to (political theory jobs in political science departments, AI-ethics jobs in interdisciplinary departments, etc.). Just make sure you specify the institution and department so that other readers and commentators don't confuse them with jobs in philosophy departments.

Publishing without advanced training?

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

I have a question that I've seen asked quite a few times on Reddit's /askphilosophy page and elsewhere, and it resonates with me quite a bit. Usually it's something along the lines of "I only have x amount of education in philosophy (or a related field), can I still get published?" The answers are in a near universal agreement that the publication system is so rigorous that it precludes most contributions from people who are not trained as professional philosophers. I have to admit that I am very understanding of the people who post these queries, because having left my previous master's program after only a few weeks due to health concerns, I hold out hope that I can publish something, even if this desire to publish is a result of the fact that I am still grieving over the fact that I'll never teach or get a graduate degree. I enjoy writing mostly because it helps with learning and remembering what I read, and it gives structure and purpose to reading and studying. The problem is that the things I've written are so arcane that they would be of no interest to people outside of the narrow confines of academia, and while my work has been accepted to professional conferences, I recognize that it isn't of such outstanding quality that it would merit inclusion in academic journals.

My question is the following: are there venues for independent scholars who lack a Ph.D., but nonetheless have a desire for some kind of creative output? Is it possible to publish on, say, Husserlian time-consciousness, if one masters the literature and manuscripts, given that it is a hyper-focused topic with a smaller literature than traditional philosophical problems? I've considered blogging, but people generally wouldn't want to read anything I have to write on this topic, since it's so beyond the pale of the ordinary concerns of most people. Thank you.

These are very good questions! In response, David submitted the following response:

[W]hy do you care about publishing in an academic journal if you're not going into an academic career? Publish it elsewhere or start a blog. You don't know who's interested in reading your writing until you try it.

I like David's suggestions, though I'm curious to hear about suggestions for alternative venues (beyond blogs) for publishing philosophy. In any case, perhaps in addition to starting a blog, someone like Matt might consider putting together a podcast. Together, those might be good ways to cultivate a base of people interested in hearing (and reading) what Matt has to say. And, although Matt might not think there are many people who would be interested in (say) reading his work on Husserlian time-consciousness, I don't know: judging by the kinds of social media groups I've come across (some of which have large numbers of laypeople interested in philosophy), there may well be a fairly sizable audience interested in a blog or podcast on this stuff, provided Matt can convey his ideas in an engaging manner. Who knows, right? You never know one way or the other until you try.

At the same time, I can't help but wonder whether--given how he describes his case--Matt might be able to publish in academic journals, if that's something he's interested in. As one of our recent entries on non-traditional paths into philosophy illustrates, it is certainly possible to publish academic philosophy in peer-reviewed journals without a higher degree in philosophy. It is of course very difficult (though not impossible) to publish in the most highly-ranked journals in the field, but regardless, there is also a variety of less-selective journals to consider.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

What do (and should) grad applicants prioritize?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) asks several interesting questions, beginning with the following:

What considerations do philosophy grad students have where to apply/which offer to accept? How important are (relatively speaking) the following factors...Stipend/package, training (e.g., teacher training) placement rate, relative prestige of the dept, professors they really want to work with, specialization, geography (is it a city they'd want to live in), "climate" (welcoming to e.g., women, minorities), research culture.

I think it might be good to hear from readers on two things:

1. Which considerations they did prioritize (or are currently prioritizing) in deciding which programs to apply to and accept admissions offers from.
2. Which considerations people think grad applicants should prioritize, and why.

After all, I expect that some people might have chosen programs for particular reasons, but then in retrospect with they had prioritized other factors instead. What do you all think?

Grad school writing sample tips?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a prospective grad student writes:

I'm a prospective graduate student preparing for the application cycle this fall. I'm hoping to pursue analytic philosophy, but the courses offered at my undergraduate institution were mostly in ancient, medieval, and continental philosophy. My quandary is in choosing a writing sample from the papers I wrote for these courses. In the paper I think might be my strongest, I analyze and interpret a continental thinker through tools drawn from an analytic thinker. My own writing style is very analytic, but I'm concerned that submitting a writing sample on a continental thinker might be a turn off to the analytically-minded programs I'm applying to. Is this a valid concern?

This is a good question, but unfortunately, having not served on grad admissions committees, I'm not very well-placed to know the answer! What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on grad program admissions committees? Also, given that the OP and other similar readers may benefit from other tips about grad program writing samples, please do share any other insights you might have about writing samples that you think prospective students should know!

Reading strategy tips?

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

I work at a teaching-oriented state school, and I usually do not have much time for research. People shared a lot of strategies for writing, such as starting your day with an hour of writing, blocking some time everyday for writing, finding writing peers, etc. I find them very helpful. However, there seems not to be many tips for reading, which is the part of research I am struggling with. For example, I tried to reserve one hour each day for my own research, but it is usually not enough for me even to finish reading one paper, especially when I need to stop and think about some interesting points or arguments. Can people share some tips or suggestions on the "reading" part of research?

This is an excellent query, and I am curious to hear whether readers have any helpful tips. Here are two that immediately occurred to me:

1. Skim first, noting things that need greater attention: For me, one aim of reading is to get a broad picture of what is in the literature. While the details may matter if I need to dig into a piece more carefully, in the first instance I just skim. Along the way, if there are particular parts of a paper that are especially difficult or that I need to think about carefully, I'll usually highlight and make a margin note. I think if you skim an article, it's easy to read an entire article in one hour. Perhaps if you're in the OP's situation, you spend one hour of one day skimming, and then one hour the next day reading and thinking more carefully about a difficult part that you noted on day 1.
2. Write to read: I've heard a lot of really productive people say this, but in general it seems right to me. The most effective way to read for the sake of one's own research (as the OP says) is to actually have an idea that you're writing up. Why? Well, for a couple of reasons. First, spending all of your time reading before you begin writing can turn, in effect, into a procrastination method--as you might continually read and think about new things, but never actually put pen to paper. Second, setting this aside, what you are writing can, in effect, tell you what you need to read (and read particularly carefully). That is, writing can help you winnow down your choices of what to read, and what to focus carefully upon when you do read. 

But these are just two quick tips that I've found helpful. What about you all? Do you have any reading strategies or tips that you think the OP might find helpful?

Non-standard types of reference letters?

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

I am in the dissertation phase of my Ph.D. and will be going on the job market soon. My question is about references, specifically teaching references. Before leaving to pursue my Ph.D., I taught high school for just over a decade. I had a very good relationship with my principal and she was able to see my growth as an educator, directly observe my classroom, and receive feedback from students and parents about my teaching. Moreover, she also knows the positive nature of the relationships I had with my colleagues. My question is this: Would it be prudent to ask for her to write a reference letter for jobs in higher education? I have professors in my current program who would write me a positive teaching recommendation, but they would not be able to write as strong a letter as my former principal. Would a letter from a high school administrator be looked down upon?

To be clear, I have professors who are willing to write recommendations. If I included a reference letter from my former principal, it would be in addition to these.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would not recommend this. You are expected to have a recent letter on teaching from a peer (a university faculty member). Your former principal is not a university educator, and the fact that they will speak of something some time in the past will raise concerns. For example, people will wonder whether you have alienated everyone at your programme, and cannot get a teaching letter. Or they may think that you will teach undergrads as one might teach students in a US high school.

Unfortunately, I think this is exactly right. One of the main things one needs to do in a job application is demonstrate that one understands the norms of the profession. In this case, the norm is pretty clear: letters of recommendation should as a rule be from members of the higher-education academy (i.e. professors). This in part because people on the hiring side of things may believe that teaching at a university level is vastly different than teaching at a high school level, but also because--when it comes to evaluating university-level teaching--part of what one is evaluating is the instructor's ability to present a particular subject matter (in our case, philosophy!) with accuracy and expertise. This, in general, just isn't the sort of thing that someone without an MA or PhD in philosophy (such as a principal) is presumably in a position to evaluate. On a similar note, I've heard people ask before whether it is a good idea to get a teaching letter from a student. Here again, I think this is the wrong call. It would come across as strange to see letters like that in a teaching portfolio, in part because students aren't experts at philosophy or pedagogy.

More generally, when it comes to job-markets (both academic and non-academic), there exist a variety of standing norms--for better or for worse--and violating the relevant norms is risky for that reason alone. In a more ideal world, perhaps, this wouldn't be an issue. But I think it is an issue in our world, and so, in cases like these, to do what the standing norm is: get teaching letters from (and only from) professors in the academy. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

What is the perceived value of invited pieces?

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

[W]hat is the perceived value of invited contributions to peer-reviewed volumes? My thoughts on this are that, on the one hand, such papers should be greatly valued since they show that the author is good enough/ respected enough to be invited to contribute to the volume. On the other hand, my impression is that the peer-review standards are not that high when it comes to edited volumes compared to regular journals. I have the impression that it is very hard to get rejected once invited to contribute. What are your thoughts on this topic?

I think we may have discussed this before, but these are very good questions that it's probably important for graduate students and job-candidates to get good answers to. What do you all think? For obvious reasons, it might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees or tenure and promotion committees. Having served on both kinds of committees myself, here are a few quick thoughts.

How can we help you? (September 2021)

Now that it's been about month and a half 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.

As usual, 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!

PhilPapers publication metrics?

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

I am wondering what - if anything - is the use of one's "Publication metrics" on PhilPeople. For those who aren't aware of this feature, PhilPeople provides users with their percentile rankings (Q1, Q2, Q3, top 5%, top 1%, etc.) for their publications, paper downloads, and citations, both overall and in specific subject areas. The rankings are relative to "pro" users, which are users with either a PhD in Philosophy or at least one publication in one of the "Most Popular" journals according to PhilPapers. Using this feature, you might learn that you are in the top 1% of downloads in say, Social Epistemology in the past five years, or that you are in the 90% percentile for publication volume in Value Theory.

I find this feature kind of neat. However, I can't imagine a situation where I would actually tell anyone about my publication metrics - if I did, I am sure it would be seen as being in bad taste. But at the same time, it seems like these metrics would be be useful information for search committees or for tenure and promotion cases: it's a decent way of showing whether or not people are actually engaging with your work, and how engagement with your research compares with others working in a similar area. Publication Metrics on PhilPeople is a bit like one's h-index and citations on Google Scholar, which I have heard of people mentioning for T&P, but PhilPeople has the advantage of being specific to the discipline, or even the sub-discipline. One issue might be that - unlike Google scholar citations and h-index - these metrics aren't public: as far as I can tell, one can only see one's own metrics, not those of others. I'm not sure why PhilPeople doesn't make them public, but doing so would mean that they're worth more than simple navel-gazing.

This is an interesting query. It does seem like these kinds of statistics might be useful in some regards when it comes to hiring or tenure and promotion. After all, the statistics do in essence 'compare you' to other specialists, indicating how much you publish in your field and how interested other people are in reading your work. On the other hand, I wonder how useful hiring or T&P committees might find this kind of information.

In any case, because I'm about as unsure as the OP on all of this, I'll open discussion to all of you: what do you think? Is this kind of PhilPapers information useful in any way above and beyond 'navel-gazing'? If so, how? Do you know of cases where it has been used (e.g. in hiring, etc.)? Should PhilPapers make the information public?

Principles for a globally inclusive philosophy?

Filippo Contesi (University of Barcelona) writes in drawing my attention to this nice endeavor he has launched:

BARCELONA PRINCIPLES FOR A GLOBALLY INCLUSIVE PHILOSOPHY

We acknowledge that English is the common vehicular language of much contemporary philosophy, especially in the tradition of so-called “analytic” or “Anglo-American” philosophy. This tradition is in large part based on the idea that philosophy should adopt, as far as is appropriate, the shared and universalistic standards of science. Accordingly, the analytic tradition has now spread worldwide, far beyond the countries where English is the majority native language^* (which constitute only about 6% of the world’s population). However, this poses a problem since non-native English speakers, who have not had the chance to perfect their knowledge of the language, are at a structural disadvantage. This disadvantage has not yet been sufficiently addressed. For instance, the most prestigious journals in the analytic tradition still have very few non-native English speakers on their editorial boards, have no explicit special policies for submissions from non-native English speakers, and continue to place a high emphasis on linguistic appearances in submitted papers (e.g. requiring near-perfect English, involving skim-based assessment etc.). (See Contesi & Terrone (eds), “Linguistic Justice and Analytic Philosophy”, Philosophical Papers, 2018.)

Getting permission to reuse material?

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

I've published a few related papers and some are still under review. I want to write a book where I want to reuse some textual material from these papers. I presume I have to ask for permission to do it. Whom to ask? The journal editor, the publisher? What is the extent of the material that can be reused? One sentence, one paragraph, several pages...? How to deal with papers that are under review? I know that authors address this in the acknowledgement section of their books. But exact rules are not clear to me. Can anyone help?

These are excellent questions, especially given that one could get oneself into a difficult position by going about things the wrong way. One reader submitted the following response to the OP:

Read the publication agreements you signed. For many of the big publishers (Springer, for example), you have the right to include the material in a monograph (a single author book). All you have to do is acknowledge where it was published, says, Phil Studies, and thank the publisher for the right to include material (in whole or in part) in your acknowledgement in the book. Done!

However, in my experience things aren't quite as simple as this. Let me explain.

Saturday sounds

How many papers do you/should you write?

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

I am starting a TT job in a research heavy institution and have not done my PhD in an elite US program so I have what are likely silly/self-evident questions: how many papers do people work on at the same time? Or, how many papers do people typically write in a year? I am sure it varies tremendously but I wonder if people start one new paper a year and keep working on the ones who are going through review or if they start more projects than that, esp. while being on the TT. Thank you for your help!

These are great questions, especially given that some people are starting new jobs right now. I think there are two important sets of questions here:

1. How many papers do people write in a year, and work on at the same time?
2. How many papers should one write a year at an R1?

Here's my own quick answer to (1). I looked in my paper draft folders last night, and found that I now write, on average, something like 4-5 new papers per year. Because I often end up revising those papers over several years, this means that I often find myself with 10 paper projects at a time. I'll often bounce around between them, revising papers that are already written while beginning new ones. It wasn't always like this, though. Earlier in my career, when I got my first job, I worked much more slowly--on maybe like one or two new papers per year. Why the change? I think there are two explanations: it gets easier to write papers over time, but also, I wasn't publishing enough early in my career, so I had to increase my output.

Questions on teaching letters

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

How bad is it to not have a teaching letter, in R1 positions? While I do teach, and haven't heard any complaints yet, I have almost exclusively done so as sole instructor, and the only senior person at my institution who has actually seen me teach is affiliated in the same research project as me. I worry that if I told her I'm applying elsewhere, she wouldn't take it well.

Connected question: how are letters from non-philosophers received? Are they useless? Say, a letter from a psychology professor who really likes your work on perception?

Good questions! I don't know about the first one, as I don't work at an R1. But, in response to the other questions, I'm inclined to think that a letter from a non-philosopher may be fine. A non-philosopher might not be well-positioned to discuss your understanding of philosophy per se (though if they work on the same research project as you, they might!). However, they can probably speak to a lot other, more general aspects of teaching that hiring committees are likely to care about, which is how you engage with students, run in-class discussions, how clear and well-organized your lectures are, the kinds of assignments you give, and so on.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It could be especially helpful to hear from people who have served on hiring committees. What do you think?

Job-market discussion thread (2021-22 season)

As many readers of the Cocoon may recall, each job season the Cocoon hosts two job-market threads:

1. A job-market discussion thread (the present thread): to commiserate about the market, discuss particular job ads, the market in general, questions about application materials, interviewing, alt-ac opportunities, and so on.
2. A job-market reporting thread: to post news about interviews, on-campus visits, offers, rejection notices, etc.

Because someone always asks, "Why two threads?", there are a couple of reasons for it. First, some people may want to discuss the market but not stress over daily news regarding which jobs they still do or don't have a chance for. Conversely, others may not want to discuss the market but just want news about the jobs they've applied for. Second, these threads can get very long already, so I think the best way for people to get the information they want in a well-ordered format is simply to have two threads.

A few final notes:

• This thread (the post you are reading right now!) will be the home of this year's job-market discussion thread. So, if you want to discuss this year's job-market, just comment below.
• Please reserve job-market news (i.e. interviews, on-campus visits, hires, etc.) for the job-market reporting thread, which I will open on October 1st.
• A 'permalink' to this thread will be on the upper right of blog's right sidebar for the rest of the job season. -->
• Because of Typepad's functionality limitations (which only permits 100 comments before starting a new comment page), readers may elect to bookmark each new page of comments as each new page emerges. I recognize that it can be frustrating to scroll through page after page to get to new comments, and I think this is probably the best solution given Typepad's functionality limitations.

Finally, as always, readers are asked to please bear in mind the Cocoon's safe and supportive mission. I try not to moderate with too heavy of a hand, as I don't like to squelch reasonable discussion and debate. I also realize that the job-market can be an emotional roller-coaster, and that passions can run deep on job-market issues. But the Cocoon has always been intended to be an unique oasis of sorts: as a refuge for early-career philosophers to support each other and discuss issues related to their careers and the profession in productive, supportive way. So, I will moderate carefully to ensure that these threads remain a welcome environment for everyone--and, of course, if anyone has any concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

All that being said, discuss away!

Challenges in making a lateral move?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Julia writes:

I'm looking for insight into whether there are different challenges for faculty looking to make a "lateral move" from assistant professorship to a more appealing assistant professorship and (as I suspect there are) advice on how to overcome those challenges.

For those questioning the morality of such lateral moves, my current workplace is toxic.

This is a good query, though I'm not sure that I have much insight to offer. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I do not think there are special challenges for lateral moves of the type you describe. I witnessed these at my own former institution (in fact, I helped one get out!). You need to be competitive - that is, you need a good publication record in good journals. And you have to be prepared to get NO CREDIT on the tenure clock for your previous work. You may be able to negotiate something, but do not count on it at all. But if you are in a toxic workplace, you should really look into moving. (in the meantime, keep good records of the ill behaviour, in case you need it). I left a toxic place at a senior level. The key challenge for me was that I was not prepared to make a lateral move with respect to university ranking. I was determined to move up (or move into administration). I was lucky to be able to do the former. Good luck!

This seems right to me. Having served on multiple hiring committees, my sense is that people on the hiring side just want to hire the best person they can get who they think might stay in the job. One small thing, though: search committees can wonder why a candidate is applying for a job (particularly if the candidate is already tenure stream), so my sense is that it can be good to say something in the cover letter. But I'm not entirely sure what is the best kind of thing to say in Julia's case. What do you all think? Do any readers have insights relevant to Julia's situation?

How often should one referee for journals?

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

I'm at the point in my career when I'm just starting to receive fairly frequent requests to referee journal articles, and I'm finding myself really unsure of how many of these I should be doing. Would cocoon readers be willing to share their own approaches to this? How much refereeing do people do? And do people have good rules of thumb for deciding when to say yes and no to referee requests? (E.g., a certain number of reports per month, or a certain number of reports per reports one has received oneself, etc?) This is one of those mysterious parts of the profession where I just have no idea if I'm pulling my weight, doing way more than I should be doing, or roughly getting it right. Thank you, everyone!

Excellent questions! One reader submitted the following response:

At one point, I was refereeing 20 papers a year, and working as an editor for PLOSOne, handling about 6 papers a year (which meant getting referees and making a final decision on papers). Now I am a co-editor on a journal, and I no longer do PLOSOne. So I referee only about 12 papers a year, and only in a select set of journals (the best in my sub-field or very highly regarded general journals). I also review a few book proposals and manuscripts a years for various presses. Without knowing your circumstances, I think if you are doing 12 a year, then that is fine.

Non-Traditional Paths into Academic Philosophy (Logan Scott Mitchell)

This is the third entry in the Cocoon's new series, Non-Traditional Paths into Philosophy, a series of guest posts by people who entered academic philosophy later in life or otherwise took a non-traditional path into the field. Today's post is by Logan Scott Mitchell, a first-year PhD student at UNC Chapel Hill who is also a mindfulness instructor, musical theatre performer, and Certified Nonprofit Professional. If you took a non-traditional path into philosophy and are interested in contributing to the series, feel free to email me at [email protected]!

By Logan Scott Mitchell

My path to pursuing a PhD in Philosophy is quite non-traditional – prior to pursuing any type of higher education I spent several years as a professional actor, singer, and dancer in musical theatre. From childhood through my early twenties, performing was my entire life and identity. I dressed up as a “Broadway Star” for career day in the third grade, went to boarding school for two years to study dance, started working professionally in musical theatre at 17, and never even took the SAT.

I moved to New York City when I was 19, which sparked the beginning of my career as a (mostly) full-time musical theatre performer. I travelled across the country working in regional theaters, returning to New York only when I needed more work. I joined the stage actors’ union, Actors’ Equity Association, one year later, and by 2016 landed a role in an international tour of the musical West Side Story, where I was cast as a Jet (aka one the racist white guys). My big break!

MANCEPT session on prudence & politics

This is just a quick note that I am convening a MANCEPT workshop panel (viz Zoom) next Tuesday through Friday on the topic of Prudence and Politics. Just in case any of you might be interested in sitting in (visitors are welcome), I've pasted all of the relevant details below (please note that there is a modest £15 registration fee for visitors):

Session Description

Considerations of prudence plausibly underlie a number of important political debates. Consider, for example, debates between moderates, progressives, and conservatives about social and political change. Moderates often allege that radical approaches to change are likely to backfire by alienating swing voters in the political center. Conversely, progressives often allege that moderates imprudently set back the cause of justice by playing into the status quo. Finally, Burkean conservatives contend that radical change is unwise because it can have—and has a history of having—catastrophic unintended consequences.

Considerations of prudence also appear to be latent within certain forms of liberal political theory. For example, although John Rawls does not explicitly couch his project in prudential terms, Rawls’ primary concern in Political Liberalism is to provide a theory of justice that can explain how a deeply pluralistic society can remain stable and non-oppressive over time. Similarly, in The Law of Peoples, Rawls provides a theory of international law and practice for how diverse peoples can live peacefully with each other in a reasonably just world.  An idea arguably implicit in both works is that it would be imprudent to pursue any conception of domestic or international justice that cannot be expected to realize reasonably stable and peaceful conditions in a diverse and pluralistic world—or what Rawls telling terms a ‘realistic utopia.’ Finally, prudence looms large in many applied political debates, such as how to deal best with climate change, terrorism, pandemics, and the development of artificial intelligence. For example, is it prudent to wage a ‘war on terror’, or is such a war only likely to produce more terrorists and bloodshed? Would experimenting with technological forms of climate engineering be an imprudent risk? Were COVID lockdowns prudent, or an imprudent form of short-term political thinking?

How to make yourself hireable outside of academia as a philosophy grad student or PhD

The aim of this blog post and interview is to give readers a primer on how to create the conditions that make you hireable as a philosopher outside of academia. The Cocoon also has other practical advice on alt-ac careers such as how to write a resume and how to network outside of academia, and you can find earlier advice by Aaron Kagan here.  The focus here will be on mindset: on overcoming cognitive obstacles and preconceptions. This is an interview with Aaron Kagan (UX Researcher- formerly at Google, now at Facebook Reality Labs). I asked Aaron about how he made the transition from being a philosophy graduate student and PhD at Fordham University, with a PhD with a focus on the role of the body in emotional experience, to a researcher working at big tech companies such as Google and FaceBook. 

Q: Could you tell me a bit about mental obstacles and how to overcome them for philosophers seeking alt-ac jobs? For philosophy grad students (and postdocs, VAPs, etc…) it seems like gaining the skills, connections and mindset to get outside of academia is an insuperable problem.

It might be worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about the practical world.  I say this to draw a distinction from the “rational” or “theoretical” world.  Trying to collapse these two worlds when thinking about life outside of academia is a great source of pain and suffering (at least it was for me, and yes, I know I’m playing fast and loose with metaphysics, but hear me out). 

In the rational/theoretical world, you are a catch: You are highly educated.  You can pick apart and construct arguments of all kinds. You can take highly complicated topics and technical information, distill things down, and communicate them to non-specialists (e.g., your teaching).  Your academic work/specialization may also have strong or direct theoretical ties to a certain industry.  

What’s more, you’re willing to start at any entry level position; any employer can get you for cheap, at least by non-academic standards.    

In the practical world however: You have no previous work experience–none. And you don’t “make sense” to employers.  Why are you leaving academia? What does your work have to do with this organization’s? How exactly can you help make us money?  From this perspective, you’re also “overeducated”. 

Partner hires across disciplines?

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

I am a junior tenure-track faculty member. My partner is a post-doc working in the life sciences. They are searching for TT positions, but they do not want to work at or near my school. Our ideal scenario is that they will get a TT position and also get me a full-time job at the same school--either a TT job or a full-time lecturer position. I would, of course, prefer a TT job, but if the school is a good enough fit for my partner, I would be happy with a full-time NTT position.

If my partner is able to get a job offer, how likely is that scenario? Does anyone have any experience with partner hires across disciplines and fields?

I will add that I am a good job candidate in general--I have several publications, I have secured some research fellowships, lots of teaching experience, I specialize in a field where departments always need teaching. I'm sure that doesn't hurt, but I don't know how much it helps.

Any advice or accounts of personal experience in this arena would be appreciated!

These are excellent questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I am in a similar position, though it is my partner who is the TT in the sciences while I am in a postdoc. In our case, my partner's institution was not accommodating in the least. The philosophy department there refused to hire me except as an adjunct (despite my having a strong cv), mainly because I do a very different kind of philosophy than they are used to. My partner has been forced to seek out external offers in order to get leverage for some kind of retention offer from their institution, which has made things unpleasant for them in their department. Meanwhile, I have generally been unable to do anything about the situation, with all the burden falling on my partner. It has been extremely difficult. I haven't had much success in this area, but my advice would be to refuse any offer of a short-term position for you (e.g. 1-2 years), because when that position expires you won't have any leverage to get something better.

Unfortunately, this response seems right to me. My sense is that non-permanent non-TT positions are probably not a good option. I personally know several cases of people who were lured to universities by a non-TT job for a spouse or partner along with the hope (and encouragement) that it would turn into something more--but unfortunately it never did, and in the end the couple were in a worse position than before. Of course, if the non-TT job is permanent (e.g. a permanent full-time lectureship or teaching professor position), then that may be a different story. But generally speaking, it seems (sadly) that for a couple to have a real hope of getting something good to work out, the couple must have real leverage somehow--usually, as the last comment indicates, a competing offer by another university. Still, even there, my sense is that unless both partners are considered highly desirable candidates, the university may just be willing to let the couple walk, as it were. 

But this is just my sense, and may be overly pessimistic. Do any of you have any helpful experiences or insights to offer? 

Is an unpaid 'postdoc' position misleading?

A reader writes in:

I was unable to secure academic employment before graduating from my PhD program this past summer. As a result, I may have no choice but to go on the 2021–22 job market without any academic affiliation. 

I've noticed that some colleagues in similar situations have asked their former PhD programs to list them as "postdoctoral researchers." As far as I can tell, this is as easy as sending the department chair an email asking them to add one's name to a list. It would be a "postdoctoral" position in name only, which isn't competitive and doesn't come with any financial benefits. 

However, I'd worry that some search committees would easily see through this and view it as an underhanded attempt to hide the truth: that one failed to secure a paid academic position. Is it safer to simply use one's home address and present oneself as lacking academic affiliation? How should recent graduates in my situation approach their cover letters and other job market materials when they currently lack academic employment? 

Good questions. I hadn't heard of this before. I have heard of PhD programs offering their former students paid postdoc positions to support them in situations like this, but not unpaid ones. I also know that it is not uncommon for people to get 'Visiting Scholar' posts to have an affiliation, though I think it is common knowledge that these are usually unpaid positions (whereas the general assumption, I think, is that postdocs are paid positions). What do you all think? I'm inclined to think it is probably better to have an academic affiliation than none, but I don't know if it looks sketchy to list oneself as a postdoc if its not a paid position.

How does the academic job market look so far?

Given the catastrophe that was last year's academic job market, readers may be wondering how this year's market looks so far. Here are the results of some quick searches that I did for job postings during the month of August for the past handful of years:

• 2021: 35 jobs
• 2020: 17 jobs
• 2019: 53 jobs
• 2018: 42 jobs
• 2017: 35 jobs

In short, there's more than twice as many jobs advertised this year than at the same point last year, indicating a significant job-market rebound. However, compared to pre-COVID levels, the market is still on the lower end of things. Hopefully the number of postings accelerates, as I know of some jobs that could have been posted by now that haven't been posted yet. I'll keep readers updated!