The Philosophers' Cocoon

Job market do's and don'ts: research 'job talks'

I'd like to continue our new job-market do's and don'ts series today by asking search committee members to weigh in on what job candidates should and shouldn't do in research 'job talks.'

I wrote one post giving some tips for job talks at teaching-focused institutions in our Secret Lives of Search Committees series, but I think it would be great to hear from other search committee members, including people from research-focused R1 departments. 

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates do in job talks that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good job talk? What about things you don’t want to see? What are the most common features of a good talk or bad talk? Are there any common job talk mistakes you’ve seen candidates make?

Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have (and search committees, feel free to answer)!

Disclosing surviving sexual assault in job materials to contextualize recent performance?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, an anonymous postdoc writes:

In the last stretch of my PhD, I survived a sexual assault. I was able to finish and defend my thesis and to start my planned research postdoc despite that. However, I haven't been productive in the first 6-8 months of my postdoc because I was recovering and going through the criminal system. A year after the event, I have now almost fully recovered; I don't have PTSD, but I am still in therapy. As I am approaching the job market season, I was wondering whether this is something that can/should appear in my job materials or disclosed by a letter writer to explain the slow pace of my research. All my letter writers know what happened, but I haven't been public about that. Having gone through that experience might also influence my future work in social philosophy and shape my interest for service work (e.g., university committees on gender-based violence).

This is an important (and delicate) query, and I am so sorry this happened to the OP. Although as a search committee member I haven't seen any candidates disclose being survivors of sexual assault, I have seen job materials that disclose personal hardships in cover letters, and my sense is that it can helpfully contextualize a candidate's file--particularly if they are otherwise good candidates for the job. However, given that this is a special case, I think it would be really helpful to hear from search committee members here. What do you think the OP should do? Would it be helpful for them to mention it in a cover letter? Would it be advisable for their letter writers to discuss it? Or, do you think the OP would be best served as a candidate not mentioning it at all?

A couple of quick notes to guide discussion:

1. I ask that only search committee members weigh in, along with perhaps past or present job candidates who have been though similar circumstances.
2. I ask that all commenters approach this topic with due sensitivity to the OP's traumatic experience. Readers should feel free to offer honest advice and explanations for it, as the OP is asking for sound job-market advice. However, please be kind and otherwise mindful that they are a survivor of gender-based violence.

Job market do's and don'ts: Zoom interviews

I'd like to continue our new job-market do's and don'ts series today by asking search committee members to weigh in on what job candidates should and shouldn't do in Zoom interviews. I wrote one post on phone and video interviews back in 2015 in our Job Market Boot Camp, but I think it would be good to hear from search committee members on what they think are do's and don'ts for Zoom interviews. 

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates do in interviews that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good interview? What about things you don’t want to see? What are the most common features of a 'good interview' or 'bad interview'? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make that you think candidates should know to avoid?

Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have about interviews (and search committees, feel free to answer)!

What article statuses at journals mean?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, a non-tt faculty member asks:

Does anyone have a good understanding of what article statuses, e.g. initial check or awaiting associate editor recommendation mean? I think some are fairly self-evident in retrospect, but when I first started submitting to journals I was quite confused and anxious.

I think, of course, the best thing to do is to not check article status every hour, but some general answers may be helpful to people like my former self.

My experience is that different journals often have somewhat different article status processes, but here are a few that I can recall offhand along with what I think they mean:

• Initial checking --> article is with the managing editor, who makes sure the article is fully anonymized, within the journal's word limit, etc.
• Reviewers contacted --> the editors are trying to find reviewers
• Under review --> some journals seem to use this for every stage of peer review.
• Awaiting reviewer scores --> self-explanatory
• Reviews completed --> self-explanatory
• With editor --> this may occur early in the review process, indicating the article is under desk review by relevant editor(s), who are deciding whether to send the paper to reviewers; but it may also occur after reviewer scores are received, indicating the editor is in the process of reading their reports and making a decision.
• Awaiting associate editor recommendation --> referee reports are completed, and the journal has some associate editor(s) decide on the basis of the reports (and their own reading of the paper?) whether to recommend acceptance, rejection, etc., to the Editor in Chief/Editorial Board.

It's also worth noting that sometimes papers can go from "reviews completed" to "with editor" (or some such) back to "Under review." This may happen, I think, if the reviewers were split and the editor is seeking out a third reviewer to break the tie. But really, I'm only speculating there, and like the OP I generally prefer not to check my article statuses very often (I don't find it very productive, though if a paper has been under review for several months, I may check in to see where things are at).

Do any readers (particularly journal editors) have any inside insights to share on what article statuses mean (and what's going on behind the scenes)?

Job market do's and don'ts: research statements

I'd like to continue our new job-market do's and don'ts series today by asking search committee members to weigh in on what job candidates should and shouldn't do in research statements. I wrote one post on teaching portfolios back in 2015 in our Job Market Boot Camp, but I think it would be good to hear from search committee members on what they think are do's and don'ts for research statements. 

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates do in research statements that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good research statement (such as a 5 year plan)? What about things you don’t want to see? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make in research statements that you think candidates should know to avoid?

Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have about research statements (and search committees, feel free to answer)!

Job market do's and don'ts: teaching portfolios

I'd like to continue our new job-market do's and don'ts series today by asking search committee members to weigh in on what job candidates should and shouldn't do in teaching portfolios. I'm a bit surprised that no one has weighed in on our thread on teaching statements, as there were quite a few helpful comments in the threads on CVs and cover letters. So, I'm hoping people may have more to say on teaching portfolios. 

I wrote one post on teaching portfolios back in 2015 in our Job Market Boot Camp, and another post in our "Notes from both sides of the market" series in 2016. However, I think it would be good to hear from search committee members on do's and dont's for:

1. How long teaching portfolios should/shouldn't be (how many pages is too short/too long?)
2. What to include/not include in teaching portfolios
   • 'Selected' student comments vs. complete/unedited student comments?
   • 'Letters of recommendation' written by students?
   • Full syllabi vs. course descriptions + reading lists?
   • Syllabi only, or syllabi plus sample assignments?
3. How to format teaching portfolios
   • 'Raw' teaching evaluations (formatted by university) vs. candidate-formatted summaries
   • Etc.
4. Any other do's/don'ts?

On (4), are there things that you’ve seen candidates do in teaching portfolios that worked particularly well? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make in teaching portfolios that you think candidates should know to avoid?

Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have about teaching portfolios (and search committees, feel free to answer)!

Keeping track of CFPs, workshop deadlines, etc.

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, an early career philosopher inquires:

I feel a bit out of the loop professionally. Most often when I learn about a conference or workshop, it's from someone already going and the deadline for submission has already passed. This is partly my fault for just not being more proactive. It may also because I'm not on Twitter, though I'm open to making a lurker account if I knew whom to follow to get professional news. More generally, I wonder if folks could tell me the basic places I should be checking regularly to learn about major calls for papers, workshops, etc. (I do moral/political philosophy, so if there's something specific to that I'd also appreciate it.) Thanks so much in advance.

I mainly learn about conferences and workshops by visiting PhilEvents fairly regularly, but I have to be honest: I still miss too many deadlines as a result of not checking often enough (does PhilEvents have an email list function that I'm not aware of?). It would be nice if there were some kind of crowdsourced clearing house that kept track of and sent out email lists of upcoming deadlines, not only for conferences and workshops but also prizes, grants, etc. However, I'm not aware of any resource like this. As one reader points out in reply comment submitted, there is at least one email list for European events:

https://philevents.org for North American events, and Philos-L for European events, Philos-L "The Liverpool List" is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/.

However, while I've followed Philos-L for years, I still find most events/deadlines on PhilEvents. Are there other good sites to visit or email lists to sign up for?

Fall CUSP Graduate Workshop Applications Open

CULTIVATING UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS IN PHILOSOPHY

—DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AT PENN STATE—

Our Fall CUSP Graduate Workshop application is now open. The workshop will take place October 23-26, 2022 in person. Selected students will be brought to campus for the institute (all expenses paid). Click here to visit the Fall CUSP eligibility criteria.

The application for Summer CUSP is now closed. Please check back regularly for more information coming soon!

WHAT IS CUSP?

The Philosophy Department at Pennsylvania State University organizes two distinct CUSP (Cultivating Underrepresented Students in Philosophy) programs each year. These programs are directed toward prospective graduate students in philosophy from traditionally underrepresented groups (including African Americans, Chicano/as and Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asian Americans).

The Summer Institute is intended for rising undergraduate sophomores or juniors who are considering pursuing an academic career in Philosophy and wish to learn more about what it means to be a part of the discipline; and the Fall Graduate Workshop, for college seniors, recent graduates, and working professionals who want to continue their graduate education in philosophy and are currently working on their graduate applications for the following Fall term.

Listing works in progress? What counts?

In our job-market do's and don'ts thread on CVs, there was some discussion of whether job candidates should list works-in-progress (WIPs), and if so, whether listing too many of them can decrease a candidate's credibility. On early career person suggested it might be good to run a new thread on these questions, so here it is!

My own sense is search committees care far more about what you've actually published than WIPs. But still, these are fair questions:

1. Should candidates list WIPs?
2. If so, under what conditions? What counts as a WIP?
3. Is listing too many WIPs problematic? 

I don't have any clear picture on what the answer to (1) is. On the one hand, listing WIPs can show that you have potential publications in your research pipeline. On the other hand, listing WIPs shows that you haven't actually published them, and in terms of getting tenure and/or promotion, actually publishing is what matters. 

On (2), Bill Vanderburgh writes, "Be prepared to answer detailed questions about anything you list as in preparation." But, this actually seems to me to be too minimal of a standard. I've always been told that you should only list something as a WIP if you would be able to actually provide a paper draft, if asked. After all, it's entirely possible that someone on a search committee might be interested in one of your papers at some point and even ask to read it. Maybe the probability of this is small. But still, if my recollection serves me correctly, it happened to me as a job candidate on at least one occasion. So, I think it's probably a bad idea to list papers that are only partially drafted or which you merely plan to draft. 

On (3), I don't know. Bill Vanderburg writes, "listing more than two works in progress decreases credibility." Another Assistant Professor adds:

I don't know that I specifically endorse Bill's "list only 2" works in progress cap as a strict rule, but I appreciate the spirit of it.

Early Career notes that if you are ABD and have several accepted conference papers in the mix then you likely have 5-6 works in progress. Sure, but those things are also already represented on your CV, right? If you are presenting on the main program of the APA, we all know that you submitted a 3K word paper to get in, and so it is already on your CV, and you don't need to list it elsewhere. If you are ABD then we all know you are writing a dissertation with probably 4-6 chapters (some of which, presumably, will turn into journal articles if you aren't trying to make the whole thing into a monograph). But that is also already part of your CV. It seems a bit odd to then also list these things that would be on your CV in other places already *also* as "works in progress."

I would use a works in progress section sparingly, only if it helps signal *new* directions on existing scholarship (though you could/should also talk about these in your cover letter or research statement) and not just as CV filler (which it risks looking like for most folks).

I guess I think the last sentence of this comment is the most relevant one: search committees will probably consider your WIPs in context. So, if you have no publications, or maybe just one or two, then listing (say) 10 WIPs isn't going to look very good. It will look like filler, or worse: it will look like you have a lot of things you just haven't been able to publish! On the other hand, suppose you are a candidate who has 8 publications, and you list 10 WIPs. In this case, I wonder whether you might come across as extraordinarily productive--as someone who has not only published a lot, but who is likely to continue to do so moving forward. Then again, if you have 8 publications, do you even need to list WIPs at all? I'm not sure. The longer I was on the market, and the more publications I had, I didn't even bother listing them.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts on questions (1)-(3). What are yours? 

Tips for handling multiply-(desk)-rejected papers?

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

I have written two papers that get regularly desk rejected. I've just created an excel spreadsheet to track that. These are papers that are the result of the realisation of a research project I've got some external funding. Several people who are more experienced and more accomplished than I am and who read the papers tell me that they are good: top-15 on Leiter's list (I've managed to publish something of that stature in the past). These two papers were collectively rejected 12 times in the past 6 months and were rarely sent to external reviewers... but when they were sent for external review, the reports were ok (some mild acceptance, some R&R recommendations).

It seems that when one actually reads the papers, then the impressions are mostly positive; the problem is that the editors keep throwing my works in the bin without sending them for an external review... I'm very frustrated because I'm running out of journals that my papers are suitable for... And I start to wonder if my institutional affiliation and nationality are not playing at least some role in this chain of rejections (I come from a country that is not philosophically cool, like UK or Germany, and my university is internationally relatively unknown)...

Do you have any ideas what the problem is? And what might be a solution?

These are great questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Has this sort of thing happened to you? If so, do you have any tips for the OP?

The ways we don't do research, because they don't exist

Helen's interesting post yesterday, 'The journals we don't write in, because they don't exist', about how philosophy journals might become fruitfully more diverse got me thinking more about a topic that I've been thinking about lately: namely, ways that today's technology and a new publishing model might fruitfully alter how we do research.

Readers may recall that Liam Kofi Bright, Remco Heesen, and I advocate in a new BJPS paper for a crowdsourced online approach to peer review. Although Heesen and Bright advocate elsewhere for abolishing traditional peer-review at journals, I am more inclined to support a hybrid approach to peer-review closer to that currently practiced in math and physics: one that combines traditional peer-review at journals with a crowdsourced approach. This is for a couple of reasons. First, insofar as some are skeptical of the utility of a crowdsourced approach, a hybrid approach would be a more conservative change to peer-review than abolishing journal review altogether. Second, the hybrid approach has already been implemented in other fields (see above), and seems to work well. Finally, insofar as (our arguments for crowdsourcing aside) there are arguably virtues and vices of both approaches to peer-review, a hybrid approach can stake a reasonable claim to be a 'best of both worlds' approach.

In today's post, I want to discuss one potential benefit that changing peer-review might have that has not, to my knowledge, been much discussed: namely, how it might revolutionize how we do research in a good way. In their earlier paper, 'Is Peer Review a Good Idea?', Heesen and Bright examine various potential benefits of abolishing traditional peer review at journals, including:

1. Improving the dissemination/sharing of scientific results
2. Improved time allocation (traditional peer-review is extremely time intensive)
3. Reducing gender skew in publications
4. Reducing costs of publishing/freeing up library resources
5. Reducing professional focus on 'short-term credit' (which favors publishing lots of articles) in favor of long-term credit (i.e. impact)
6. Reducing the role of powerful gatekeepers

Whatever you may think of these potential benefits (including whether they really would be benefits), here is another possible benefit of transitioning toward a more open, online approach to peer-review (including the hybrid journal + crowdsourced approach that I favor): it could substantially increase philosophical and interdisciplinary collaboration, in ways that might not only lead to better research, but help authors deal with a quandary that I expect that all too many of us face. Allow me to explain.

Job market do's and don'ts: teaching statements

I'd like to continue our new job-market do's and don'ts series today by asking search committee members to weigh in on what job candidates should and shouldn't do in teaching statements. I wrote one post on teaching statements back in 2015 in our Job Market Boot Camp, and another post in our "Notes from both sides of the market" series in 2016. But of course these posts simply reflect my own thoughts and experiences, and I think it would be good to hear from search committee members on what they think are do's and don'ts for teaching statements. 

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates do in teaching statements that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good teaching statement? What about things you don’t want to see? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make in teaching statements that you think candidates should know to absolutely avoid?

Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have about teaching statements (and search committees, feel free to answer)!

Mentoring program update

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a job market applicant asks:

With the 2022-2023 job market swiftly approaching, I was wondering if the Philosophers' Cocoon was planning on continuing with the Job Mentoring Program this year. This is my first real go at the market, and I would really appreciate the opportunity to have have someone who has gotten a tenure-track job take a look at my materials.

Unfortunately, for logistical reasons, Helen and I decided that we are not able to run the program this job season. Among other things, interest in the program appeared to decline substantially in the last two years post-COVID, making it progressively more difficult for the program to realize its aims (viz. securing mentors for candidates in need).

It is entirely possible that we may try to restart the program at a later date (e.g. next job season), if /when we are able to work through better logistics for running the program successfully. But, in the meantime, it is my hope that in addition to the Cocoon's various past job market series, our new job market do's and don'ts series will help candidates prepare well for the market. This new series will not only work through job market materials (such as cover letters, CVs, and beyond). It will also cover interviews and all aspects of on-campus visits (e.g. research talks, teaching demos, etc.). Finally, once this series is complete, I also hope to run a similar series on the 'alt-ac' market (for non-academic industry jobs).

I hope that job candidates find these series helpful, and of course the Cocoon is always here to help job candidates in every way that we can, including in our monthly "how can we help you?" threads.

The journals we don't write in, because they don't exist

The space of possible journals in philosophy is much bigger than what is actually on offer. Consider the most prestigious journals (an exercise done every few years) and what appears there: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (not much phenomenology published there), Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Review, Mind (OK. Mind is a cool title), and Noûs. 

These are generalist, but not really. It's hard to find, e.g., a paper in Indigenous philosophy in there. I had to look twice when Philosophical Review published a paper in Chinese philosophy recently. Mostly, these journals track recent trends in analytic philosophy. 

All too often, a new journal is just a carbon copy of generalist prestigious journals, and I understand the rationale for this (tiny acceptance rates!) But do we need yet more generalist, mostly analytic journals for papers up to 10,000 words that are mainly not response papers and mainly not history of philosophy? 

Because of the peculiar ecology of philosophy journals, their relative prestige, and overrepresentation of some areas and underrepresentation of others, we are nudged in certain directions in our explorations of philosophy. Especially early career scholars who need a publication record to get any academic job, or for tenure and promotion purposes, are nudged to publish in prestigious journals. How does this ecology of journals impact how we write?

Job market do's and don'ts: CVs

I'd like to continue our new job-market do's and don'ts series today by asking search committee members to weigh in on what job candidates should and shouldn't do on CVs. I wrote two posts on CVs in our Job-Market Boot Camp series back in 2015 and 2019, but still, I think it might be good to hear from people who have recently served on search committees. 

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates do in CVs that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good CV? What about things you don’t want to see in a CV? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make in CVs that you think candidates should know to absolutely avoid? Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have!

Also, our first thread in this series, on cover letters, took a bit to get going yesterday, but there have been some good comments. So, do feel free to continue weighing in over there too!

Updated ADPA job placement data & table

Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced) has a new post up at the ADPA blog describing the results of "ten years of data for around 140 [PhD] programs, nearly 50 of which have so far been able to verify our data."

There is also a new sortable table at the ADPA site where one can learn about job-market placements from different programs. As the following table illustrates, some of the data is very illuminating:

Job market do’s and dont’s: cover letters

It’s been a while since we’ve had a new series on job market tips, such as our Job Market Boot Camp, Secret Lives of Search Committees, and Alt-Ac Transition Tips series. Given that this year’s academic job market will be ramping up soon, I thought it might be good to run a series soliciting tips from search committee members on things that job candidates should do and not do to be as competitive as possible.

I’d like to begin today with cover letters. I wrote on cover letters in the boot camp series, but of course that’s just my advice based on things that I experienced as a job candidate and search committee member. So, in today’s post, I’d love to hear from other search committee members on things they think candidates should do and not do in cover letters.

Are there things that you’ve seen candidates say in cover letters that worked particularly well? Are there particular things you want to see in a good cover letter? What about things you don’t want to see in a cover letter? Are there any common mistakes you’ve seen candidates make in cover letters that you think candidates should know to avoid? Finally, job candidates: feel free to ask search committee members in thread below any questions that you have!

Steps before submitting to a journal?

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

Do people have a checklist of things to do before submitting a paper to a journal? If so, what do your checklists look like? I'm wanting to ensure I don't miss anything before submitting and that my paper is in the best shape it can possibly be. Thanks!

This is a good question, particularly for graduate students, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

Recommendations for note-taking tablets?

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

Does anyone have any views/recommendations on note-taking tablets? (iPad, remarkable, onyx book, supernote)

I've never used a note-taking tablet, so I'd be curious to hear about how useful people think they are and what the advantages/disadvantages of different ones are. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I highly recommend Supernote, especially instead of Remarkable. Remarkable is 100% marketing and 0 substance. I arrived at this conclusion not only by owning both (and returning the Remarkable) but also by seeing more in-depth comparisons of remarkable vs other e-paper tablets on youtube.

Interesting--at least anecdotally, I had heard good things about Remarkable. What do you all think? For those of you who use a note-taking tablet, what do you use and how do you like it?

Specialist journals in metaphysics?

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

Are there specialist journals in (contemporary/analytic) metaphysics? If so, what are they and which is better to publish metaphysical topics in? Top generalist journals or the specialist ones?

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

There is a new-ish journal, Metaphysics, that I believe still requires conference acceptance or invitation to publish (so: apply to their conference if you have relevant things!). Phil Studies seems to publish a higher proportion of metaphysics than a lot of the other top 10-ish journals, as does Phil Quarterly (but this is just my anecdotal impression, I haven't done research!). AJP also used to but I'm not sure if that is still the case. I don't think there are really specialist journals in analytic metaphysics besides the above, but I would love to know if there are ones I am not thinking of (besides special issues or things like Philosophical Perspectives when they are on the metaphysics year, but I think that also may be invitation-only), and I think it is definitely better to publish metaphysics in general journals typically. If you have work that is on the edge of being philosophy of science or logic you could also try the specialist journals in those subfields. And Synthese seems to be pretty friendly to metaphysics these days.

This reply coheres with my impression, which is that these "generalist" journals are commonly thought to be the best places to publish metaphysics. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Checking in on an R&R?

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

I understand that you are supposed to wait three months after submitting an article before reaching out to the journal to inquire about the submission, but I'm wondering if I should also wait three months before inquiring about a submitted revision for an R&R?

My sense is that it's probably best to think of R&R's like any other submission. Also, for what it's worth, I've never had much luck with checking in on papers. Every time in the past that I've done so, I got a rejection soon after, so these days I just prefer to wait. I also try to send papers to journals that have a reputation for having good turnaround times, so that I don't run into this kind of quandary.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Unhappy after tenure?

In our newest "how can we help you?", an anonymous professor writes:

I have tenure but I am not happy where I live.

I won the academic lottery after years on contingent contracts, and then I finally got on the TT and received tenure, yay!! I love my job--I have lovely students and great colleagues (don't take a good work environment for granted). But, I don't like where I live. There are limited options for my spouse. I don't like how car-dependent the place is. I do not like the climate, which is getting more and more extreme due to global warming.

Before the pandemic I felt that my love of the job outweighs the not loving the location. But during the acute phase of the pandemic I got a huge bout of homesickness for my home town. Also, I got worried being so far away from my parents who aren't getting any younger. It would not take many hours and I need to take a long flight to reach them.

The pandemic worsened my sense of homesickness and increased my desire for more geographic control. It's like I'm realizing and now only fully coming to terms with how much I (and my partner) have sacrificed for my academic career.

How do you deal with this? Moving to a place that would fit my criteria of e.g., physical proximity to my parents is close to impossible given how the job market is structured. But I'm also not quite willing to go alt-ac. So, maybe what I need is a psychological shift? Any perspective on this welcome, of people who learned to love where they lived or tips to feel more at home.

This is a wonderful query, and I'm hoping we may be able to help the OP work through their situation by hearing from others. Are you (or were you) unhappy after tenure? It might be good to hear from readers on this, as I suspect that many early-career people conceive of a TT or tenured job as the "promised land"--but, as the OP notes, it's not always that simple. One can be lucky and privileged to get a job like this, and yet still be (reasonably) unhappy for a variety of reasons, such as the job or institution "not being all it's cracked up to be" or (as in the OP's case) due to location. Second, if you are (or were) unhappy, how have you dealt with it? Did you make a career change of some sort, or instead try to make a psychological shift? Either way, how did it work out? Finally, based on your experience, do you have any specific tips or advice for the OP?

Publishing to get a teaching job w/o 'running dry'

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

I am an advanced graduate student in a good, but not elite, program. My goal would be to land a teaching oriented job, not a research focused job. I have over 5 papers in good, but not excellent, journals.

Here's my question. I am plugging away at my dissertation, which is composed of 3-4 stand alone papers. I could submit two of them right now for publication. But, should I do that, I worry I will have nothing new to send out after I land a permanent job, should I be so lucky. Of course, I will have new ideas for papers in the future. But I am so focused on my dissertation right now that I would need a good bit of time to get back in a position to publish new work. So, should I sit on my dissertation chapters, and so have 'rounds in the chamber' when/should I land a permanent job, or, should I just publish as much as I can now, looking as good as possible for the market, but risk 'running dry' after/if I land a job? I understand that maximizing my number of publications isn't necessary or even beneficial for certain teaching jobs, but the idea of sitting on papers that are ready to go is a little annoying, to say the least.

This is an excellent question. Another early-career reader submitted the following reply:

I would submit everything right away and not worry not much about future lack of paper ideas. The review process can be long; a lot can happen after you submit that adds up to the wait. For instance, you might be rejected by several places before landing an R&R.

I entirely agree, but let me add some detail as to why...

Incentivizing attendance in large lecture courses

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

I'm teaching a massive (~300 student) course this fall and looking for tips about how to incentivize attendance. Of course I will make the class as interesting, fun, and interactive (small group discussions/activities, etc.) as possible. But I'm not sure this is enough. How can I encourage students to come to class in ways that don't overburden the TAs?

This is a good question. I haven't taught a large lecture course in over a decade, so unfortunately I don't have any helpful tips to share. But it would be great to hear from readers who do!

Participate in a survey on non-academic careers (guest post by the APA non-academic careers committee)

The APA Non-Academic Careers Committee is seeking input and feedback on how it can better serve philosophers in and out of the profession. To this end, the Committee has created a survey: 

https://delaware.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3JCIC4U196id4ma

While the Committee is particularly interested in hearing from philosophers who have left academia or are considering doing so, we would like to invite philosophers at all career stages and types to respond to the survey. 

Preliminary results from a prior version of this survey have been useful. We look forward to receiving additional feedback from new survey participants! 

- Lynn Chiu on behalf of the Non-Academic Careers committee

Tips for progressing toward tenure at an R1?

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

"Yay!" I tell myself. "I did it!" After many job-market cycles I managed to get a TT job at a R1 school. It's what I wanted. Having said yes to half a dozen collaborations throughout the years and twisting my research to fit the goals and visions of three research projects (through as many postdocs), I made it. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I am pretty happy. But as I'm beginning my first semester "on the clock", I find myself staring at a "timeline to tenure calendar" that I worked up: a 200-or-so column table with each "week" over the next four years taking up one column.

I feel as though I have at least two options. First, I can stick to the spaghetti-&-wall method, where I keep juggling through a bunch of research collaborations that are all vaguely tied together and hope enough sticks to make a coherent case for tenure (especially to an outside letter writer). Or, I can prune off those that I'm less invested in, clear the plate I have in front of me, and drill down into one or two areas within which I might plausibly, to an outside letter writer, be seen as a "field leader."

Going with the first tried-and-true method would likely yield a large number of publications and maybe a grant or two, but at the perceived risk of not becoming a top-tier or renowned expert in any single issue or cottage industry or sub-field. Going the second route might yield fewer deliverables, but might also allow me to develop that "expert-flair". Of course, there's also the risk that I'll choose poorly, or never develop that "expert" reputation (what makes one an "expert" anyhow? Is that even something that tenure letter writers really care about or am I just assuming that?). I'm also sure that there are other, perhaps better, options that I'm not considering.

To file it all down to a few points: are there good (better?) strategies for organizing or prioritizing one's projects in an effort to maximize one's chances for tenure? What do tenure letter-writers really look for? Is this just all a species of impostor syndrome? Do / should people "change" their workflow once they're "on the clock"?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers who are in the know. Although I don't work at an R1, based on what I've heard from others my recommendation would be for the reader to ask the powers-that-be in their department and university exactly what is expected for tenure (e.g. departmental tenure committee members, college deans, etc.) before setting on a strategy. Here's why I say this...

Does hybrid conferencing "degrade" the conference experience?

I am grateful to the APA for their decision to implement (at least as a test) the proposal that Philosophers for Sustainability launched to have one of the divisional conferences go virtual. They agreed to implement our proposal starting 2025.

I think this is a step in the right direction. Academic flying culture excludes many people from conference participation and is also harmful for the environment. Our individual actions alone will not solve the climate crisis, but can mitigate it. 

So it was with some disappointment that I saw the letter for the CFP for the APA Pacific divisional conference in San Francisco next year which says up front that videoconferencing and remote participation won't be available. Note that between that time and the implementation of 2+1 there will be two years that people will not be able to attend an APA remotely, except for a few exemptions. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Up front: Videoconferencing and remote participation are not available

While it might seem easy in theory to offer remote presentation to anyone who requests it, the technological logistics of doing so would be complex and costly for a number of reasons. Meeting rooms would have to be equipped with extensive A/V packages and hard-wired internet connections that are not standard in most hotel meeting rooms, which would cost tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum. Moreover, if too many participants present remotely, not only will the overall in-person meeting experience be degraded, but also the APA will incur large financial penalties for failing to meet its contractual obligations to the meeting hotel. As a result, offering remote presentation on a large scale would make the entire meeting unviable.

For these reasons, remote presentation will be offered in only two situations: government travel restrictions and accessibility accommodations. More details may be found on the APA website.

Tips for teaching early-morning classes?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early career reader asks:

I am in a teaching-heavy VAP (4/4) and am scheduled to do lots of morning teaching this coming year. I would really appreciate hearing from others who have taught early classes (i.e. 8-8:30 start times) about any strategies they've developed precisely for teaching in this early morning (e.g. is there a style of in-class activity you found worked esp. well for early classes?)

Class size is 25 students.

This is a great question. Anyone have any helpful tips?

How can we help you? (August 2022)

Now that it's been a month 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:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask 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.

Adding grants to papers

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

Suppose I have a grant starting, say, today. Suppose I have a paper at its final stage before publication. Should I add the grant to the paper (assuming the paper topic is aligned with the grant topic)? I have no idea what the answer is... Please chime in!

To add, I also have no idea whether the grant info needs to appear in a minimal number of papers.

I've never had a grant like this (only internal grants for particular projects), so I don't know the answer. Anyone with experience with grants have any insight?

Best stepping stone to a research job?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, 'Stepping Stone' asks:

[I]f one is looking to land a research job, is it better to apply from 1) a teaching/lecturer job at a more prestigious university or a 2) research job from a much less prestigious school?

This is an interesting question, and I'm curious to hear what readers who are 'in the know' think!

Job-market discussion thread (2022-23 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.

Although I recognize that it is very early in the year, given that the academic job-market begins to ramp up in August, I thought it might be good to post this season's discussion thread earlier than in the past. After all, readers who will be heading out on the market may already have questions you'd like to discuss (about application materials, the application process, etc.). So, please feel free to bookmark and visit this thread throughout the job season to commiserate with others, or just to see what others are talking about! 

Because someone always asks, "Why two threads?", there are a couple of reasons. 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 sometime in September.
• 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!

Constructively situating papers in the literature

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

I have some questions about writing and situating oneself in the literature. Most commonly, I see people situate themselves by arguing against others, and I get that people disagree. But I’m wondering if there’s more positive ways to situate oneself in the literature without needing to be on the offence, and instead builds off of others more. What are your thoughts on this matter? And if you have any papers you think do this well, it would be nice to see them too.

This is an interesting question, and I've love to see some examples. I actually tend to favor constructive philosophy myself, as I tend to think it's harder to build new things than to tear down arguments other people have given. But I'm also curious exactly what the reader has in mind--that is, what exactly would count as "building off of others more."

I guess that when I think of my own papers that might be said to do this, the paper that most immediately comes to mind is my 2013 paper, "A New Theory of Free Will", as in that paper I basically combine a bunch of previously defended hypotheses from metaphysics, philosophy of mind, computer science, and physics to defend a new model of reality and "libertarian compatibilist" theory of free will. Another one of my papers that seems mostly constructive to me is my 2015 paper, "How to Rationally Approach Life's Transformative Experiences", which basically argues that if L.A. Paul is right that transformative experiences challenge the dominant conception of rational decisionmaking in our culture, then we ought to adopt a different approach to our lives that involves cultivating resilience rather than control over life-events.

Are these the kinds of things the reader has in mind? In any case, I'd love to hear other examples from readers! Following the OP's query, feel free to give examples of your own papers (but also, do feel free to give examples of other people's work that you think is particularly constructive).

Tips for teaching non-argumentative texts?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, G asks:

I wonder if people can share some helpful tips to teach non-argumentative texts.

I am trained as an analytic philosopher, usually starting my intro class with some basic concepts in logic and arguments. My classes also usually focus on analyzing and evaluating arguments. When I try to include some non-western philosophies, some materials I encounter are not in the argumentative style. They tend to tell some stories or describe some worldviews rather than arguing for philosophical positions.

I tried some active learning activities, mostly on how to develop interpretations of those texts. But I find that my students were less interested in those discussions. Can people share some tips to approach those non-argumentative texts (especially for an intro course that focuses a bit more on skills than contents if that makes sense)?

Interesting query. Another reader submitted the following reply:

G, what Eastern texts are you using? By my lights, there are plenty of arguments in Eastern Philosophical texts: e.g., Buddhist arguments against a persisting self, Mohist arguments about the moral superiority of impartiality, Mengzi's arguments against egoism, various skeptical arguments in the Zhuangzi. Sure, there's also the sort of content you describe, but there's nothing wrong with focusing on the part of the Eastern tradition that you're most comfortable teaching (i.e., arguments), especially in an intro class! For an introduction to Chinese Philosophy that takes an analytic argument-focused approach, check out JeeLoo Liu's Introduction to Chinese Philosophy.

This seems helpful, and coheres with my own experience. When I teach non-western philosophy, I often (but not always) select pieces where there is some sort of explicit or implicit argument--or alternatively, when I used readings that primarily tell a story or worldview, I normally try to get my students to focus on interpreting and evaluating the philosophical 'point' of the story or worldview. But I'd love to hear tips from readers, particularly readers who specialize in non-western areas. 

Do any of you have any helpful tips to share?