How can we help you? (April 2023)

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

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.

Comments

[new prof]

I finally got a TT job! What can I do over the next few months to set myself up for success in the fall?

[Thinking ahead!]

I'll be teaching a graduate seminar for the first time in the Fall. I'd be curious to hear how people think graduate teaching is similar/different to teaching undergrads. Some specific questions: How do your goals for a grad seminar differ from an undergrad course? Do you use any different teaching strategies? How do you structure a typical seminar? What skills do you find it most helpful to target? Do you find regular small assignments (e.g. reading responses and similar) helpful in grad seminars? Thanks in advance!

[Smith]

I am a recently admitted Ph.D. student and want to re-apply during my first year of graduate school. I am worried that the admissions committee will look down on my application since I haven't spent a whole year by the time I am re-applying. Also, another worry that I have is that I won't have any letters from my Ph.D. program, just letters fop rec from my undergrad. Granted, by the time applications open in Dec-Jan, I would have only been at the Ph.D. program for about three months, so I reckon no one would think much of it. And lastly, I am worried that if the applications don't go well, I will have burned bridges at my home institution if they find out I re-applied.

What do yall think of my situation? Is it sensible to re-apply?

For context: My re-applying has nothing to do with my home institution (I respect my home institution very much) but with my chaotic family life. Being so close to family is not a healthy place for my partner and me mentally. Thus, we wanted to leave our area. Also, (without getting into too much detail) I can significantly improve upon my application materials.

[Is there anybody out there?]

I am a few years into my TT gig, and I have real mixed feelings. It is a comfortable gig, with a lowish teaching load, and in a culturally vibrant place, and the pay is healthy. But I am isolated, and campus life is a lot of tacit antipathy to philosophy. I think I'll get tenure, but it will be begrudging. How do I reframe things to be happy here? Who are some people who have thrived despite being basically alone on their campus?

[new to teaching]

I'm new to teaching and I'm struggling with making the transition from lecture preparation to delivery. I have no problem doing the readings/research, making detailed notes, making up a plan for the lecture, etc. What I'm not sure how to do is take all this and deliver a lecture where I'm not just reading my notes/slides or where I'm not just memorizing what I want to say. Does anyone have any tips?

[it is coming]

How do we get rid of the prestige bias as a discipline? As many comments in this blog demonstrate, philosophers, even the ones who think they are unbiased, are extremely good at making themselves believe that prestige correlates well with quality, despite there being no data or systematic research on this. How do we stop letting this affect the gates of academic philosophy, i.e., search committees, admissions committees, journal referees who happen to know which Big Name wrote the paper, etc. Should we wait boomers to die? Should we wait an AI-based solution? Should we create something like Gossip Girl and shame "fancy" people until they act rightly? What is the way?

[incoming phd student]

I'm an incoming PhD student with a couple of questions about publishing in grad school. Throughout my MA, I have been working on a clearly historical topic 'X' in Early Modern philosophy (one that is fairly interesting but also quite specific). However, this topic is also relevant for contemporary discussions in the form of a slightly modified topic 'Xi'. In my graduate studies, I want to focus strictly on the latter topic and leave the former behind. The thing is, I have already put a lot of work into researching 'X' and potentially would like to publish an article on it. So, my questions are: (1) Is it wise to put more time and effort into polishing up the draft about 'X' and preparing it for publication, or should I rather leave this topic behind and start working exclusively on 'Xi'? (2) Would hiring committees be suspicious about a diverse publication section in my CV and even hold it against me? I am aware that for many, HoP is a subfield with a very high entry barrier, and my attempts to make a contribution may seem naive/unserious.

[Kostas Morfis]

I submitted an article in Kantian review. Anyone have an idea on their response rate?

[PhD Student]

I am a second year PhD student wondering what the ideal timeline should be for publishing. I plan to be on the market my fifth year, and I know that it takes months (years?!) from first round submissions to having a publication accepted. If my goal is to have 3-4 publications, what's the best way to realistically achieve this?

I have one paper that my advisors agree is basically ready to submit to solid journals, and a second that should be ready in the fall. I am hoping to start drafting a third paper this summer, with the hopes of getting that sent out to journals about a year later (after conference submissions, etc.). Is this too slow? Are there other timelines or strategies that have worked best for other people while balancing other grad school duties?

[Sheepish]

Suppose I have a paper under review at Journal X. The editor of a very good invited venue asked me to send it to them instead, but it's got to be in by the end of the month. I don't know if Journal X is going to make a decision by then.

Is there anything ethical I can do to get my paper back from Journal X by the end of the month? For example, would it be permissible to withdraw the paper and apologize profusely? Or, barring that, perhaps I could nudge the editors of Journal X for faster decision?

[Tenured Slumpy]

I'm a tenured associate professor (9 years post phd), going through a bit of a post-tenure slump. Life has got in the way of research recently, after the big push to get tenure. I was steadily producing an article a year until about 2020, but the pandemic hit me hard.

That's all context for a specific question: how many hours a week do you, and should you, work on your research? I mean what they call 'deep work', so writing/revising or seriously reading material directly relevant to your work. When I was in grad school I was often told that 20 hours a week is about right for the PhD, but that's 4 solid hours per weekday and I don't think I'm at that now! (I use the pomodoro method and am counting very rigorously, so I'm not including eg bathroom breaks.)

Relatedly, do you tend to have multiple papers in different areas you're working on at the same time, or do you focus on one until it gets sent out, before moving on to another? I've always done the former strategy, but I seem to have ended up with a lot of 'pretty much done' papers in different areas that have been presented at a few conferences maybe, maybe rejected with comments from a journal, but I've not quite pushed them over the line to being published. A nice place to be in some ways, but as I said, it feels slump-y!

Any advice appreciated.

[ECR]

Are there any norms around using a paper that is conditionally accepted/got minor revisions as a writing sample for a job? It would be much closer to the area of the job than my other published articles, and it would be one out of multiple writing samples (the others have been published).

[Tabby]

I appreciated the “preparing for success in a new job” thread a few days ago. I was wondering if it might be possible to have a post like this specifically for permanent jobs in the UK? I’ll start one in the UK next year and really feel totally in the dark about what it will be like and much of the info is geared toward US jobs.

[Negotiation newbie x2]

(Reposting from the job market discussion thread, since it occurred to me that people who have experience with this may not be looking there)
I'm in the (fortunate) position of probably having to negotiate a starting salary for the first time (TT at a moderately well-off SLAC).
I've looked through a lot of posts about negotiating on here, but I was hoping to get some more specific advice. First, which kinds of candidate attributes actually matter to admins when asking for a higher salary on the basis of coming in with more experience? I have a couple of fairly fancy research postdocs under my belt, but I'm not confident that whoever I'm negotiating with would be able to appreciate the distinction of getting a "fancy" postdoc by our standards. Do I try to just say that in making my case? I'm worried it'll make me sound pompus.
As another question that will probably be pretty widely relevant, how should we take inflation into account in our asks? I've managed to find a couple salaries from semi-recent hires that seem fairly reliable online, but when I punch that number into an inflation adjustment calculator the number becomes *much* bigger. Would it be unreasonable to try to ask for an inflation-adjusted salary based on past salaries? I'm worried about asking for too much up front and getting told off or even jeopardizing my offer.

[Sir Waitalot]

When is the time to withdraw a paper from a slow publisher and look for a better venue elsewhere? I have agreed to write a paper for a collection of essays that the editors just keep pushing back further and further.

I agreed to write the paper in the spring of 21, submitted it in the fall of 21, and have been waiting ever since. Every couple of months, I ask the editors for an update, and they always tell me that something came up, but that the book will be finished soon.

On the one hand, I'm frustrated, but on the other hand, I also don't want to withdraw my paper and create new problems for the editors and the other authors who maybe need the publication more than I do. But after a year and a half of waiting, I'm starting to become anxious.

[emailing journals]

My journal submission has been under review for a while now. I want to email the journal to inquiry about the status. How should I write the email without frustrating the editor?

[junior faculty now]

What are the norms around what to include on your CV at different stages of your career? I recently got a TT job after a couple of postdocs and received my Ph.D. 2ish years ago. My CV still has a number of grad-school related things on it: dissertation abstract, coursework, TA appointments, grad student service, etc. I don't want to give the impression that I'm still at the grad student stage, but I also don't know whether any of these things are still helpful or important for giving a picture of me as a scholar.

[NN]

I have a question about dealing with gender bias. My colleges in my current department are great, but I find it seriously demotivating that I regularly get underestimated as a woman philosopher. People are generally nice and don’t do this on purpose, but they still tend to assume I am far less qualified than I actually am.

(E.g., university admin assume I am the wife of a college rather than a professor; incoming students assume I have much less education than my male peers; or some people assume that I’m not the full instructor of my own courses, but that I’m assisting a male professor.)

Needless to say, this is pretty tiresome. I’ve given up a lot of things for the job, but situations like these leave me with the feeling that my effort was just not worth it. What are some good strategies for handling such situations?

[not in the in club]

How do journal book symposia and published exchanges happen? I can't find explicit instructions on journal submission sites. Are you just supposed to email the editor directly and ask whether they would be interested in such a thing? Is it customary for this to be the author of the book?

Context: I was invited to comment on a book for an APA session, and now I'm wondering how best to transform my commentary into a publication. Maybe that's just to find a journal that would publish it as a book review but (a) my comments are only on one chapter of the book, and (b) the author has a reply, and there is another person who delivered comments on another chapter of the book. Thanks for advice in advance!

[NoName]

About journal reviewing times:

I heard that the reviewing process is taking longer and longer in the last fewer years. As a PhD who is eager to get papers published, I was wondering whether there are mainstream and generalist journals that are known to have relatively short turnaround times for the reviewing process.

I have an impression that Synthese is reliable in this respect. On its website(https://www.springer.com/journal/11229) it says the median is 82 days from “Submission to first decision”; although this information is probably outdated.

For those who have more experience or inside information on this: are there journals that are particularly efficient in this respect? Are there mainstream journals that I should avoid?

Thanks!

[Brad]

Not in the club
I am one of the editors for Metascience, a Springer/Nature journal that publishes book reviews of books in the history, philosophy and sociology of science. We welcome offers to review books for us. WE also, even consider proposals for symposia. The latter are a bit tricky, as we do not publish many of them in a year. They are a lot of work, and require significant coordination. We also try to do symposia for books that will draw a lot of attention - after all, we want people to read our journal. But I would encourage people to contact journal editors. We are a lot nicer than our public image suggests ;)

[Sort of Niche]

I'm a grad student who works on a topic that some hardcore Western analytic people will think is weird/niche/not rigorous/not "real" philosophy.

This year I met someone at a conference who seemed to imply that EVEN IF I were to get a paper in this area published in a reputable journal, people would STILL be skeptical that what I do is worth taking seriously. They suggested that I try and publish on more "mainstream" topics to have a better shot on the job market.

But I would have thought getting any paper published in a reputable journal would have been pretty good evidence that what I do is worth taking seriously. How much weight should I give this person's advice?

FWIW, I would not change the topic of my dissertation to be more "trendy" or "mainstream." All I might do is put significant effort into writing an additional paper that is distinctly more "mainstream."

[Thanks]

Are there periods of time throughout the year when the journal peer-review process is either quicker or slower?

[Person With A Question]

I have a TT offer in hand. The trouble is that I'm not sure if I'll be happy there.

I have also been told I have a strong probability of being able to come back to my current institution (non-TT, but stable in the medium term, where I'm fairly happy) if things go badly in the TT gig. However, I wonder if this would look suspicious once I'm back on the market. Is it a red flag if a candidate has left a TT position for a temporary position? Is it the sort of thing that would prevent one from getting interviewed?

(Let's bracket cases from the same part of the world where the TT gig is...I do suspect those institutions would be concerned that a candidate had left a position nearby; but what about the wider philosophical world?)

[FutureOfPhilosophy?]

Is it possible to create a thread on changes in what areas are being sought in the job market?

I can't find dedicated places discussing this issue, but it seems really important to me. LEMM hiring looks borderline dead, at least for people doing armchair (i.e. non-science-based), non-social-oriented LEMM. But isn't that what most people are trained in? And isn't that what interests most people who go on to do philosophy in the first place?

There's a lot of discussion about publications, prestige, etc., but I think we need more discussion about area. IMO it just seems like hiring in the most popular areas of philosophy is close to 0. Given that so many graduate students get into philosophy precisely to work in these areas, we need to start a conversation about it. Moreover, it would be helpful to discuss what things, if any, someone with that background could do to change how they are perceived. I worry that publishing a single paper on hotter topics just makes one look like they're "selling out" and not seriously interested, at least if one already has several publications on more traditional LEMM.

[backing out of a vap offer?]

I want to ask for advice about the norms, strategies, etc. for possibly backing out of a non tenure track job (e.g., a limited VAP) offer, in order to accept a tenure-track job. Say, if someone were to accept a VAP offer in early April, would it be okay to back out in late April to accept a recently received tenure-track offer elsewhere? Would you just tell the VAP school, "I'm very sorry ... but I can't turn down a tenure-track offer"? I'd appreciate any advice; thanks!

[whatever]

A question I've been having recently is whether you can seem "too good" for a job in a way that raises red flags for the committee. (Of course, we applicants don't think this; we just want a job and would happily work at your institution! So really this is a question about the attitudes of the hiring committee).

To say a bit more, I don't quite mean "too good" in the flight-risk sense, though that certainly is related; I mean more in the "this person is from a different culture of philosophy, and probably won't 'get us' or be happy here" sense. I wonder if this is especially true for those trained at high-to-middle ranked Leiter R1s, but who wind up getting lots of interviews at smaller schools with faculty who are not from that world, but are instead from the world where you could get a job with, shall we say, a CV that looks much different than how it must look today for us on the market to even get an interview.

If this is a real phenomenon, what can candidates do about it? (And, again, let's assume they express genuine interest in the interview, are not intentionally coming off as pretentious, etc.).

[Anxious grad]

In my PhD program many of the students believe that the faculty rank the grad students in their once-a-semester meeting to discuss grad student progress. The faculty deny this, but I think these rumors contribute to the somewhat competitive environment in our program. Whom should we the grad students believe? Is ranking students (still) a common practice in PhD programs? Do universities even allow it?

[replier]

Suppose you're writing a reply paper, but the target paper isn't published yet. The reply is intended for the same journal in which the target paper is forthcoming. Do you need to wait for the target paper to be officially published to submit the reply?

[Quality Maximization]

Philosophy has a notoriously low publishing rate, especially at the better journals, and as compared to other fields. Seeing the recent controversy with Wiley wanting more publications at the Journal of Political Philosophy, and the massive uproar against it, I’m curious why we aren’t looking at this as an opportunity to reassess and justify the low publishing rates. Would quality really become abysmal and journals predatory if the rate goes from 10% to 12% or even (gasp) 15%?

[TT]

Are there any best practices or advice for how to choose external reviewers for a tenure application?

[Stranded]

I'm between a grad program and a job, in a post-doc. In my grad program, I had great mentorship and guidance; in my post-doc, I have neither. I feel very adrift and mostly alone. (This may echo what others say about jobs that are not near other universities).

Maybe I feel like mentorship and guidance would be helpful for me at this point, and I don't know where to find it. There is also general loneliness, but that may be distinct. I've been trying to read and stay up to date on the field, and keep writing to stay engaged. It's all been moderately helpful, but I wonder if others have tips as to how to navigate this in-between phase? Maybe even how to stay motivated on the job market when no mentor seems to "have your back"?

Thanks!

[Almost there]

I am (hopefully) going to receive tenure in the coming year. I am thinking about what I want to do with that newfound security, and one thing I want to do is be a better ally to contingent faculty at my university. There are ways to do this that seem obvious to me, like participating in the picket line if their union ever calls a strike. But I'm wondering if anyone has advice about subtler things that could still make a difference. For example, at my university, permanent faculty receive computers from the university but contingent faculty do not. I am planning to try to motivate my department to fix this for our own faculty or object to the university's policy if we can't directly fix it. But I would love to read other ideas, if anyone is willing to share: how can tenured faculty help make things better for contingent faculty?

[Grad Student]

I am in a tricky situation. I am an incoming PhD student at a low-ranking institution. Naturally, I want to maximize my chances on the job market post-graduation. In the last five months (since my first PhD applications were due), I have recieved five acceptances from very serious journals. I also have a perfect GPA, a perfect GRE score, and a master's degree from a respected university. I was waitlisted by most programs to which I applied. The director of graduate admissions at my top choice program told me that I came within a hair's breadth of a first-round acceptance and probably would have gotten one had news of my publications come sooner. He also told me that, based on my forthcoming work, I was "easily good enough" to excel in a top-five program.

So, here is my question: Should I try to transfer to a higher-ranked institution after a year or two at my current program? Would this be mercenary, ungrateful, or at all likely to improve my job prospects? I should emphasize that I actually quite like the faculty at my current program, based on my initial interactions with them, and that the university has granted me an extremely generous fellowship offer (comparable to the standard funding package at a top-ten program). I am temperamentally quite conscientious and loyal and would almost certainly feel guilty about jumping ship. However, the school's placement late is very low, and I have a family to feed.

[Way]

I am writing a short article for an anthology. Because of the length limit, I cannot fully develop some ideas and arguments. However, I still want to include many or even most of them. Will it be appropriate if I write a separate and longer paper later that basically includes the same ideas but develop them in detail? Or will this be a case of self-plagiarism? I think see some "famous" philosophers doing this sometimes, but I wonder what would be a good rule of thumb here.

[Cam]

How soon is too soon to apply to another TT job after getting one? I was blessed with the good fortune of receiving a TT job. How long do I need to stay in the job before applying elsewhere? Even if I like it, there are jobs I'll like more: it seems like sending off a few applications per year would be the smart thing to do, when particularly desirable jobs for my profile come up. Would it be OK to move on after say only one year?

[anon]

If you're asked to do a teaching demo on what you think is a difficult concept for students in a critical thinking course, is there an expectation you'll do something like necessary/sufficient; basic deductive proof; or is something outside the box potentially more acceptable given the nature of a CT class?

I am mostly concerned that the stuff I mentioned like necessary/sufficient, sound/unsound, deductive proof, etc, is actually pretty boring and overdone

[publication arms race meh]

Can we have a thread on publication trends among philosophy students (including BOTH those already in PhD programs AND those yet to be admitted to PHD programs)? Apologies if this has already been discussed/over-discussed elsewhere, but I read in another thread about an applicant to PHD programs already having five publications prior to even beginning their PHD education. This strikes me as ridiculous but also, perhaps, understandable in light of the publication arms race.

So, a question (and one that I'm guessing has been entertained already on this website) is: what should we (can we) do about the publication arms race in philosophy? Perhaps it needs to be tackled in conjunction with the publication arms race in academia more broadly, but perhaps not...
Further, maybe some folks this it's not a problem. If this is the case, I'd be curious to hear why. For my part, I'm tired and overwhelmed by the # of publications out there...even those that just relate specifically to my sub-sub discipline.

[Patrick W]

In the opinions of Editors of Journals (who decide on whether a paper moves to reviewers), what are the chances of a paper coming from Ph.D. students from "unranked" or not top 50 schools getting to the reviewers? That is, do editors automatically desk reject papers from grad students they haven't heard of or universities that aren't top 50? I ask because this seems to be the sentiment amongst the grad students from these "lower" ranked schools. And it seems to be supported by anecdotal evidence and conversations between students from varying schools and their prestige. If this is true, I doubt the editors of the "good" journals will admit to it, but worth asking.

[Self-Refuter]

I've discovered a weakness in an argument I published recently. It would be very easy to write a paper pinpointing this weakness and strengthening the original argument to avoid it. Is this advisable? If so, how far should I go to hide the fact that I am the author of both papers from editors/referees?

[grad student]

Are the norms for emailing an editor to inquire about a submission's status any different for minor revisions/conditional acceptances than they are for initial submissions? Is it appropriate to email after just three months, say, if you still haven't heard back about a conditional acceptance?

[Asynchronicity]

I am teaching an asynchronous online course next academic year. I am having a hard time thinking of ChatGPT-proof or ChatGPT resistant assignments for this class. ChatGPT seems like it is capable of doing all of the following:

-Essays
-Quizzes and exams (any question format)
-Discussion boards
-Reading response short essays
-Prompt ChatGPT and write about the responses

Are there any good options for assessments in asynchronous courses, given ChatGPT and other LLM AI bots?

[wannabeauthor]

I've had a paper under review for 14 (going on 15) months now. At about the 6 month mark, I started checking in with the editors every couple of months. Each time, I'm told that the paper has one review in but there has been no luck finding a second referee. I would have withdrawn this paper months ago, but it's a top tier journal in my subfield (which is not a niche subfield btw). I guess my thinking has been something like, "if such a highly regarded journal is having trouble finding a referee, then it's likely that other journals will, too." Is this a reasonable thought? Should I withdraw and submit elsewhere?