The Philosophers' Cocoon

Reducing prestige bias?

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

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?

I don't know. I try to combat prestige bias in things that I can control, such as who I cite in papers and books, as well as in my role as a journal reviewer (I don't think, as a matter of scholarship, one gets to simply ignore relevant work because it didn't appear in a prestigious journal). I think that graduate faculty and dissertation supervisors might also make a point of requiring their students to adopt similar norms. But beyond this, I don't know. I don't think just "waiting for boomers to die" is likely to change much, as prestige hierarchies seem to reemerge every generation.

Anyway, what do you all think?

Book symposia and published exchanges?

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

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!

Good questions! I suspect the thing to do here is to ask the participants in the APA session whether they'd be interested in a journal symposium and offering to head things up if they are. Then you could email editors at journals where symposia appear to see if they are interested. Alternatively, if others on the APA panel aren't interested (though why wouldn't they be?), I suppose you could see if it's possible to publish an exchange with the author. I'm not sure how common such exchanges are, though.

Does anyone have any helpful insights?

Can a candidate look 'too good' for a job?

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

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.).

Excellent questions. What do readers think?

Publishing replies to forthcoming papers?

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

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?

I feel like I've seen this plenty of times. As long as the forthcoming paper is publicly available, it seems to me that journals are likely to consider a response. Does anyone know any differently?

Trends in areas sought on the job market?

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

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.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I think it is terrible difficult to "play the market" with respect to areas of specialization. The problem is that in the USA, for example, it can take 5 to 6 years to get a PhD. So, what was hot when you enter your PhD will probably be saturated by the time you go on the market. Right now - this year ... and maybe a few more - philosophy of digital technologies is super hot. There are many many jobs (especially in Europe). But soon every university that is going to hire someone in this area will have hired their person. So there will not be any more job openings for a long time. No worries though ... a new area will be hot. The important thing is to do interesting work, and get a strong education (which includes the sort of mentoring you can get at the elite universities). Whatever successes I have had have been due to my publishing ... place articles in good journals. And write on interesting topics.

This broadly right to me when it comes to particular research areas or "hot topics." However, I think it's also worth noting that some job market trends have been pretty consistent over time with respect to AOS's (see here and below):

In terms of what someone like the OP can do now to improve their candidacy (given that it seems like they work in LEMM), I guess I sort of do wonder whether it might help them to work on a hot topic. Then again, who knows? As I've noted before, I also often wonder whether working on currently-hot topics can backfire, as if one works on similar topics as most other candidates, then it may be hard to stand out in a crowded field. So, maybe the above respondent is right and the best one can do is to simply do good work. 

What do you all think? Are there particular trends on what is sought on the market that are worth bearing in mind or planning for? And what, if anything, should a LEMMing do to best deal with the fact that hiring in armchair LEMM fields seems to be moribund?

Do grad departments rank grad students?

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

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?

Good questions. I seem to recall some rumors in my grad department about this too, but I don't know if anyone ever asked about it and if someone ever did, I would think that the grad faculty should be honest about it. Two other readers submitted follow up comments:

Certainly when I was a graduate student, faculty did rank the students, and they were compelled to when it came to supporting applications for competitive graduate grants (provincial and national in Canada). And I had heard that at Columbia they openly posted the ranking of grad students in the 1980s. In fact, you are going to be ranked all the time in this profession. And it does create a rather destructive competitive atmosphere. But to think you won't be ranked is naive. - by 'ambivalent'

[W]hile I am not sure about ranking culture in general, I do know that departments (or, the DGS or chair in charge) would often rank students in order to make recommendations for, say, university-wide competitive funding opportunities. What may end up happening is that the same student(s) would both get those internal findings and a job offer, so the internal money just goes back to the grad school, instead of going to the second person in line. - by 'To anxious grad'

Do any other readers have any helpful insights?

Norms of backing out of a VAP for a TT job?

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

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!

Good questions. I'd hope that any department/institution that offered the VAP would be understanding, given how difficult TT jobs are to get. But, does anyone have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Changing topics between the MA and PhD?

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

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.

I would recommend trying to publish the paper on X while also transitioning to Xi. Changing one's focus in a PhD program is common, and I don't think anyone will hold it against you. If anything, I think having more diverse interests is likely to help you on the market, at least for some jobs. Finally, I think one is simply likely to do one's best work if one works on what one is most interested in. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Emailing journals to check on a manuscript's status?

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

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?

I don't think one should worry about frustrating the editor, provided your paper has been under review a sufficiently long time. Just write a respectful note that you wish to check on the paper's status. Does anyone disagree, or have different advice?

Dealing with gender bias in your department?

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

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?

I'm so sorry this reader is having to deal with this. Does anyone have any helpful tips or experiences to share for handling this kind of situation?

Using a conditionally accepted paper as a writing sample instead of published work?

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

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).

I don't see any reason why not, especially if it's closer to the area of the advertised job! Do any readers think otherwise?

Leaving a TT job for a stable non-TT job?

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

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?)

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would certainly wonder what happened. If you were at the TT job for 5 or so years, I would assume you were denied tenure ... if you leave too quickly, I might also wonder whether you were not renewed (because of some sort of behavior). So, I would tend to set such a file aside, given the many other strong applicants in a typical pool.

I think I share these worries, but maybe one could address the issue in a cover letter? What do you all think?

When a paper is under review and you have an invite to submit elsewhere?

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

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?

Good questions. I've been in similar positions before, and have never quite known what to do. Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Tips for thriving in an isolated job?

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

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?

Excellent questions. I work in a really small department myself, and while my university and city are both good places and thriving, I too have often felt pretty isolated during the course of my career (I work more or less on my lonesome). I don't know how isolated the OP's campus is, but one suggestion would be to see if there are philosophers at nearby universities that one can connect with. Another suggestion, I guess, might be to lean into the cultural aspects of the surrounding area--to try to enjoy life more, rather than focus so much on work (as I think many of us are wont to do).

But these are just a few off-the-cuff thoughts. Do any readers who have grappled with similar things have any helpful tips?

Changing grad programs after one year?

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

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.

Good questions. I suppose it's probably sensible just given unhealthy family situation (which I'm very sorry that the reader and their partner are going through). But in terms of what grad admissions committees will think and the burned bridges issue, I'm not sure what the answers are.

What do you all think? 

Preparing for success in a UK job?

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

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.

Great question! Any readers with jobs in the UK have any helpful tips or insights?

Negotiating job offer tips?

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

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 pompous.

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.

Excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers! One reader submitted the following reply:

I think you misunderstand the conditions of negotiation. For background, I negotiated a very modest higher starting salary at my first TT job, and I negotiated some additional raises while in a job, above and beyond the standard merit raises, which occur in a institutional framework. No one is going to give you a raise for a post doc you had - in fact, a new hire from Oxford or Yale has no basis for asking for a higher starting pay than a new hire from Ohio State or Missouri. And even cost of living is a problematic starting point - if the University has a union, or the administration is thinking clearly, they are concerned with compression. They cannot let new hires start at a pay level higher than what those who were hired a 5 years ago are paid now. That will cause resentment. You need a basis for claiming to need or deserve more money. Ideally, you have another offer so you can actually walk away from this job if they do not meet your demands. But try something like excessive moving costs (because you are moving across the country or from another country).

I'm inclined to agree that trying to negotiate by mentioning "fancy" postdocs probably isn't a good idea, but beyond this I'm not too sure. Do any other readers with experience negotiating job offers have any helpful tips or other insights?

Teaching grads vs. undergrads?

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

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!

All great questions! I've never taught grad students, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Does anyone with experience have any helpful tips?

Ideal timeline for publishing in grad school?

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

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?

Good questions. My sense is that if you want 3-4 publications three years from now, you probably need to get a bunch of stuff out to journals as soon as you can. Remember, rejection rates at many journals are upwards of 90%, and just the initial review stage can take anywhere from 3-4 months to 6 months or longer (which, obviously, doesn't include revise-and-resubmits). Publishing a paper can take a long time, particularly if you've never done it before. At the same time, there are some dangers to sending things out too soon. As one reader wrote in a reply:

One quick response to PhD Student on publishing timelines: a mistake I made a few times as a PhD was to send off papers 'too early' while trying to get some publications in. But ultimately this just delayed the process, because those papers were inevitably rejected after a few months and then had to be sent off again. It sounds like you already have a good system in place to avoid this, namely getting a second pair of eyes e.g. your supervisor, and making sure to present your papers at conferences at least a few times before you submit them. I definitely don't think this is too slow!

I had a similar experience in grad school, which was I think the result of me not getting enough "eyes" on my papers before sending them out. So, I guess this is my suggestion: try to send papers off as soon as you reasonably can--but work closely with faculty in your program to make sure the papers are in good shape before you do! But these are just my thoughts.

What does everyone else think?

Preparing for success in a new job?

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

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

Big congrats, and great question! I think a lot may depend on what kind of job it is. If it's a job with a low teaching load at an R1, then I'm not sure. If, on the other hand, it's a job with a pretty hefty teaching load, then I'd suggest trying to get a lot of research done and a few papers out to journals this summer. In jobs with a lot of teaching (especially your first year), you might find that you have very little time to focus on research, and if you don't have papers out at journals, you might begin to worry about "falling behind." Other than this, I guess I'd suggest asking new colleagues if they have syllabi that they are willing to share, as this might give you some idea what the norms around teaching are at the institution. Then again, it's been a long time since I started my first job, so I'm probably missing obvious tips that might help the OP.

What do you all think? Any tips for someone about to start a new job in the fall that will help them set themselves up for success?

How much do publications matter on the market?

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

I have a question about the job market. Recently on Twitter, I have seen quite a few people posting about either permanent jobs or good postdocs they have secured. However, when I then check out their CV, I am surprised to see that it doesn't align with what I have previously been told/seen about getting permanent jobs/postdocs. To give an example for each, I saw someone getting a permanent job when they had only a few publications, only one of which was a top ten (Leiter) and not top five, and the others were co-authored or lower tier journals. For the postdoc, I saw someone getting a good postdoc with actually no publications as well. At my institution I had been told that you need about three top five publications to get a permanent job, which struck me as close to impossible short of you being a generational talent. And for a postdoc I had been told at least two decent publications minimum.

So, is this a sign for optimism in that if you interview well or are good in some other ways, you can escape the "publish or die" mantra that I've so much heard about?

I'm curious to hear what readers think. I suspect there may be differences in hiring for different kinds of positions (e.g. permanent jobs and postdocs at R1s vs. SLACs, etc.). At R1s, for example, grad program prestige, letters of recommendation, and writing samples may go a long way. Conversely, at SLACs, things other than publishing (such as teaching) matter a great deal. Indeed, having served on a number of search committees at a SLAC, my sense is that people on the hiring side of things can very much take "the whole picture" into account with candidates. Publications matter--but they are by no means the only thing that matters. Teaching matters a lot too. So do your research statement and writing sample--and more generally, how interesting and promising a committee finds your overall research project. And, of course, interviews affect the hiring process too. At schools like mine, people generally want to see evidence that you know how to publish and are likely to publish enough for tenure--so, above and beyond a few publications, more publications may not matter tremendously. Finally, it's worth bearing in mind many people only get permanent jobs after a number of years on the market. It took me over 7 years, for example--so, over a period of time like this, you don't have to be a generational talent to publish a bunch of papers. 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

New article in Journal of Moral Philosophy: "(When) Are Authors Culpable for Causing Harm?"

This is just a quick note that I have a new paper out in the Journal of Moral Philosophy entitled, "(When) Are Authors Culpable for Causing Harm?". The abstract:

To what extent are authors morally culpable for harms caused by their published work? Can authors be culpable even if their ideas are misused, perhaps because they failed to take precautions to prevent harmful misinterpretations? Might authors be culpable even if they do take precautions—if, for example, they publish ideas that others can be reasonably expected to put to harmful uses, precautions notwithstanding? Although complete answers to these questions depend upon controversial views about the right to free speech, this paper argues that five notions from philosophy of law and legal practice—liability, burden of proof, legal causation, mens rea, and reasoning by precedent—can be adapted to provide an attractive moral framework for determining whether an author’s work causes harm, whether and how culpable the author is for causing such harm, steps authors may take to immunize themselves from culpability, and how to responsibly develop new rules for publishing ethics.

Tips for someone new to teaching?

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

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?

Excellent question, and several other readers submitted responses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unzc731iCUY - Submitted by Patrick Winston

First, remember that teaching, unless you are blessed with innate talents, should be hard and exhausting at first. I have been teaching for several years, and still find that I spend a lot more time than I want to preparing for teaching. Second, plan places for students to participate. It can be a vote on "do you agree with X;" "let's explore why you dis/agree;" pause whenever introducing key and difficult to understand ideas, and try to get students spell out their frustration (if any). The participation time can also be used as a short break for you. Third, find connections to things students might care about. It's easier for me as I'm moral, social, legal, and political, so I basically read the news and try to understand local politics. But my guess is that other fields have their ways of getting students to care about the content of the course. Fourth, talk about what constitutes excellent writing. This, if done well, will make life significantly easier when we have to do the marking. - Submitted by 'my two cents'

I say this only with a bit of irony, but you should approach the delivery of lecture more like Freddie Mercury singer Fat Bottomed Girls - see the video on You Tube. That is, you need to engage the audience, and care less about the specifics of the article, etc. that you are teaching. - Submitted by Freddie Jr.

Any other readers have any helpful tips for a new teacher?

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.