The Philosophers' Cocoon

How well do candidates need to satisfy AOS/AOCs in job ads?

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

I'm on the market for the first time this fall and have the following question. When a job posting lists multiple AOSs and AOCs, how seriously should one take the AOS constraints? I'm trying to read between the lines of these posts, wondering whether sometimes search committees list one thing but are in fact somewhat open to simply attracting a strong candidate in any number of areas.

Just as an example, consider this post from Holy Cross (https://philjobs.org/job/show/24034), which says AOS: Metaphysics and Epistemology; AOC: Ethics, Political Theory, or Feminism.

Suppose you do not do metaphysics or epistemology; you do ethics or feminist philosophy. Is it worth applying to this job? Is it a "long shot?" Is it a complete waste of time?

Is there a rule of thumb for this sort of thing, or respectable ways to gather information/clues about what a particular search committee might /really/ be open to?

Good questions - what do you all think? It would be great to hear from search committee members and administrators, but also from past or present job candidates.

Applying to other TT jobs from a job in a non-ideal location?

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

Landed a TT job this year in a non-ideal location, and so I plan to be very minimally (and selectively) on the market again. Do search committees frown upon seeing this sort of thing? I figure some could think it means I'll never stop jumping around, which is obviously false (location, location, location). If they do frown, do I need to say something about my rationale for applying in the cover letter? Or can I assume a charitable interpretation of my application?

I think you can probably assume a charitable interpretation of your application, though perhaps it might give rise to worries that you might not stick around. But I'm not sure, and don't know whether it would be a good idea to say something in your cover letter. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I supported a junior colleague who wanted to jump for the same sorts of reasons. I wrote in my supporting letter about their need to be elsewhere (somewhee very specific NYC - and for good reasons). This worked. They got a job in the greater NYC area the first year they tried. So you might try asking one of your letter writers to address it. I was also able to say what a wonderful colleague this person was, and I had even observed their teaching, which I documented in detail. You might also mention your special reasons for being in or near the location where the new job is. Do not be overly specific, or they will think you will just keep moving until you get to the exact neighbourhood you want to live in.

What do you all think?

Tips for building a pre-college philosophy program?

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

I teach pre-college philosophy to international students at the high school level. It is a required subject alongside any core subject. While I have free reign over the content, I would like structure for what could serve high school students if philosophy.

If you are familiar with standards-based education, I have been tasked with drafting philosophy standards for 6th to 12th grade. This will provide consistency between teachers, through any staff turnover, and will provide a scope and sequence for deeper development.

My questions are, how have pre-college philosophy (or P4C) teachers, in general, built their programs? And has anyone adopted the standards-based movement in the field of philosophy? Has anyone developed learning standards solely for the skills and content of philosophy?

Good questions! Does anyone have any tips or other experience to share?

Resources for philosophers writing grant proposals?

Scott Hill (University of Innsbruck) asks,

Are there any good resources for philosophers who are writing grant proposals? What do you write in the methods section? Surely you can‘t talk about matching intuition and satisfying theoretical virtues. So what do you talk about? Thanks!

Good questions. Does anyone with experience have any helpful tips?

How many grad programs to apply to?

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

As an undergrad student, I have a question regarding grad school applications. How many grad schools do people usually apply to? And how many should I?

So far, I have found 3 grad schools that seem to fit me, but I suspect 3 are too few, given the low acceptance rate of philosophy grad schools.

These are good questions. One reader submitted the following reply:

I applied for 6, got one offer with scholarship and 5 rejections. I think I didn't apply enough in retrospect. That being said, it's costly to apply for US grad schools (at least when I applied, not sure whether this has changed). I think some programs outside US are free to apply.

Although I entered grad school over 20 years ago now (back when, or so I hear, competition was nowhere near as fierce as it is now), I applied to over 20 programs and got into exactly 2 of them. So, my sense is that applying to only 3 programs is probably nowhere near enough. But again, my experience is really dated here, and it might be good to hear from recent applicants.

How many grad programs did you apply to, and how many did you get into (funded or unfunded)?

Is there a stigma against grad transfer students?

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

Is there a stigma against transfer students? I have heard people say that there is none, and nobody cares that someone is re-applying to programs (especially with a valid reason) and I have also heard from some prominent people that top programs only accept transfers under very exceptional circumstances. What do yall think?

I'd be surprised if there were any stigma. Although it was quite a while ago now (way back in the early 2000s), I transferred grad programs myself (from a program then ranked in the mid-20s on the Leiter report to a program then ranked #12), and it didn't seem to be a problem. Then again, maybe things are different now, or different for "top programs"?

Do any readers have any helpful experiences or insights to share here?

Are rejection rates particularly high in philosophy?

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

Are the rates of rejection - of articles from journals, of grant applications from funding bodies, of job applications from universities - particularly high in Philosophy? Is there some data about the average number of rejected papers per published papers from other disciplines? (Or a similar statistic about grant/job applications?)

Knowing this won't change anything on ground, but the (potential) solidarity with others would help feel a bit less disadvantaged (if I actually am).

Good questions. A while back,  Eric Schliesser (Amsterdam) presented some data at Daily Nous that rejection rates at philosophy journals tend to be far higher than in other fields, and when I've shared journal rejection rates in philosophy with some people in other fields, they have been shocked at how high our journals' rejection rates are.

If the OP is looking for a little grounds for solidarity on getting lots of rejections, they may find this post by Jason Stanley of interest, as well the following recent post by Neil Levy (Oxford University) on Twitter/'X':

Phil Studies accepted the very 1st paper I sent them. They rejected the subsequent SEVENTEEN attempts. Anyway, don't be discouraged by rejection, but definitely don't tell anyone you're on a 17 rejection streak until it ends.

I'm not so sure about rejection rates for grant applications and job applications, though. I do know anecdotally that the academic job market is significantly better in some other fields (until last year, my spouse was an academic in a rapidly growing, specialized STEM field flush with job openings and not all that many applicants), but I suspect things vary a lot here depending on field. 

Do any readers have any better info on the OP's questions (on rejection rates from journals, grants, and job apps)?

Tips from Search Committee Members: How committees evaluate diversity statements

In our job-market discussion thread, a reader asks:

How much biography is it appropriate to include in a diversity statement? (I have experienced some serious barriers, disclosure of which might risk being TMI, but I think also shows massive resilience and capacity to balance heavy demands while also doing good work)

Another reader responded:

As far as disclosing information is concerned, when I worked at a state college, the HR department would send a questionnaire asking about your status: race, gender, military, disability, etc. DO FILL THIS FORM OUT. At least where I worked, (i) faculty never saw the applicants' answers, and (ii) HR would inform the search committee that a file should be revisited if they were passed over initially, but were of one of these groups. This helped one candidate in particular - they were military, and where we were that mattered. They were a wonderful colleague, and very much deserving of the job. So revisiting their file was both in the applicant's interest and in the department's interest.

This doesn't really address the diversity statement question, however. So, I thought it might be worthwhile continuing our Tips from Search Committee Members series with a thread on diversity statements. If you are a search committee member,

1. How do you read a diversity statement?
2. Which sorts of things in diversity statements tend to produce a positive impression?
3. Which sorts of things do you mostly pass over?
4. Which sorts of things (including common errors) have you encountered in diversity statements that produce a negative impression?
5. What type of institution do you work at? (R1? R2? Highly-selective SLAC? Non-highly selective SLAC? Community College?)

Contacting a faculty member of a hiring department as a job applicant?

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

I have a question related to applying for TT jobs. When is it appropriate to contact faculty members of a department you're applying to? I'm planning to apply to a department where I have met one of the senior faculty. I don't know them well, but we hit it off at a small conference. Is it appropriate to reach out and let them know I'm applying? Ask for their advice? Or would this come off as tactless, presumptuous, or craven?

Fair questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

You need to be clear on what you hope to achieve by contacting this person? Anything you write in e-mail, etc. may have to be disclosed by the faculty member. And even if you want more information about the position, the ad often says explicitly who you should contact. If it is not that person, then you really should not be contacting them. Finally, if you decide to mention the person and your nice experience with them in your cover letter, you may find other faculty members will rank you lower (if, for example, they do not like the colleague you know). So get clear on what such contact is going to achieve.

What do you all think? It would be especially helpful to hear from search committee members!

How to best enhance one's teaching qualifications as an early career scholar?

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

When it comes to getting teaching experience as an early career scholar, does it enhance your CV to have taught PHIL101 and Critical Thinking over, say, teaching a more specialized class more than once? As I start teaching, part of me feels like it would be better to get more experience teaching the courses in my AOS, but another part of me thinks having more courses listed is better (even if the courses are very basic).

Good question. My sense is that the answer is clear here, at least as far as the job-market is concerned: experience teaching a greater variety of courses outside your AOS is far and away the better bet. Why? Simple. Assuming you have teaching experience at all, committees will already expect you to be able to teach courses in your AOS. Those are your areas of expertise! So, teaching more in your AOS probably has little upside.

On the other hand, as someone who have served on about two handfuls of search committees, my experience has been that job ads often contain random courses that the department really needs the new hire to teach, but which aren't in the hire's AOS (or even AOC). Oftentimes, this is because there's a basic course in the curriculum that the department needs to have taught consistently, but which they have no specialists at all to teach. So, if experience teaching that course is on your CV, it may be a massive advantage for you compared to applicants who have never taught it. Although this is of course a matter of luck, the point is that the broader your teaching experience is, the more likely it is that you'll have experience teaching a course that a department is looking for in a candidate.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Crowdsourcing non-academic jobs (2023-24 job season)

Last year, we hosted a thread seeking to crowdsource job opportunities for philosophers outside of academia ('alt-ac' jobs). Given that a new thread was requested in our current job-market discussion thread, I thought it might be good to run new threads each job season. So here is this year's thread!

Please do feel free to use the comment thread below to draw attention to job ads (academic or non-academic) that philosophers might be competitive for that are not PhilJobs or HigherEd Jobs.

A link to this thread will be pinned to the blog's side-bar through summer 2024.

PhD programs: Philosophy vs. History and Philosophy of Science (HPS)?

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

I’d appreciate some advice about applying to grad school. My main interest is epistemology. It seems like I could find good supervisors in both general and HPS departments. But I’m wondering whether getting an HPS PhD can be limiting further down the road - Do general departments prefer general philosophy PhDs in hiring? And if my interests were to change, say to philosophy of language or ethics, for example, would it be particularly difficult to get a job in these AOS with an HPS PhD? Also, I’d be grateful for comments on any other relevant considerations.

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

Epistemology and philosophy of science are two distinct specialties. Of course, from the outside they look similar. But after graduate school you are either qualified for epistemology positions or philosophy of science positions - not both. And it is a mistake to think of epistemology as "broader" than philosophy of science. I went to PhD program that is highly rank for phil sci, and not much else. I initially went on the market saying I do "epistemology". That went nowhere. Any job I got I got because of the philosophy of science training they assumed I got at my ranked PhD program.

Interesting reply. Do any readers have any other helpful tips or advice to share? It would be great, in particular, to hear from HPS PhDs on whether their experience is that it has been limiting in any way, making it more difficult to get a job.

Contacting an author after reviewing their paper for a journal?

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

I have some questions about the norms of contacting an author after anonymously peer reviewing their work. I recently refereed a paper that I thought was great: well-argued, interesting, and from which I learned a lot. I recommended acceptance. I'd like to talk more about some of the issues in the paper with the author if they are amenable to it. Is it appropriate to ask the editor for their name after the publication processes has shaken out? Or, once the paper is out, is it appropriate to contact the author revealing to them that I was the referee? Are there norms against this sort of revelation, such that doing so would be a breach of etiquette? Any thoughts welcome!

Fair questions, and a couple of readers submitted replies. Elizabeth writes:

Unless there's some huge rush, I'd just wait until the paper is published and contact the author about it without mentioning that you were the reviewer.

And an editor and referee writes:

You should NOT contact the author of a paper you reviewed until it is in print (or on-line at the journal site). I think that constitutes a breach of norms. Incidentally, I have had a few referees of papers of mine contact me after my paper was in print, letting me know they refereed it. Often it was someone senior, while I was quite junior. Indeed, in one case, one referee identified himself in the referee report, which the editor left in the report for me to see. This proved very useful for me, as I now knew I had strong support from someone highly respected in the field.

Both comments seem right to me. What do you all think?

Tips for applying to postdocs?

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

I have a few questions about applying for post-doctoral fellowships. I'm a soon-to-be graduating student with rather niche philosophical interests. Though I've found a few prestigious, government-funded post-doctoral fellowships I'm aiming to apply to, I can't seem to find a suitable supervisor in the country whose research interests are similar to my own. So, I'm left wondering:

(1) How similar should my research interests even be to those of a post-doctoral supervisor?

(2) How constrained am I by the subject of my dissertation when applying for a post-doctoral fellowship? Would it be acceptable if I propose to work in a research area that's only tangentially related to what I've worked on so far?

I don't have much experience with postdocs, so I'm not a good person to provide answers here. However, another reader submitted the following reply:

In Europe - especially the north - you should not bother to apply for a post doc unless your research experience matches the call. The only people who really get serious consideration are those who genuinely work in the area. If it says philosophy of biology, we will not be able to seriously consider someone working in philosophy of physics. So, if your dissertation has nothing to do with the topic - if it is in M&E, for example - and the call is for philosophy of science, do not apply.

Do any readers have any other helpful advice for the OP?

Tips from Search Committee Members: How committees evaluate teaching portfolios

The first four posts in this series examined how hiring committees read and evaluate CVs, cover letters, research statements, and teaching statements. In today's post, I'd like to ask search committee members to answer some or all of the following questions about teaching portfolios:

1. Which parts of a teaching portfolio are you the most interested in?
2. What do you think belongs in a good teaching portfolio?
3. What do you think does not belong?
4. How much weight do you assign to student evaluations?
5. Should candidates provide student comments? If so, is it better to provide curated or non-curated/complete comments? 
6. Anything else you think candidates should know about how you read and evaluate teaching portfolios?
7. What type of institution do you work at? (R1? R2? Highly-selective SLAC? Non-highly selective SLAC? Community College?)

Really curious to hear your answers!

Applications open: Cultivating Underrepresented Students in Philosophy (Penn State)

Cultivating Underrepresented Students in Philosophy (CUSP) has opened applications for our Fall Graduate Application Workshop, which will take place in person at Penn State, University Park from October 8-11, 2023. 

The Philosophy Department at Penn State organizes two distinct CUSP 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 primarily intended for rising undergraduate sophomores or juniors (others are still encouraged to apply) 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 Application Workshop is 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.

Applications for the Fall Graduate Application Workshop are due September 4, 2023. The application and more information on our programs are available on our website: https://sites.psu.edu/cusp/.

Accepting one fellowship but leaving for another?

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

Here is a hypothetical situation: you apply for more than one postdoctoral fellowships with proposals on distinct topics, get selected in one, and accept the offer. After you join, the other fellowship, which is way better than the first (e.g., gives you more freedom to conduct your own research without interference, provides funds for conference travel and to organize workshops, etc.) comes through.

What do you do? Do you simple leave the first one for the second one, which may mean that the employer may have to go through the whole process of recruiting again, or worse, they may not hire anyone else for the position? How much do the employer's feelings matter? Are there questions answerable?

Good questions, and I'll be curious to hear what everyone thinks. The general consensus on similar topics discussed here in the past (e.g., leaving one job for another) seems to have been that employers don't have any right to your employment, and it's fine to do what's best for one's career. Also, given that fellowships are temporary and the OP is presumably still after permanent academic employment, if the second fellowship seems more advantageous than the first in terms of flourishing in their career, then why not move?

But these are just a few quick thoughts. What are yours?

Job-market discussion thread (2023-24 season)

Now that it's August 15th and the job market will be ramping up soon, I figured now is probably a good time as any to open up this season's job-market discussion board. 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!

As many readers of the Cocoon may recall, each job season the Cocoon hosts two different 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.

This post will serve as the discussion thread, and as in the past I will open the reporting thread at a later date, around or after most job applications become due.

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!

How can we help you? (August 2023)

Now that it's been well 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.

What's the most common/default citation style at journals?

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

I have two related questions regarding citation styles. Nowadays, most journals do not require a specific style when you submit a manuscript, but you need to follow their styles when your paper is accepted. First, do we have a sense of the most common style of philosophy journals? (Is there a survey or summary about this?) Second, since one probably needs to send a paper to a few different journals (not at once, of course), what "default" style do people use when you write your drafts before knowing where to send them?

Good questions. I've spent way too much time reformatting citations, and would love to cut down the time I spend on them. My sense, anecdotally, is that in-text citations (APA format) may be the most common, which I find a bit frustrating, as it may be my least favorite format (I just don't like the aesthetics of how it breaks up the flow of a manuscript, particularly since my work tends to be very citation heavy). My default style is to give name/date/p. # in footnotes with a reference list at the end, though to be frank I don't even know what style this is called. I just think it looks best, but again, I have to change it a lot after acceptance.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Doing research on "big ideas"?

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

I wonder if others have run into the following challenge: in graduate school. I focused on "smaller", bite-sized ideas that I thought would be most easily published. I also think that philosophy moves pretty slowly, that "small" steps are really important, and that "big" steps often make a lot of "small" (and not-so-small) mistakes.

On the job market, it seems to me that committees are almost exclusively looking for "big" ideas, at least where I'm applying (R1, research-focused). I worry that I've written myself into the typecast of making "small" contributions that don't add up to anything "big". Since I'm junior, that doesn't seem fair since my small contributions haven't had time to add up to anything big. But that aside, I'm just wondering how to move toward "big" ideas, if for no other reason than that is what many schools seem to seek.

I also understand why colleagues want to hire someone working on "big," sexy ideas. I'm not sure that's where good philosophy is done, but it's certainly fun and interesting to engage with.

This is an interesting query to me, in large part because I went through something similar early in my career. I too was socialized in grad school to work on 'smaller' papers. However, I didn't have much success publishing papers like that and while I think papers that take small steps can be good and important, I found it difficult to motivate myself to work on these kinds of papers. It just wasn't why I fell in love with philosophy. I always loved exploring big ideas, so at some point I just tried to trust myself and start writing on larger topics and found more success and enjoyment doing so. I'm not sure that I have any great tips on how to pursue 'bigger' ideas, and I suspect that different things probably work for different people. But here's a little bit on some methods that I use in doing the kind of work that I generally do.

Finally, for what it's worth, I suspect the most important thing is to probably do the best work you can and work that you enjoy. In my experience, there are lots of philosophers who prize good work that takes 'small steps', and indeed, I suspect there's probably a reason why this is the kind of work we are so often encouraged to pursue in grad school. So, if you enjoy working on smaller topics and are being successful with it, there are probably people out there who will value it too!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Publishing and invited talks: a dilemma?

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

I find myself uncertain of certain norms and would appreciate guidance. I'm a few years into a tt job and have started to be invited to give talks semi-regularly. Often I have a piece that is semi-ready, so a few months out I frantically start trying to polish it up. But then, once I feel it is in good enough shape to give a talk, I face a conundrum. Do I submit it for publication, or wait until after I have given the talks? I'm not so secure in my tenure prospects that I feel comfortable not having pieces under review. But I worry there is a chance (however small!) that the paper could be accepted before some or all of the talks. My sense is that the norm is that you shouldn't give talks on pieces that are already published. But what I would then be left with is really underdeveloped things, and I also don't feel like I'm at a stage in my career where I feel comfortable waltzing into a talk with a super unpolished bit of work (maybe I never will be or should be!) To submit or not to submit? And what to do if an article were to get accepted? (And yes I know the real answer is probably "have multiple pretty polished pieces ready and/or cooking at any given moment" but sometimes I just....don't)

Fair questions. My sense is that it's just fine according to prevailing norms to send papers to journals and give talks on them at the same time, and that if a paper is accepted, it's still fine to give a talk on it if it wasn't accepted at the time one accepted an invitation (in most cases, the paper will probably be forthcoming rather than published, right?). My sense is that this kind of conundrum probably doesn't happen all that often, given journal rejection rates--so it's probably not worth worrying about all that much. On the flip side, giving a bad talk on an underdeveloped piece may come across poorly, so if one wants to feel good about the talks one gives, my sense is that it's probably best not to give underdeveloped talks. Then again, who among us hasn't seen (or been givers of) talks like these? Sure, the speaker might look a bit bad, but if they otherwise publish good work, I suspect people may simply chalk it up to being a work in progress. One can always say this too up front at a talk, right? An audience may be a bit more forgiving if they are given this kind of heads up. Or maybe not. 

What do you all think?

Publishing replies to papers by senior figures while in grad school?

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

I am a PhD student with qualms about writing a reply to a recent paper that I have found both very engaging and in many respects objectionable. The "problem" is, this paper is published in a reputable journal and penned by quite a reputable mid-to-late-career author. The journal accepts replies to published pieces, and I believe in my ability to write something of value. Yet I am very uncertain whether it is wise and/or prudent to engage in this debate due to clear disbalance of seniority. Usually, replies to articles seem to be authored by scholars who have a standing / are somewhat known in the subfield.

I wonder what is the general consensus on this matter. Are my intuitions completely wrong? Should PhD students feel free to publish replies to senior colleagues?

I don't see any reason not to publish a reply. If you think the paper by the senior figure is mistaken, go for it! This is what philosophy is about, right? We give and respond to each other's arguments. If anything, I suspect a good reply to a reputable senior figure in the field would reflect well on the author. Sure, maybe the senior figure might not like the reply, but that's life, right? What power do they have over one's career?

I guess the only thing that I would recommend is that if the OP finds the figure's paper "in many respects objectionable", it's probably wise to make sure that they compose the paper in a way that engages with the author's arguments respectfully. When one finds an argument objectionable (particularly if one finds it morally objectionable), it's possible that one may be tempted to engage in heightened rhetoric in the paper, which I suspect would not come across well to reviewers, editors, or readers.  

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Tips from Search Committee Members: How committees read teaching statements

The first three posts in this series examined how hiring committees read and evaluate CVs, cover letters, and research statements. In today's post, I'd like to ask search committee members to answer some or all of the following questions about teaching statements:

1. How do you read a teaching statement?
2. Which sorts of things in teaching statements tend to produce a positive impression?
3. Which sorts of things do you mostly pass over?
4. Which sorts of things (including common errors) have you encountered in teaching statements that produce a negative impression?
5. What type of institution do you work at? (R1? R2? Highly-selective SLAC? Non-highly selective SLAC? Community College?)

Finally, if there are any other questions you think are worth addressing not listed here, please feel free to volunteer and answer them. 

Really curious to hear your answers!

The first three posts in this series examined how hiring committees read and evaluate CVs, cover letters, and research statements. In today's post, I'd like to ask search committee members to answer some or all of the following questions about teaching statements:

1. How do you read a teaching statement?
2. Which sorts of things in teaching statements tend to produce a positive impression?
3. Which sorts of things do you mostly pass over?
4. Which sorts of things (including common errors) have you encountered in teaching statements that produce a negative impression?
5. What type of institution do you work at? (R1? R2? Highly-selective SLAC? Non-highly selective SLAC? Community College?)

Finally, if there are any other questions you think are worth addressing not listed here, please feel free to volunteer and answer them. 

Really curious to hear your answers!

Advice on how to best use TAs?

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

I will be teaching a large undergraduate ethics class (120 students) this Fall and have been assigned 2 TAs. The class meets on M-W-F. This is my first time teaching a class with more than 40 students and my first time having any TAs.

Does anyone have any advice on how to distribute the work between my 2 TAs? My department told me previously that I can have a TA teach on Friday. Do readers recommend having both TAs teach together on Fridays? Alternate? Or have only 1 do the teaching and the other do grading? Or some other combination?

I would really appreciate advice on how to fairly distribute the work. Each TA can do 20 hours of work a week.

Thank you in advance.

I only had TAs for one year about 15 years ago, so I'm not a particularly good person to offer advice here. One reader submitted the following reply:

Congratulations. First, employ the TAs effectively, and do not exploit them. So figure our how they can help you collectively teach the course effectively. The only reason to have them give lectures is if you believe that having a different lecturer would enhance the course. And if you have them lecture, do not have them lecture on the same day. Second, if you have them do grading (which you will), split it evenly. And it may be worth your while to grade some portion of the assignments, etc. so you know what the quality of the student work is. But whatever you do, make every effort to convey to the tutors that the three of you are team teaching the course - working together on the same larger goal.

Do any readers who have more experience with TAs have any helpful tips or advice?

What to expect from this year's job market?

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

Hey search committees and people on the market, tell me what you think about my hunch. I get the feeling that this year on the market is going to be worse than last term. I think this is because philosophers from Florida and Texas are going to have a mass exodus this year because of quality of life reasons, attacks on tenure, attacks on woke etc. (I do know one person who has gone the other way, but I think those will be few) What do people think, am I being paranoid?

Fair question, and I have no idea. What do you all think? 

Referencing or quoting student comments in a teaching statement?

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

Is it advisable to make reference to or directly quote student evaluations in a statement of teaching? I have comments from student evaluations that directly support various points I make in my teaching statement. But since the job I'm applying for doesn't ask to include teaching evaluations, I'm wondering if I should avoid doing this. For all the hiring committee knows, I'm just making it up.

I think I'd leave student comments out of a teaching statement. If the search committee decided not to ask for student evaluations, my guess is that it's probably for a reason. Maybe they don't see much value in them, given empirical research that casts doubt on their reliability and fairness? Who knows. But my sense is that a teaching statement should focus on one's pedagogy, and that candidates are probably better advised to include student evaluations scores or comments only in a full teaching dossier.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong about this. What do you all think?

Do postdocs need recommendation letters from their postdoc institution?

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

Does a lack of letter of recommendation from a job applicant raise a red flag for search committees? I'm a postdoc at a pretty good place, but my primary duties are teaching and my supervisor is pretty hands off, and so I haven't developed the kind of relationship with them that asking for a letter, at least for the coming job cycle, would be appropriate (or maybe a postdoc supervisor expects to write a letter eventually?). Should I try to develop a relationship with someone else in the department in the hopes of obtaining a letter? Any thoughts on these issues would be welcome!

Good questions--I suspect the OP would be just fine without a letter from someone at their postdoc institution, provided they have other letters. But maybe I'm missing something. 

What do you all think? It would be great to hear from search committee members and past job-candidates.

Do requirements to publish open-access continue after funding ends?

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

For people who have had funding that requires open access publication, does that requirement continue (for work undertaken partially or in full) after the funding ends? And if so, is it usually possible to access financial support from the original funder for open access publications?

In my case I was AHRC (UK) funded for my phd, and that required publishing open access. Now that my phd is over and my funding finished, am I still required to publish open access for work undertaken as part of the phd? I have two chapters of the thesis which could form the basis of a publication, but would look significantly different to the original work. I don't want to upset funders, but also don't want to hold back work from publishing in good venues because of this.

I'm not well-acquainted with this kind of situation, as this kind of situation seems to be more common outside of the US, and in any case I've never had to deal with it personally. But, if there was some kind of contract associated with the funding, wouldn't relevant provisions in the contract provide answers? 

Do any readers have any helpful tips or other insights for the OP?

Updating recommendation letters?

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

I have a very basic question. Should I be asking references for updated letters? I keep most of my letters on hand in interfolio, but they will all be dated 2022.

I was thinking to email references and simply ask them to update the date to 2023 and offer my new materials should they choose to tweak the letter, without requesting that they do.

Is this acceptable or too much?

I don't know how much the date matters if it's just one year, but when, why, and how often one should try to update recommendation letters are all good questions. I suspect that if a letter is a few years out of date, it might begin to be a problem--and, if one has accomplished significant things that letter writers might use to improve their letter, I suspect it probably makes sense to ask them if they are willing to do an update.

What do you all think?

Delays in article production?

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

I've got a paper that has been accepted for publication but has now been 'awaiting publication checklist' for three months without any contact from the journal. Is this normal? Should I follow up at all to see where it has got to, or will this just annoy the editor when they are just waiting for the right time to publish? This is a journal that does online first publication so I don't see why it would get held up for this time.

I've experienced significant delays in article production post-acceptance, particularly after the COVID pandemic. So I don't think this is unusual. But, by all means, if you're concerned, feel free to reach out to the journal! 

Do any readers (particularly journal editors) have any other insights to share?

Philosophers' Pedagogical Changes in Light of AI (Guest post by Klaas J. Kraay)

Recent advances in artificial intelligence have led many instructors to reconsider their pedagogical strategies.

Many of us are currently devising syllabi and assignments for academic year 2023-2024, and so I thought it would be useful to build a mechanism for philosophers, if they wish, to share the pedagogical changes that they plan to make in light of AI, along with their rationales.

To share your ideas, click here.

As you will see, I’ve asked for some basic information about the course(s) in which you plan to make these changes, since one’s strategies may vary for different kinds of courses.

Let me try to forestall a possible objection. Someone might think that aggregating and publicizing strategies like this is a bad idea, on the grounds that students who plan to commit academic misconduct might get access to it and thereby gain some advantage. In response, I’d say that a brief, general account of pedagogical changes (e.g. “I plan to have more in-class presentations and oral exams and fewer take-home essay assignments”) won’t help a student to cheat. Moreover, the pedagogical strategies that one intends to use with one’s students will become apparent to them anyway when the semester begins.

If you have feedback about this tool for sharing pedagogical ideas, please feel free to email me at [email protected].