The Philosophers' Cocoon

Tips for longer class-meetings?

In our recent post discussing inside advice from a recent SLAC hire, I shared that at my university, we have 4-credit courses that meet significantly longer than 3-credit courses at most other universities (our MWF classes are 1:10 minutes each day, and 2-day-a-week classes meet for 1:50 each day). I also shared how the traditional "chalk and talk" approach to teaching that had served me well at other universities failed to translate, necessitating other teaching strategies to engage students better for longer meetings. 

One commenter asked, "could we maybe have a thread about how people deal with longer class times? I'd love to get some new ideas." I think this is a great idea! About 7 years ago I shared some of the things that I've done in class, though I've experimented with other things since. Because this is finals week, I don't have time right now to share some of the other things I've done, though I hope to share some in the comments section in coming days.

In the meantime, do any other readers have any helpful teaching tips for longer-than-normal class meetings?

How to best represent one's work in a non-academic resume?

In our March "how can we help you?" thread, a reader raised the following query:

I'm a fifth year graduate student who is getting ready to apply for non-academic jobs, and I am wondering how to best represent my work as a graduate student on a resume (as opposed to a CV). The resume will of course include the PhD and my work as a teaching assistant/instructor, but I am considering also including something like "Graduate Student Researcher" under work experience. I feel that the resume would otherwise not accurately reflect my work as a graduate student, but I am also worried that this might be dishonest, since I am not getting paid to do research. It is worth adding that the non-academic jobs I am most interested in are research-heavy.

I'm not sure, but given that "graduate student researcher" isn't an actual paid position (one is a student researcher), I would think listing that as work experience would be misleading. But how exactly to best present oneself is unclear to me.

What do you all think? It would be great to hear from people with "alt-ac" experience!

Menstruation and the academy

In our March "how can we help you?" thread, a reader raised the following query:

Something that I haven't seen a discussion of, which is women's menstruation and its symptoms. I wonder if it is the case that I am one of the few left in academia who are still bothered by them, so few that there is so little discussion on it. My menstruation is not super regular, and when it comes I will feel super fatigue (my energy and sharpness visibly drop). This can be inconvenient because many important occasions can fall into those periods, including job talks. And I never brings this up in any occasion because it doesn't seem to be a thing to bring up. So I want to ask if anyone else has this experience and handles this with grace.

P.S. I tried birth control pills that allegedly can stop menstruation. But what happened to me is that I bleed for three months straight (and still am).

Another reader heartily seconded this request for a thread on this. Do any readers have any helpful tips to share?

Job-market advice and SLACs: an inside look from a recent hire

In our recent thread on how much hiring committees at SLACs care about applicants' career stage, a reader writes:

I landed a tt position at a SLAC this past year. It is an interesting place, particularly because much of the regular job advice you hear now isn't totally applicable.

First and foremost, what matters is fit. Do you seem like you'll get along with current faculty? Do you have a background than aligns with the mission of the university? Do you have experience with or an interest in *this kind of place*? I had defended when I interviewed for my job, which certainly helped. But what seems to have mattered most was that I would be happy being a part of the bigger thing that is *this kind of university*.

Second, teaching experience. Unless you're interviewing at a fancy, selective school, you're likely to work with students that are, shall we say, aren't the best. How do you work with these students? What have you done that engages these students? Do you have a method that aligns with, or at least interests, your colleagues?

Third, publications matter, but really not all that much. At many SLACs, you can publish in the International Journal of God Knows What Studies and get tenure. This isn't true everywhere, but, for a lot of places, what matters is that you show promise to get a handful of things published. That said, I had a better CV coming out of grad school than most full professors at my university (roughly 10 papers in good journals). Most of my department, however, didn't care. The one, younger faculty member in my department knew that my recent AJP article was a 'big deal', but no one else cared. All they cared about was that I evinced an ability to publish enough; they just don't want to worry about you failing to meet (the low) bar for tenure.

In all, then, what a lot of SLACs care about is: can you successfully teach these kinds of students in this kind of environment. Nothing really proves that you can; but teaching experience does a better job than publications do.

I wanted to bring this comment to the fore so that everyone who routinely visits the blog sees it--as in my experience many people seem to erroneously think (or be advised in their PhD programs) that publications in highly ranked journals matter the most on the job-market. As I've noted before, there isn't a single job market: there are multiple ones, each with their with their own priorities. I thank the above reader for sharing their experience!

Any experience with Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society?

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

Has anyone had any experience with the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) in the UK? They say they can collect royalties for published articles. This seems too good to be true. Are academics actually able to make money this way? If so, how much and is it worth it?

I've never heard of this, but maybe it's because I'm not in the UK? 

Do any readers have any tips or other insights to share?

How much do SLAC hiring committees care about applicants’ career stage?

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

How much do hiring committees at SLACs factor in the career stage of ABD applicants when they assess them? 

I'm an ABD candidate with only two solo-taught courses and a couple of decent publications, and I am not optimistic about landing a job in the next cycle. I know I'll be competing against many non-ABD candidates who have much more teaching experience than I do. 

Some friends have tried to console me by telling me that committees will likely factor in my early career stage (I'm starting year 5 of graduate school in the Fall), but I don't know how much consolation this should provide me. 

After all, Marcus, you gave this compelling analogy about this question back in 2018: "The best analogy I can think of here is drafting NFL quarterbacks out of college. Anyone who pays attention to the NFL knows this is a huge risk. About half of them go onto have good careers, and the other half are total "busts." Although it sometimes makes sense for a team to take that risk, oftentimes teams hire veteran quarterbacks from other teams--quarterbacks who have already shown some success in the NFL, and are more of a 'known quantity.'" 

I'm wondering if you think this is still true, and if you have any advice for how I should approach the next AY accordingly. 

I am trying to spend as little time on the market as possible, but I feel so pessimistic about next year that I'm toying with the thought of barely applying at all and waiting until the next cycle after I've got a very polished dissertation with at least 2-3 published chapters and more teaching experience. (There are a few post-doc positions at my institution that are all but guaranteed to us with a decent increase in pay and 3-3 teaching loads.) 

Source for analogy: https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2018/04/secret-lives-of-search-committees-part-6-career-stage.html

Good question! It would be great to hear from readers, including from people who have served on hiring committees and any candidates who were ABD who were hired at an SLAC.

My sense, having hired numerous times at an institution broadly like this, is that people tend to care more about what you’ve done and accomplished—particularly whether a candidate has been able to publish and had a good amount of solo teaching experience (not just as a TA). And of course the actual dossier matters, for example a candidates’ teaching portfolio, including any syllabi, etc. My sense is that, in practice, this may somewhat favor more experienced candidates (post-PhDs who have had more time to publish and gain teaching experience, demonstrating the capacity to publish while having a full teaching load, for example—something that committees may care about too, as publishing while teaching full time is a considerable task that one will be expected to do once on the job). But, to the extent that there may be a bias for more experienced candidates, this will tend to be because more experience is broadly a proxy for things that matter (publishing success, breadth of teaching experience, pedagogical development, etc.). Still, my sense is that ABDs can be competitive for jobs at SLACs—particularly they have published, do interesting work, have significant solo teaching experience, and a good teaching portfolio.

All this being said, I would personally recommend that the OP head out onto the market in full force next year—at least if they have a significant portion of the dissertation done. Having spent many years on the market years ago, my experience was that each year is a total crapshoot. You never know if you’ll get lucky, and at some schools here may well be a bias in favor of “the shiny new” candidate just coming out of grad school. So, I say, go for it. The job market sucks, but it sucks far, far worse once you’re out of grad school—so why not give the game a roll of the dice sooner rather than later?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Ethics of serving as an external reviewer in a tenure case?

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

I recently got asked to be the external reviewer of a tenure case (my first). Assuming you have the time and expertise, what're the ethics here? Do you accept only if you can give a glowing review?

Hmm, good questions. I guess I would have thought that if one is being asked to serve as an external reviewer, it is because the tenure and promotion committee is interested in your honest opinion. On the other hand, I could of course understand why one wouldn't want to harm another scholar's chance at tenure if one couldn't write a glowing letter. Anyway, I'm not sure that I have any sense here of what the norms here are.

What do you all think?

Interview on how to publish in philosophy

A reader wrote in to draw my attention to the following video featuring Justin Mooney (University of Alberta) and Liz Jackson (moving from Toronto Metropolitan University to St. Louis University). 

Curious to hear what everyone thinks of the discussion!

Effects of 'radically contrarian' views at different career stages?

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

What do you think is the effect of having (more or less radically) contrarian views at different points of one's career (from Ph.D. student onwards)? Thank you!

Interesting query, though I'm not sure it can be answered at such a broad level of generalization (I suppose a lot might depend on the topics one is radically contrarian about). In any case, I'd be curious to hear from people at different career stages who consider some of their views to be radically contrarian.

What do you think the effects have been? It could be good to hear from others as well, such as search committee and tenure & promotion committee members.

What is it like to have a job in Finland or Switzerland?

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

I know we've talked about European jobs recently but wondered if anyone had some insights in particular on what it's like to have a permanent/tenure-track philosophy job in Finland or Switzerland.

I'd be curious to hear too!

In Memoriam: Daniel C. Dennett (1942-2024)

I was so sad to hear of this today. As pure happenstance, during my first year as an undergrad at Tufts University in 1994, I was placed into a small honors Intro to Philosophy course of Dan's. I went to college with few clear passions, thinking I might major in English, Psychology, or Political Science, but found myself in a tiny classroom with 12 other first-years when the spitting image of Socrates walked in the door. That class was an incredibly special and formative experience in my life. No one in my family had ever gone to graduate school, but I knew that first semester that philosophy was "it" for me, and Dan was a prime reason why.

We covered five classic texts in that class, had five term-papers, and Dan would let us turn in as many rewrites as we wanted. He was a meticulous and demanding grader (the class's highest grade on the first paper was a B-), so naturally I rewrote my first paper five times, a couple of other papers three times, etc.--and each time Dan provided detailed comments and corrections. I found it stunning that he would teach a course like that to first-years, not to mention give that level of individual attention to each of us. It seemed to me then, and always has since, a model to emulate. The meetings themselves were spectacular. We'd alternate between close textual analysis/debate and wide-ranging digressions into cognitive science, computer science, etc. From the very beginning, Dan was explicit that he regarded each of us as no less capable of doing philosophy than he, and he made a point to treat us as argumentative peers. Of course, he didn't suffer fools, and if he thought we were mistaken, he'd less us know. But he clearly loved to argue, and to be taken seriously in classroom was so cool, especially coming from high school where teachers were more like stern authority figures. I remember some of us asking him why he wasn't at a big research university--as it seemed to all of us like he clearly should have been--and he said that he wasn't interested in those professional trappings. He loved being at Tufts, and teaching undergrads, and was always inviting and available to talk shop during office hours. He even invited us all to his house at the end of the semester, and if I remember correctly (I hope I'm not confabulating, but I do remember it) had Quine (!) guest-lecture one day in a course a few years later.

Dan truly did change my life, inspiring me down a path that I never would have imagined for myself. He didn't try to, though. In fact, he told me explicitly as an undergrad (and I paraphrase), "Don't go to graduate school in philosophy--there are no jobs." I appreciated the candor, and although there were many times in my career when I wished I'd actually followed that (perfectly sound) advice, I'd like to think that he'd appreciate my stubbornness in rebuffing it. Dan always did enjoy being argued against.

There are many other things that I could say, but above all I will always be profoundly grateful to Dan--for helping a 17-year-old boy understand for the first time the joys and importance of doing philosophy and science, what a teacher and mentor should be like, and for his personal encouragement (which meant the world to me, as I'd had precious few people--particularly teachers--ever give any encouragement). Although I know Dan was not a religious man, I myself hope he was wrong about all that, and that somewhere in the vast reaches of eternity I'll hear that hearty laugh of his in a seminar room again. My first term-paper for him was on Socrates's Argument from Opposites for the immortality of the soul. Obviously, we were both skeptical of the argument if I recall, but it seems to me it would be a befitting outcome for two contrarians who shared a love of philosophy and science if we both turn out to be wrong.

Dissertation topic harming one's job prospects?

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

Could my dissertation/writing sample topic be negatively impacting my job prospects?

I'm ABD, on the job market, and have not gotten a single interview this season. While the most obvious explanation for this is simply that the job market is generally terrible and oversaturated with qualified candidates, and that statistically one is likely to fail, I can't help but wonder if my dissertation/writing sample topic is playing any role in this. My thesis centrally involves a strong critique of Zionism/Israel. I had previously thought (naively, perhaps) that this wouldn't be an issue, given that I'd presented/published on the topic in the past without any pushback. However, it's clear that things have taken a turn for the worse (to put it mildly) when it comes to the silencing of anti-zionist voices in academia.

Strategically, I suppose I could use a completely unrelated writing sample next time around, but it's not like I can hide my dissertation topic from hiring committees. But perhaps the notion that I may have to censor my philosophical and ethical views in order to pursue a career an academia should give me pause and lead me to question whether such a path is even worthwhile. Then again, maybe I'm worried over nothing, since there could be any number of reasons why nothing has panned out for me this season, and one failed job cycle is not particularly remarkable.

What do readers think? It would be great to hear from people on search committees.

Norms for citing unpublished work of oneself and others?

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

When submitting papers for publication, is it bad to cite papers that are in R&R as (forthcoming)? Or is that not appropriate? What is the norm for citing papers that friends or advisors have shared that may not be published yet, but you want to give them credit for the idea?

Good questions. Citing an R&R as forthcoming is definitely inappropriate, as nothing is forthcoming unless and until it is formally accepted. When it comes to citing papers that friends or advisors have shared, I think the best practice here is not only to ask them whether you can cite their unpublished work, but whether you can even use an idea they've shared privately with you. More generally, with matters like these I think the best general policy is to err on the side of caution. If the unpublished work is publicly available online (e.g., on PhilPapers/PhilArchive), then citing it is fair game. But you don't want to upset someone by using an unpublished idea that they may have thought they were sharing with you privately/confidentially. Just ask, and if they say they'd prefer you not to use their ideas, then don't use them.

Or so it seems to me. What do you all think?

Too many reviewer comments?

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

Has anyone had an experience where a Reviewer gave what seemed to be an inappropriate amount of comments? I know that, as an author, my only choice is basically to address them all, but I'm just curious if there are norms around this. I think the reviewer in question may be from an adjacent field, but their report contained at least 15 independent comments, many of which contained subcomments and extensive, detailed digressions into nearby literatures.

Has this happened to others? Is there a norm as to limiting comments, as many as one may have, to (I dunno) 5-8? Especially when they are very, very complex and wide-reaching?

Hmm, I don't know if this has happened to me, or whether there are norms here (though I suspect not). Even if there were a norm to only give 5-8 comments, what would prevent a referee from simply making each comment arbitrarily long, so as to fit in all of their feedback. In any case, I'm not sure how pervasive this issue is, or what might be done about it.

What do you all think?

Applying to philosophy PhD programs from law school?

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

I'm currently a 2L in law school with an undergraduate background in philosophy. I'm preparing to apply to PhD programs next year, and I am hopeful to get clarity on a couple components of the application.

First, I've done a fair bit of work in law school under a law professor with doctorate in philosophy, who has nonetheless never had an appointment in a philosophy department. They can write me quite a strong recommendation, and they've seen me plenty in philosophical (eg workshop) settings. Would one nonetheless advise against soliciting a recommendation from this professor on the grounds that they are not a philosophy professor? My other two recommenders would be from faculty with appointments in philosophy.

Second, lots of the scholarship I both reading and writing engages philosophy with an eye toward its legal application/relevance. To what degree is it strategic to emphasize this in my application? I can imagine that some scholars will see this as less serious, even though I am deeply committed to improving my philosophical skillset.

Third and relatedly, I have various papers written in law school that exemplify the kind of scholarship I enjoy. I certainly do some real philosophy in these papers, but perhaps not as much as in the "straight" philosophy papers I wrote in college. Nonetheless, I think these law papers are quite a bit more interesting than most of what I wrote in college. I wonder what you all make of the merits or demerits of using a paper that engages with law, not just philosophy, as a writing sample. On the one hand, a recent PhD grad suggested it might result in some self-selection of programs that are well-suited to my desires. On the other hand, I fear it might make me look less interested in philosophy, which is neither my goal nor a reflection or reality.

Hmm, good questions. I don't see any reason why the OP shouldn't get a letter from their law professor, especially if they are applying to philosophy PhD programs with the aim of doing work in social/political/legal philosophy. With respect to the second two questions, I guess I think it is hard to say much without knowing more details. It would be good to know which kinds of topics the OP is reading and writing on, so I'd encourage the OP to share more in the comments section below. In lieu of that, I guess my suggestion would be for them to approach some philosophy profs with the research they've been doing to get their impressions on whether they should use it/play it up in their PhD program applications or focus on more straight-up philosophy papers.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

NEH Summer Institutes?

A reader writes in,

I was recently accepted to a four-week NEH summer institute and I'm trying to decide whether or not to attend. Although I am very interested in the topic, the institute is out of state for me, and four weeks is a long time to be away from my family etc. However, I'm on the job market, so I'm also not sure that I can afford to pass the opportunity up. Do you and/or the Cocoon readers have any thoughts regarding these workshops? Are they worth attending? Does having this line on a CV make a difference?

I did one of these earlier in my career and it was a fantastic experience, as well as useful for the job-market. It was a significant time apart from my spouse, but I learned a ton, got some really helpful feedback on a paper that I was having trouble publishing, made some long-term professional relationships, and was able to get two recommendation letters from senior members of the profession which seemed to help me on the market. Although I’m sure not all NEH institutes are equal, based on my experience I can’t recommend it highly enough!

Do any other readers have experience attending an NEH institute? What was your experience? Was it worth the considerable time away (e.g., from loved ones)?

Reducing ranking-obsession?

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

Is there a way to reduce the obsession over rankings in our discipline? including department rankings and journal rankings. It really hurts us in my opinion. I know some scientists, mathematicians and computer scientists, none of who is as obsessive about rankings as philosophers (esp grad students). One of them doesn't even know any journal rankings (including Q1 vs Q2!). What they do know is (eg) which journals have what editors who have written which work etc. I really think it is more healthy than what we have. Also, talking to people in conference based on their departmental rankings is commonplace and insane. (In comparison, I have attended a math conference as a nobody and still everyone sitting around me talk to me about their and my research.)

Having been involved in various hirings and grad admissions, I really do not think too much of rankings!

Interesting query. Myself, I'm not sure whether philosophy is unusual in this respect. I've encountered other disciplines where there's a lot of interest in program rankings, publishing in 'A' journals, etc. I'm also not sure that academic philosophy as a whole is as ranking-obsessed as the OP suggests. While I suspect it may be common in many graduate programs (in part because of how competitive the job-market is), my sense at that in many colleges and universities (particularly those that prioritize teaching), people don't focus on rankings much at all. In any case, to the extent that it exists, I'm not sure what the best thing to do is than to try not to feed into it oneself--e.g., in hiring, publishing, citation practices, professional behavior (at conferences), etc. All the same, humans being what they are, matters of 'status'/prestige are probably always going to be salient to some/many people, regardless of what one does. 

Anyway, these are just a few of my quick thoughts. What are yours?

Do translations go underappreciated in tenure & promotion?

Ethan Linehan writes in:

One often hears that scholarly translations are always relied upon but seldom appreciated, that they hardly count at all in tenure review, etc.

Do Cocoon readers agree that scholarly translations often go underappreciated, despite the expertise required to produce them? If so, why does this happen?

How does the tenure review process currently value translation work? Can anyone share anecdotes where translation efforts were either overlooked or properly recognized?

In what ways might the conversation change for better or for worse regarding how academia values translation work given the increasing capabilities of AI-driven translation?

Interesting questions. I've never seen these issues come up in my career, as I don't think I've ever been on a T&P committee where a candidate had done a translation.

What do readers think? It would be especially good to hear from readers who have gone up for tenure having done a translation, as well as from people who have served on T&P committees.

Is publishing important in a mid-ranked PhD program?

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

If you're at a mid-ranked department, is it important to publish in graduate school? Some say to publish to establish oneself, others say to wait and fully think through your ideas before publishing (so you aren't tied to those views later on). Although the individuals with the latter advice came from top 10 programs, so they might have a luxury we don't have coming out of our program. Any thoughts?

I did some informal data collection many years ago, and I found that while some people did get jobs without publications, virtually all of them came from top programs. So, assuming the OP wants an academic job, I think publishing in grad school is probably a necessity if you're coming out of a mid-ranked program. At the same time, I'd also encourage the OP to seek out solo teaching opportunities, as it may be hard to compete with candidates from top programs for jobs at research universities (see here and here). In term of job-market competitiveness, a good publishing record along with a strong and diverse solo teaching-record are probably the best things one can do to put oneself in a strong position to get a job. This is a lot, I know--but sadly the academic job market is what it is. :/

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Reviewing a book you were a referee for?

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

Some time back I wrote a referee report for a book for OUP. The book is now out and I have been invited to write a book review. This would be easy to do since I’ve already carefully read (an earlier version of) the book and already have some thoughts about it, but for reasons I can’t quite articulate I worry there might be something unethical about it? What do people think?

Hmm, this doesn't seem problematic to me. Maybe I'm missing something? 

What do you all think?

Questions to ask (chairs, deans, provosts, etc.) during a campus visit

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

I've been on the job market for a few years and I think I've pretty much perfected the "Do you have questions for us?" portion of the zoom interview. But I've been on very few campus visits and there seem to be meetings with deans and chairs where I'm the one who is supposed to be asking questions. Questions that I'm coming up with like "What kind of research budget would I have" feel weird, presumptuous or even off putting.

This is a long way of asking if any readers have advice on what questions to ask during a campus interview?

An excellent question! ;) I suspect the kinds of questions that one should or shouldn't ask depend a lot on the kind of institution. For example, if you ask about a research budget or course-releases from teaching while visiting a teaching-focused institution, that may run the risk of making you look like a bad fit. Then again, maybe not--so maybe it makes sense to feel out with a department chair during the on-campus which kinds of questions it is good to ask administrators? Given that you're a finalist, I suspect that in most cases, a chair or other department faculty might provide good guidance.

What do you all think? It would be great to hear both from past and present job-candidates, as well as from people on the hiring side of things.

Norms for review times in philosophy compared to other fields?

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

Can some one explain how the norms for peer review got established in philosophy? I ask because while I'm a philosopher by training, much of my research is very interdisciplinary. As a result, I'm asked to referee for both philosophy journals and journals in the sciences. Science journals typically ask for a review be completed within a week or two, whereas philosophy journals often allow for somewhere around six weeks to hand in a review. For me, refereeing a philosophy paper doesn't take more effort or time than it does to referee a science paper. Both require about the same amount of time/effort, and I generally supply a few pages of notes. This leads me to wonder why philosophy journals give so much more time. Does anyone know the history behind how these norms have been established?

Interesting questions. I don't quite recall where I came across the information, but I seem to recall seeing somewhere that peer-review tends to take longer in a variety of humanities fields compared to in science. I wonder whether there might be a few reasons for this. First, people tend to co-publish with a lot of co-authors in science compared to humanities, where people tend to publish solo--which might leave scientists more time for reviewing papers (indeed, scientists often have well-funded labs with a large number of grad students and junior faculty who collect and analyze data, etc.). Second, perhaps the quality of scientific papers is easier to judge, given the comparative objectivity of scientific methods (e.g., agreement on sound methods of data collection and analysis, etc.) compared to the humanities? Then again, maybe there's some other explanation.

What do you all think? It could be helpful to hear from people who have published in different fields to get their takes!

A list of grad student journals?

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

Looking for a (partial) list of (US) Philosophy Graduate Student Journals ideally already posted on a website link.

Hmm...I don't know--but I also guess that I wonder about the wisdom of publishing in such journals. Given that publications in grad journals probably doesn't help on the academic job market or with tenure, are grad students better advised to shoot for 'professional journals'? And in any case, does anyone know of any list of grad student journals? 

Perhaps we can crowdsource a list here?

Journals that close submissions part of the year

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

I've noticed that several top philosophy journals -- Nous and PPR, for example -- accept submissions for only a few months out of the year. Why is this? And where can I find information about when these venues pause submissions? (Their websites don't say.)

I believe this is a longstanding practice at these journals due to the overwhelming number of submissions they receive. While I don't know the exact dates they close on (or if they change year by year), it might be helpful to crowdsource knowledge about this from readers.

Which journals have adopted this practice and what are their open submission dates?

A dilemma for a co-publishing couple

In our March "how can we help you?" thread, a member of a co-publishing couple asks:

My husband and I are both grad students staring down the job market soon-ish (he in a year or two, I a bit later). He has a very strong preference to get a job in a philosophy department over the next-best alternative, whereas I feel more neutrally about working in industry, so ordinarily we lightly prioritize his job-market prospects over mine. Being further along, he also has more published work to date.

Although for the most part we work in different subfields, we share most of our interests & commitments, and so have a good number of paper ideas we've come up with collaboratively. On average, I think these ideas are more fit for publications in good journals than the average work we do solo.

Considering such a paper sketch, from a purely strategic perspective, do you think it makes more sense to co-publish them? To have him work on the strong ideas for sole attribution, considering he's closer to being on the market & would benefit more? Or for me to sole publish the ideas I had a greater hand in, considering I am further from being competitive on the job market than he? Besides equity & dual-body problems, I think what this hinges on is how a co-published paper in a good journal is weighted.

This seems tricky to me. I don't know what I think might be best from a purely strategic perspective, but to my mind there are ethical issues here. It seems to me that if a set of philosophical ideas have been developed collaboratively, then even if one person had a greater hand in them, it may be dishonest to publish them as a solo-authored piece. Then again, we often develop our arguments in conversation with others, so I guess I think it depends on the nature of the collaborations at issue.

Here, the OP notes that they think that their collaborative pieces are better, on average, than the solo-work they do independently--and that seems to me to be relevant. For, if the collaborative work really is better, and is likely to find its way into better journals, then putting just one person's name on it conveys that they did better work by themselves than they actually did. On that note, there are professional ethical guidelines for how to determine authorship that many journals require adherence to.

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

 

Does having a website make any difference on the market?

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

Does having a website help at all on the job market?

I guess I doubt it, but then again, who knows? I do think that search committee members can be interested in reading more of your work, so if your work isn't readily available on PhilPapers, maybe having a website where all of your work is readily available might make some difference.

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Writing an introductory chapter for an applied ethics textbook?

A grad student writes in:

I’ve been asked to write an introductory chapter in an applied ethics textbook and I wanted to know if anyone had advice for how to write one of these. Of course, there are tons of introductory handbooks and textbooks out there I could look at, but I was just wondering if the cocooner’s had some suggestions on a good template, amount and level of content to include and good general practice for this sort of assignment.

I'm not sure that I have any good tips here. Do any readers have any helpful tips or good examples of a textbook introduction they admire?

Applying to MA programs without a specialist in a niche subfield?

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

I am an undergraduate student who is interested in philosophy but not majoring in it. I am thinking of applying to some terminal MA programs, but I have a problem:
My interest is in a relatively niche subfield of philosophy (FYI, it is metaphilosophy). And only a few departments with funded terminal MA programs have people who have published in this field.

In this case, do you think it is a good idea to apply to departments without people working in my field of interest? If so, what should I do in a department without people who share my interest to maximize my learning? If not, do you know of any alternatives?

I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks, but given that the reader notes that they are not a philosophy major, I guess I'm inclined to think that they should apply to MA programs regardless. First, they might find that other subfields interest them once they are in a graduate program--as my sense (and personal experience) is that philosophical interests can change a lot in grad school. Second, if they are interested in metaphilosophy, faculty in a good MA program may be able to provide decent mentorship on developing research in the area, even if they aren't specialists per se.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

 

Job workloads in continental Europe?

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

I have a question about workload in continental Europe which came to me based on EuroProf’s interesting comment in the recent “was it worth it?” thread. I had always romanticized a job in continental Europe as I imagined the non-research workload would be better (i.e. smaller) than in the other places I have worked (US and UK). (I’m sure this varies by country but perhaps that variation can be noted.) EuroProf’s comment made me think I was just fantasizing. All the teaching and meetings and grading, the requirement to apply for grants, which isn’t there in the anglophone world, is this an accurate picture of philosophy in the continent (I’m especially interested in permanent jobs)?

Good question. I've heard anecdotally that one can spend an inordinate time applying for grants in Europe. But in general, I have little idea what workloads look like in Europe.

Do any readers have any helpful insights to share? It would be great to hear from people working in a diverse variety of institutions and European countries.