How to list 'teaching competencies' in job-application materials?

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

For on the job market as a new PhD holder: what is an appropriate amount of teaching competencies to list in your application fresh out of grad school? I assume teaching competencies can be claimed by showing one's interest in developing and willingness to develop courses for these on short notice, but that number for me would exceed the number and kind of courses I've taught or TA-ed for thus far. (I imagine the answer will vary, so anecdotes are more than welcome to show the possible range of competencies claimed and how those applications went)

It seems to me that search committees are going to be interested in what a candidate has actually taught, what their graduate training makes them qualified to teach (even if they haven't taught in an area before), how they teach in general, and perhaps any syllabi they've drawn up for courses they haven't taught before. But, it seems to me, virtually all of this can be gleamed from portions of a CV that enumerate courses one has taught, perhaps a list of graduate-level coursework, and any syllabi or course outlines in a teaching portfolio. Beyond this, I'm not sure what listing "teaching competencies" might look like.

What do readers think?

Comments

[Michel]

Two? Maybe three? It depends, really. I see AOCs as subfields in which you have significant non-research experience, either through extensive coursework, repeated teaching, or occasional publishing as a sideline.

For me, TAing once is not sufficient. Nor is teaching once, although it could be if that's backed up by coursework (not just one grad course!) or some publishing.

Sometimes you may well have more AOCs, but it's not prudent to claim them all. Pick a few and work on them, and you can cultivate others as the opportunity arises.

[Bill V.]

One way folks sometimes explain the difference between AOS and AOC is that an AOS is a subject in which you could teach a grad course tomorrow, and an AOC is a subject in which you could teach a upper division course for majors with little prep. These should be distinguished from areas we could call "interests." I have lots of philosophical interests, but not many AOSs and AOCs.

In many places, you will be hired for your AOS but you will also be asked to teach in areas well outside that AOS. I think the general view is that any of us could teach an undergrad course on any philosophical subject given a summer to prepare. So then what does AOC represent? Maybe a statement of what you are most eager to teach, and that you are ready to teach right now, maybe something that could develop into a new AOS over time. I'm not sure that's exactly right, but it is a decent gloss. (Michel is right that having TA'd a course or having taken a grad course in a subject does not establish an AOC.)

Anyway, one way inexperienced applicants demonstrate their inexperience is by giving long lists of AOSs and AOCs. Candidates sometimes seem to think that having a long list makes them look like a better catch, but actually: More than two (maybe three if you have extensive teaching experience), especially for someone fresh out of grad school, looks very implausible. It makes someone seem like they don't understand academia, which is a worrying first impression. Having a list of classes you have taught would be better.

If you have hopes of developing classes in other areas, that's something you could briefly mention in an interview if the question comes up. (But again, don't list more than a couple, that makes you seem like your don't know your own mind or are too scattered.)

Another way to think of this: A cv is a place where you list your accomplishments, not your plans and hopes. (I'm also looking at you, bloated Works in Progress section.)

[Daniel Weltman]

I've never seen any coherent advice on this that stems from any kind of sensible principle. Neither Michel's principle nor Bill's principle make much sense, I think, but I don't want to belabor the point.

So, I think a good rule of thumb is to list two or three: two if you're cautious and three if you're adventurous. (Or perhaps it's more like "two if you're a woman or a member of a racial minority or from a lower-ranked PhD program or if you otherwise anticipate people being skeptical of your abilities in ways they wouldn't be skeptical of certain other candidates, and three otherwise.") This is for the reason Bill lists, which is that if you list more than three you look like you aren't in the know, and it's bad to look like that.

Which two or three should you list? In some contexts it would make sense to list the ones for the job you're applying to. But some people will be using criteria as strict or stricter than (e.g.) Michel's or Bill's, according to which what you might legitimately list as an AOC according to whatever criteria you use doesn't count as an AOC according to their criteria. That would be bad. If you don't want to risk that, then just list whatever AOCs are safest with respect to the evidence you can give for them being AOCs: whatever you have the most grad coursework in, or whatever you've taught before. This will not satisfy everyone, but that's life.

For what it's worth, if you want my actual thoughts about what SHOULD be an AOC, rather than what I've said above (which is a series of strategic considerations about what to list as an AOC), I think anything you can comfortably teach a grad seminar on is an AOC, and I think for lots of people (probably most people) this easily covers at least 4-6 topics if not 10-12 or more. I was looking at Georgie Gardiner's CV the other day. She has 7 AOCs and 32 "current interests." I think that's totally legitimate and it doesn't make me blink an eye. I don't think I've ever seen anyone's list of AOCs and said "that's too many." The only thing I think when I see a long list of AOCs is that this person is truthful and brave and clearly listing AOCs according to some useful criterion instead of stopping at 2 or 3 like most people do in order not to get penalized by people using harsh criteria for what to count as an AOC. I also think this person is not being harsh when they are judging others who list lots of AOCs and I think this is great and I wish more people would follow in their lead!

[Mahmoud Jalloh]

Does anyone know when/how the AOS/AOC distinction came to be normal practice in philosophy? I never see the distinction in job ads for other academic fields, and I assume it must be relatively recent for philosophy. Did it come from the formatting of philjobs (or the earlier jobsforphilosophers)?

[Bill V.]

Daniel: I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there was a *good reason* for defining AOS/AOC that way; I was just trying to summarize the most common way those terms are used/intended by senior members of the profession who are evaluating junior candidates for TT jobs.

Along those lines, something I should have mentioned in the first place: Listing an AOS/AOC is an invitation for the committee to search your materials for *evidence* of that claim. If they don't find it or they find the available evidence unpersuasive, that will undermine your application.

To your follow-up, Mahmoud: AOS/AOC appeared in jobsforphilosophers ads in the 90s for sure, and I think earlier. I could be wrong, but I think ads in JfP originally just had AOS, then some departments wanted to add "and we also want someone who can teach undergrad courses in x and y" and that got expressed as AOC in the header block for ads.

It certainly makes sense that as one progresses in one's career, one will develop expertise in additional areas. But typically we no longer list AOS/AOC on our cv's after tenure. So I might describe my research focus or research interests on a website or faculty profile, but in most contexts wouldn't describe those in terms of AOS or AOC. It does seem to be idiosyncratic to philosophy: I've met plenty of deans who have no idea what it means.

A related point occurs to me: As we progress in our careers, the standards for counting something as an area of expertise go up. For example, I have plenty of experience with Environmental Philosophy (having taken classes in it, read in the subject, written book reviews, published an article, attended a summer school, got certified as an ambassador in Al Gore's Climate Reality Project, taught Honors classes in it, etc.) but I wouldn't claim it as even an AOC.