The Philosophers' Cocoon

How to react to mean reviewer reports?

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

How much weight should one give a mean review? One reviewer just tore into the paper and didn't have anything nice to say at all.

The second reviewer felt the opposite. While they weren't huge fans, they said they thought my thesis was ultimately convincing, and they said the reasoning was 'rigorous'. They provided quite a long review with lots of helpful feedback.

So, I'm not sure how much weight to give the mean review. I mean, the reviewer's comments are such that it's clear they considered my paper so bad that they were offended by it.

Unfortunately, I think this happens to virtually all of us. My spouse's dissertation advisor (in another academic area) is a seminal figure in their field, but told us that a couple of years ago they received a report saying that their paper must have been written by a grad student who has no idea how to do research. They laughed it off, saying that's just the way things go. Here's my story: a few years ago, I received two reports from a journal where one reviewer stated effusively that the paper stood to make a really important contribution to the area--with several detailed paragraphs explaining why--while the other reviewer wrote maybe five vague sentences that said that I don't have any idea what an argument is. Fortunately, the editor ignored them and rightly so. Other times, though, I've received mean reviews that convinced me that they were right: my paper was flawed and I needed to fix or abandon it.

So, how should one react to negative or mean reviews? In a similar context, noting just how many of his most influential papers were rejected, Jason Stanley once offered up some advice he'd heard from Robert Nozick: "He told me when he sent a paper out to a journal, he would first prepare a stack of envelopes, addressed to different journals. When the rejections came in, he would simply slip the paper into the next envelope." I think I heard something similar in grad school from another senior figure. But, while it's one way to go, I'm not sure it's the best answer. For, as noted above, at least in my experience, although it's sad that anonymized review can bring out the worst in people, sometimes you can learn important things from mean reviews. So, here's my answer to the OP: read the report and make up your own mind! If the mean review is more or less baseless, ignore it--but, if it makes good points, take them to heart, as difficult as it may be.

What does everyone else think?

How are "collected/published papers" dissertations viewed on the market?

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

How are 'collected/published papers' dissertations perceived on the academic job market, whether for postdocs or TT jobs?

The trend toward "collected papers" option for dissertations appears to have started way back in the early 2000s when I was a grad student. When I started grad school, the expectation was that a dissertation should essentially be a book. But, as programs became more concerned with ensuring that grad students successfully complete the PhD and do so in a reasonable amount of time, I saw a pronounced shift toward the collected papers approach. Given how common this is today, I suspect hardly any bats an eyelash toward it, so to speak. But, as I've always understood it, "collected papers" dissertations have generally been expected to comprise a coherent research program, rather than simply be a collection of disconnected papers. Is there now a "published papers" option that sets that expectation aside? If so, I do wonder whether it might be an issue on the market, as hiring committees may want some assurance that candidates have a coherent research program.

What do readers think, particular those who are more "in the know" that I am?

Getting asked to review papers for journals soon after providing authors feedback?

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

I am an early career philosopher currently in a postdoc. I have published enough in a niche subfield X that more established philosophers in TT jobs have reached out to me for feedback on their papers about X. I have gladly given feedback on those papers, either written feedback or over Zoom.

The thing is that the few times this has happened (3 times so far, from different people), I have received invitations to review those papers from top journals within a couple of months. I've never published in a top journal before. I usually accept the invitation, review the paper, and give positive, constructive feedback.

I assume that those established people are putting my contact information as a potential reviewer when submitting their paper. I don't see why a top journal would ask me to review those papers otherwise since I've never published there before. This feels weird because there's an obvious power dynamic at play here: I don't want to say no or give a negative review since the established philosophers would know it's coming from me. I feel like it would hurt my career.

Is this just common practice in the field? You send your paper to a bunch of people and then put them down as potential reviewers? Have I been approaching the peer review process all wrong? Or am I engaging in unethical peer reviewing because I feel like I cannot do otherwise, considering power dynamics? Am I being taken advantage of?

I just received another invitation to review, and it's been making me feel very anxious. I have had a bad year on the job market and received a few journal rejections over the past month. I am just not in a good place right now. And yet, I feel like I must accept this invitation because otherwise, those established philosophers will hold a grudge against me. I also feel silly for *not* doing what those people are doing and sending papers into the void of the peer review process instead of strategizing to make sure it gets in the right hands.

Any thoughts, advice, words of wisdom? Am I overreacting to this?

Wow, I've never heard of this sort of thing happening before. While there could always be a benign explanation (i.e. it could be a coincidence), the fact that it has happened repeatedly with papers the OP has recently provided feedback on seems dodgy to me. If they are attempts to game the system by circumventing anonymized review to obtain a favorable verdict, then I think I'm inclined to say the OP should decline the invites--since, as they themselves recognize, they feel a conflict of interest.

Fortunately, I'm not sure what the OP has to lose by declining, as it's not like journals tell submitting authors which reviewers were approached or declined. 

What does everyone else think?

How/when do you read things not directly relevant to research?

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

I am curious about how/when people read books that are not directly relevant to their research projects, especially for those who are at “teaching schools”.

There are always books that I want to read simply because I am interested in them, not because they are related to my ongoing research projects. For example, books by contemporary scholars always interest me as they represent some cutting-edge philosophical explorations. Also, there are those influential books in the history of philosophy (esp. in non-western traditions) that I would like to read.

However, I do not know when to read them. My teaching load is 3:3, and my research time is already limited. I use my research time to focus on my writing and on works I plan to engage with in my writing. And I do not even have enough time for finishing up the drafts. And the books I want to read seem not those to read before bed. So, when do people read those books that you are interested in but are not directly related to your research?

Good question! I have the same teaching load, and I read quite a few books "for pleasure"--though, interestingly, I often discover unexpected connections to philosophical questions that later informs my research. In brief, I read stuff like this before bed at night. Often, it's only for a half hour or 45 minutes or so--but I find it's a nice way to wind down to end the day. When I come across interesting stuff, I may pull out a highlighter and put a post-it note to flag a page for later, but that's not very taxing.

What about you? How/when do you read stuff not directly related to research?

Are grad students obligated to review for journals they've published in?

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

Are graduate students morally obligated to accept reviewer requests if they have published with the journal?

If the answer is no, a follow-up: Is it nonetheless prudential for them to accept these requests?

Fair questions. I guess I'm inclined to think that academics are obligated to do their fair share of reviewing, where this involves reviewing accepting at least as many reviewer requests as papers one submits (not publishes). As for considerations of prudence, I don't know whether journal editors keep track of who accepts or declines reviews, or whether declining review requests has any impact on how a journal will treat submissions from an author. But again, I think the answer to the first question is a qualified "yes" (in the sense that a grad student who has submitted to a journal should review for them, provided they are asked to review a paper they are competent to review).

What do you all think?

What was it like writing your first publication?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Struggling Writer asks, "What was it like writing your first publication?"

Here's my honest answer: it was a long, arduous, frustrating process that involved numerous failures before success. I almost published a few articles in good journals in grad school, but messed up several R&Rs. My mistake was in not seeking out enough help/guidance from mentors--as I saw other grads who did that effectively have a much easier time of it. 

So, if I had one recommendation for things to go better than they did for me, that would be it! 

What about you all?

New op-ed on AI safety @Sciam

This is just a quick note that I have a new op-ed out at Scientific American, "AI Is Too Unpredictable to Behave According to Human Goals." 

Hope some of you find it of interest!

Tips for a first-time conference presenter?

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

I am giving my first professional conference talk in a few months (at a conference slightly out of my AOS), and I am so nervous! In particular, I'm feeling pretty anxious about the Q&A section -- I'm not sure what the audience will be like, but in any case, I've never been someone who's good at thinking on her feet (I'd rather go home and think about mull on a bit before responding). Does anyone with similar Q&A anxiety have tips for handling Q&As at conferences?

Congrats to the OP! I empathize, as I've never felt like I'm the best on my feet during Q&As. One tip I have is to try to prepare in advance for questions that one is likely to receive. This is quite a bit like preempting reviewer concerns in a published paper (something many of us don't necessarily like to do, but have learned to do in the publishing process). Oftentimes, it's not all that hard to imagine which parts of a paper's argument an audience is likely to have questions or objections about. So, my suggestion is to try to think those through, so that you're not "surprised" on your feet when the Q&A rolls around.

Do other readers have any helpful tips?

Norms for service expectations for non-TT faculty?

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

I am hoping to do a bit of crowdsourcing in order to get a sense of the norms of other departments when it comes to non-tenure stream faculty being involved and voting in tenure stream job searches. As a bit of context, I am in my first year as a teaching assistant professor in a fancy R1 department. This year, my department is running two tenure stream searches and one search to hire another teaching assistant professor. Our jobs are intended to be teaching-only with some service expectations (so, no research support, research funding for conferences, grad student supervision, etc.).

These teaching assistant prof. positions are relatively new to our department, and my concern is that the tenure stream (TS) faculty are expecting us to take on many of the downsides of being a TS faculty without any of the accompanying upsides. Our (very small) teaching faculty subset is already expected to run the teaching faculty search on our own (with the addition of the chair, who will presumably be quite busy with everything else going on). We are then also expected to meet individually with all 8 of the flyout candidates for roughly an hour interview, attend all 8 job talks, and pore through all of the 8 (mostly senior) candidates' materials. This will all be happening over the span of about a month, during which time we'll also need to be conducting interviews (and later flyout) for our own job search).

When I think of what TS faculty at previous departments tended to complain to me the most about, it's often been faculty meetings and the work that comes along with job searches. We are already expected to be at the faculty meetings (even if many of them have to do with things that don’t concern us and that we don’t functionally have a say over), which is fine. My thinking, though, is that I am not hired to be a researcher and I do not have any of the associated perks (chance for tenure, research funding, dedicated research time, the option to not always be teaching during department works in progress meetings, etc.) that come with being an R1 TS faculty member who was primarily hired to be a researcher. We are now being asked, however, to take part in one of the more unpleasant duties that would typically come with being hired into one of these positions. 99.9% of the conversations in our meetings so far on the candidates, after all, have to do with assessing the candidates' research. Given the fact that we are not hired (or in any way valued) as researchers, it's hard not to feel like we're expected to shoulder many of the negatives of the TS role without any of the positives (or the pay, prestige, etc.). If we’re being honest, it’s also not the case that any research-related input we might provide when assessing these candidates would be taken seriously.

The reason I am providing so much detail is that our chair seems open to hearing me out on this, and I am hoping to convince him to let us sit the two TS searches out when it comes to voting (which would then release us from some of the aforementioned burdens). I’ve already brought up in passing that the departments I've been a part of have not had NTT faculty vote on faculty hires, but I realize that sample size is small. So, I am curious: Do NTT faculty vote on tenure stream faculty hires at your department? If so, what are the associated expectations? Out of curiosity, I'm also curious how typical it is for NTT faculty to be running their own search (with flyouts and the whole nine yards), but that's the least of my worries at the moment!

I apologize for the long post! I suppose the last relevant detail is that I am legitimately worried about being able to juggle our own search and flyouts, these 8 TS flyouts, and my teaching duties this semester, as I am teaching an entirely new prep with three sections and over 100 students to grade. So, thank you in advance for any advice and/or insight!

I am curious to hear about norms here too. My university's faculty handbook reads, "The departmental service expectations, if any, are expected to be related to a Teaching Professor or Lecturer’s area of teaching. Any additional service expectations must be made clear and explicit by the department Chair and communicated to the Teaching Professor/Lecturer and the Dean." While this in principle leaves it open for non-TT faculty to be asked to do service like that described by the OP, the language is clearly intended to limit service expectations for non-TT faculty, and for my part, I can't remember non-TT members of our department ever being required to serve on a search committee. Hiring recommendations are also made by votes of search committees, not the entire department (though search committees may of course ask what other faculty think of finalists).

What are norms like elsewhere?

Are TT jobs worth all the trouble?

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

I love philosophy, and I love doing it at an academic level, but lately, after seeing all the struggles people go through to get (and keep) professional philosophy jobs at universities, I've been wondering what people find so attractive about the tenured philosophy lecturer role that makes people think it's worth all the trouble.

I'm currently a doctoral student (about to move to stage B) and I work a full time job at a local school. I find that I have plenty time to read, write and publish good philosophy, and I'm hopefully getting tenure at my school by the end of next year (with no tenure-portfolio requirements). I believe that many people who break their back to try to get TT'd or tenured can much more easily obtain and enjoy a position like mine.

What makes people lose sleep over getting a philosophy-lecturer job at a university? The funds? The freer schedule? The peers in one's department? The academic environment? I personally could do without these, except maybe the peers. I would like to have a chance to talk to other philosophers more frequently, but I don't think that I need a job at a university for that. (On a side note, it would be nice if we independent scholars could have some organized way to know about each other and get in touch, maybe this can be discussed in a separate post.)

I'm genuinely very curious to hear what it is that makes some people value a philosophy job at a university so much, and I'd like if people can share their personal reasons.

This is a good query, thought I suspect answers may differ widely. In my case, I lost sleep over getting a TT job in large part because I didn't have any "plan B." I had no idea what kind of job I could get outside of the academy, as I hadn't really prepared for anything else. Then of course there is the sunk costs issue (working toward a particular goal for a long time and then abandoning it can make everything one did to pursue it feel like a waste of time). But another big part of it was that I just love philosophy, and have simply always deeply wanted to devote my professional life to it. All that being said, although I am now happy in my career, there have been many, many times in my career when I've been deeply ambivalent about whether a TT job is "worth all the trouble," and I know a good number of people who have left the academy who report they are much happier with jobs in other industries.

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

Grappling with a partner's career "reset" (after moving to a new academic job)?

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

I moved country to start my current academic position. It wasn’t easy. My partner works for the NHS now. The working conditions are like nothing they’ve experienced before. They are experiencing burnout and feeling hopeless regarding promotion opportunities. They are constantly being in charge of more patients than they’ve ever done anywhere. And the pay is laughable. It’s likely that their career with the NHS will be nasty, brutish, and short.

But not focusing on our particular experience. One of my non-philosopher friend’s wife used to be a public servant in Korea. After they moved here, she couldn’t find any comparable job and is now a full-time parent. Another philosopher friend’s partner simply decided to end the relationship because they didn’t want to move here.

The more general question is that we did not consider the possibility of some sort of career “reset” (or feels like being level-drained using a gaming metaphor) for my partner before I signed the contract with my current employer. I guess it is worth hearing more of such experiences. Partly I guess it would help me feel less lonely or to simply commiserate with people. But it may also provide some good stories for those who are considering moving countries for their research and career.

I'm so sorry the OP and their partner are grappling with such a difficult situation. I wish I had some helpful insights or experiences to share, but my spouse and I haven't quite been through something quite like this.

Do any readers have any helpful experiences or tips to share, or simply care to commiserate with the OP?

Course readings for classes with non-philosophy majors?

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

I'm increasingly teaching courses to non-philosophy majors. It's been a challenge to change my "academic dialect" to better teach these students, but so far its been successful and rewarding to find just the right way to communicate for somebody without a background (or even necessarily an interest) in our discipline. But one area I continue to struggle is finding good texts to assign. My students are baffled by academic or historical philosophy and I can't really justify it, as I would to majors, by saying that learning to read difficult philosophy is a skill they're developing.

So, here is my question: What are other teacher's go-to resources for finding philosophy readings that were written (from the ground up) to be read by the un-initiated?

Good question! For a long time, I had a policy of always assigning original sources, rather than textbooks. But, at least in general education courses, I'm no longer certain this is the best way to go, as my sense is that good textbooks may be more accessible to non-majors--though, of course, finding textbooks that one finds satisfactory can in my experience be a challenging endeavor, depending on the philosophical sub-field.

Anyway, what do readers think? Do you have any helpful tips for selecting readings for courses like these?

Relationships with non-philosophers?

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

I am hoping to ask a serious question, especially to the ladies (and gentlemen as well) in philosophy who are married, what is it like to have a husband/partner who are non-academician and work on technical jobs like strategic management, big data or logictic, which are more practical rather than philosophical? Do you guys still vibe and get along well? Especially in considering marriage decision. Thank you in advance admin for posting this!

I'm married to someone like this and the "vibe" couldn't be better. Personally, I've never quite felt the allure of having a romantic relationship with another philosopher--I much enjoy a life with someone quite different from me--but to each their own. But, in any case, as far as marriage decisions go, I'm not sure there's any good way to predict how a relationship will develop over the long run above and beyond how healthy and happy it is now. So, although I'm not offering advice, the OP might consider that if they're unsure about a marriage decision on grounds like these, that could be an issue.

Do any readers have any helpful experiences of their own to share?

Reporting a potentially AI-written referee report?

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

I've received a referee report from a journal that looks very much like it was written using AI. (Five short paragraphs structured like an undergrad essay, vague and general, slightly contradictory---it says my arguments are compelling but there's room for rebuttal.) Should I say or do anything about it?

Good question. Irrespective of how this case turns out, I suspect this is going to be an increasing issue, and it's not clear to me what authors or journals can or should do.

What do readers think?

Bayesian Boot Camp- Summer 2025 (UW Madison)

Mike Titelbaum (UW Madison) writes in:

This summer, UW-Madison is offering a two-week seminar for graduate students, postdocs, and faculty designed to introduce philosophers to Bayesian Epistemology from the ground up.  We are especially interested in folks who don't have the opportunity to learn this material in their home institutions, but would find it useful in their research and/or teaching.  So this isn't just for people who have already published in the area, or come from the fanciest research institutions.  No Bayesian background is assumed, nor any math or statistics beyond high-school algebra.  (You will need to know elementary logic through sentential and predicate.)  A limited amount of financial support is available to cover travel and housing for participants without other sufficient professional funds.  Come join us in Madison, meet people with similar interests, and have fun learning the ways of Bayes!

Application deadline is March 1st.  Additional information, including how to apply, at:

https://sites.google.com/view/bayesian-boot-camp

Dealing with exorbitant open-access fees?

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

I'm co-editing a volume, and we're interested in making it open access. Unfortunately the fees are exorbitant and our respective institutions offer no financial support.
(1) Are there grants for funding open access and, if so, which bodies give them out? (We're based in Europe and the US in case it matters.)
(2) Can one negotiate open access fees with a publisher and, if so, what's a good way to go about this?

Good questions. Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Dealing with AI-generated student emails?

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

How (if at all) are people dealing with the rise of student emails being created by AI? I have noticed it more than ever this semester. Out of the 20 or so recent student emails with override requests, about 15 of them have been pretty obviously AI-created.

Is this just a new reality we have to adjust to? Are people generally okay with this? I find it frustrating, in part because it is a sign of just how much our students have ceded even minute aspects of their lives over to AI. But I am also annoyed that I am reading through a bunch of 3-4 paragraph AI emails filled with sanitized nonsense about how this course fits into their educational journey, when they could have just typed up their own two-sentence email for a simple override request.

I've been fortunate enough not to face this yet, but I suspect it is probably the new reality, and not just with students. I've heard anecdotally that it's probably becoming the norm in non-academic industries too. People don't like writing emails, so they are probably going to be increasingly likely to have AI generate them. Or so it seems to me. What is to be done, if anything? I have no idea!

What do readers think?

Cover letters for VAPs vs. TT jobs?

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

How different should a cover letter for a VAP position should be from a TT position? Should one talk about research at all (or minimal)? I'm guessing one should focus on teaching and that's about it?

I'm not sure. Some VAPs are teaching-focused, but others in my experience some places (e.g., R1s, R2s) may be looking to hire VAPs who do interesting research. Back in the day when I applied for jobs, I don't think I changed my cover letter in any appreciable way and it didn't seem to hurt. But that was a while ago.

What do readers think?

Finding/securing visiting positions for sabbaticals?

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

I’m a few years into my first job and I have a semester-long sabbatical coming up next year, and I’m trying to figure out what to do for it. I have heard of people doing visiting fellowships and stuff like that while on sabbatical but I don’t really get how this works, how to get them, or where they would be advertized, what the application cycle looks like, and what constitutes a good position/what I should look for. Can anyone offer some guidance on this?

Good question! I think some visiting fellowships are advertised on PhilJobs that appear to be intended for sabbaticals, but beyond that I'm not sure. 

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Publishing in lower-ranked journals after top-ranked journals?

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

I'm a PhD student, with two pretty fancy publications and nothing else published so far. I have another article draft prepared but it got rejected from the top journals in the relevant subfield. Is it risky to send it to a medium-ranked journal or even a lower-ranked journal? Will that look like a stain on my CV that lowers my average, or will it just have an addititive affect considering I already have two other fancier publications?

Good questions. We've discussed this before on a number of occasions. There are plausibly some risks and potential benefits, and perhaps some hiring committees at top-ranked R1s might look down on it. However, the only empirical study that I'm aware of that looked at whether "weaker" publications hurt or help on the market found that they do tend to have a positive additive effect, helping candidates who already have good publications.

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

Philosophy PhD, then a JD degree?

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

I've heard some discussion of getting a JD before a PhD in philosophy (e.g., on Leiter's site), but I haven't heard anything in reverse: going from a PhD in philosophy to a JD. So, I'm interested in answers to any/all of these questions:

A) Would having a PhD in philosophy give an applicant a significant advantage in law school admissions?

B) Would this route make one more or less competitive at schools with AOS in political philosophy or philosophy of law?

C) Is going from a PhD in philosophy to practicing law a viable alt-ac route that others have taken?

All good questions. Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Job-talk conventions: slides and/or handout?

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

Is the convention for job talks to use slides, either instead of or in addition to a handout? Really hoping the answer is no, as I hate slides, but I've heard this from enough people that I wanted to check...

I'm not sure. Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?

Norms for citing unpublished (and unavailable) work by deceased scholars?

A reader writes in by email:

I am currently doing some research ... for my dissertation and found that someone else made a distinction I needed... However, in making the distinction, [Scholar X] cited an unpublished conference paper from [Scholar Y] ... Unfortunately, I found that [Y] was very much no longer with us. So, I would like to know, what is the consensus on citing deceased folks' unpublished works? Is there a concrete etiquette here? Is it better to leave it out altogether than try to attribute an unpublished distinction to a deceased person, while the only real knowledge I have about the situation comes from a footnote in someone else's work? 

I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks about this. I don't know of any clear norm on this, and I guess what one should do may depend on what one thinks the point of citations is supposed to be. I've heard some people say they only cite works that influenced them. But, for my part, I think this approach ignores the demands of scholarship: namely, an obligation to actually read and be aware of what's been written on a topic. Indeed, I've always been inclined to think that part of the point of references is to provide an accurate history of ideas, giving credit where credit is due. And, in this case, I'd personally hate to see someone deprived of credit for an idea simply because they passed on before they could publish it. But two things seem to complicate this case: (1) the work in question is unpublished, and (2) the OP has never read it, doesn't have access to it, and only has a second-hand report of what was in it. So, what should the OP do? 

What does everyone think?

Is it always better to have more publications on the market?

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

Is it better to have more publications when going on the job-market, or fewer? I'm not from the fanciest of PhD programs, most of our graduates end up teaching at smaller regional colleges/universities. My question isn't whether it is best to have more/fewer publications in order to "publish into getting" a job at a Research Universities or a prestigious SLAC, but whether it is better to have more/fewer when applying in general.

I'm inferring a bit here, but I take it the OP's concern may be about whether one should maybe avoid "publishing too much" to be competitive for the kinds of jobs that people from their PhD program have tended to get (e.g., jobs at smaller regional colleges and universities). On that, I'm not sure. But I did some informal data collection a number of years ago which suggested that having more publications is a good predictor of job-market success, particularly for those kinds of jobs--and my own experience on the market matched that: the more publications I got, the more interviews I got at those kinds of schools. 

What do readers think? I imagine it would be helpful to hear both from job candidates and search committee members.

Norms for revising conditional acceptances?

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

i recently got ‘conditional acceptance’ for my paper. what exactly are the norms here? Should I separetely write a report in which I address the reviewer comments and the changes I made? Or should I just revise the paper and send the final version without any report? Also, are small changes (that are not mentioned in the reviewer’s comments.. such as changing the title a bit) okay?

I always write a report explaining how I addressed the reviewer comments, though in my experience journal notifications usually ask one to do this anyway. But, if the OP's conditional acceptance didn't instruct them to write a reply to reviewers, I'm not sure if it would be a big deal if they didn't include one.

What do readers think?

Negative online student comments and the market

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

I have a question about web presence. I'm in my second year on the job market.

I know that some committee members google candidates, because they leave a footprint on linkedin, academia.edu, philpeople. I do not use social media apart from those sites.

If you google my name, one of the first things to come up is a reddit comment from a student in the first week of classes in the first class I taught, a year ago. It expresses extreme frustration at my shaky lecturing. It also expresses frustration at the fact that their department (biomedical sciences) requires them to take this philosophy course -- but that's mentioned as an aside. Two other students from the same class chime in, agreeing. A student from another course I was teaching the same term, in which I had a better first week, expresses disagreement, but that's a ways down the thread.

The reddit thread is a year old. My teaching evaluations are so-so and can't entirely counterbalance it. Students tend to give fairly balanced critiques that reflect the real weaknesses in my lecture style -- though they also say other things that reflect strengths in the facilitation of classroom discussion. In other words, the reddit thread expresses (though also sort of caricatures) a genuine shortcoming.

Since this thread, which has been dormant for almost a year, is still at the top of my google results, I've started to think that it might be a good idea to ask for advice about the effect that this might have, and whether there is anything I can or should do to counterbalance it. (The problem is partly related to the google algorithm, which places reddit results near the top of the results, but that's not within anyone's control.)

I wouldn't worry about what the OP describes. Everyone knows that unhappy students can say things online (including on RateMyProfessors), so I think search committees who come across this stuff are likely to take it with a real grain of salt, especially if your official student evaluations are decent. The only time to worry, I think, is if the number and tenor of negative online comments is overwhelming, and/or this is corroborated by official evaluations.

But what do other readers think?

Grappling with student complaints?

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

I would like some advice about how to deal with student complaints. I’m a TA at a university which, to my eye, has some pretty serious issues with grade inflation. Recently, I submitted participation grades for my students and received an unexpectedly large influx of complaints, despite the fact that the average mark I assigned was an A-. Unfortunately, the academic culture here among the undergraduates seems to be to complain until someone capitulates. As much as I would like to counteract this uncharitable sentiment, my feeling has been that many students take a very transactional approach to their classes which is dispiriting. As a TA, I feel I am in a difficult position considering that I don’t have authority about the academic and grading standards for the course.

I'm sorry the OP is dealing with this. I have a lot of syllabus policies to prevent this sort of thing (I don't debate grades, and require detailed written explanations using course material within one week of a grade for grade appeals), but I'm not sure that's all that helpful for a TA. One thought I had here is that "participation grades" can be pretty subjective unless there is some objective way to measure them (e.g., "every student must make one substantive comment or question per session). So, if the OP can tailor their participation credit to be more like this, they might be able to avoid complaints.

Do any other readers have any helpful tips?

Grappling with early career mistakes?

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

I’m ... wondering if anyone else has felt like they kind of messed up their early career. I feel weird and bad about feeling this way, as I am lucky enough to have a tenure-track job, I have met all the relevant requirements for promotion and tenure, and I have really supportive colleagues. But I kind of think that nobody is reading my work, and I don't know how to engage with other people whose work I admire. I feel like I missed the boat on setting up good professional networks. So much of “professionalization” seems to be about surviving the “publish or perish” years rather than setting up a flourishing intellectual life with other people in the profession. How weird would it be for me to just cold-email people to say, “Hey, I really like your work. I've discussed your work in my work. Can we talk shop sometime?” or "Hey, we've interacted professionally a bit. I'm working on this paper and I would love to get some feedback from you, given your really cool paper on the topic." Obviously, conferences can be great for this, but the same practical constraints mentioned above about sabbaticals are relevant here, too, if to a lesser degree. Any advice, emotional and/or practical, would be greatly appreciated.

I suspect a lot of people empathize with this post - I know I do. We all make mistakes, and I think it's important to be kind to oneself about it, so to speak. In terms of advice, I think it is totally fine to email people out of the blue, though I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. I don't think I've ever emailed someone to ask for feedback, but I've heard of people who have, apparently with some success fostering relationships that way.

Do any readers have any helpful advice for the OP?

Tips for Writing Teaching Philosophy Statements for Religious Institutions?

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

I have seen several religious SLACs ask for Teaching Philosophies rather than Teaching Statements. I don't think they are using philosophy and statement synonymously; it seems like they really want your philosophy of teaching and not just the standard fare statement where you list 1-2 pedagogical goals and give concrete examples of how you achieve them.

So, I'm wondering: how do you write an excellent Teaching *Philosophy,* especially for religious SLACs? 

Do any readers in the know have any helpful tips or other insights to share?

Trends for "teaching-only" jobs?

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

I’m interested in trends for teaching-only jobs. I know that Lecturer/VAP positions have been around for many years, and I’ve held these myself. In recent years, I’ve noticed an increased number of ads for “Instructional Assistant Professors,” “Assistant Teaching Professors,” etc. Some of these seem to have more expectation of permanency than the Lecturer positions, and I’ve seen some with promotion schedules. But the position titles are not consistently applied.

Have others observed this trend? Do others perceive that these are more permanent than Lecturers? Those of you chairing searches or involved in obtaining permission to run searches, what considerations prompt you to seek a teaching-only position? I wonder, for instance if they are less common in schools with graduate programs, because perhaps the grad students fill some of those needs. And what determines the position title?

I ask because, after a decade in the profession, teaching philosophy is my greatest strength. As I make some decisions about my future, I’d love to hear about trends in teaching-only jobs.

I've definitely noticed this trend, though I'm not sure what best explains it.

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

Trends for "teaching-only" jobs?

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

I’m interested in trends for teaching-only jobs. I know that Lecturer/VAP positions have been around for many years, and I’ve held these myself. In recent years, I’ve noticed an increased number of ads for “Instructional Assistant Professors,” “Assistant Teaching Professors,” etc. Some of these seem to have more expectation of permanency than the Lecturer positions, and I’ve seen some with promotion schedules. But the position titles are not consistently applied.

Have others observed this trend? Do others perceive that these are more permanent than Lecturers? Those of you chairing searches or involved in obtaining permission to run searches, what considerations prompt you to seek a teaching-only position? I wonder, for instance if they are less common in schools with graduate programs, because perhaps the grad students fill some of those needs. And what determines the position title?

I ask because, after a decade in the profession, teaching philosophy is my greatest strength. As I make some decisions about my future, I’d love to hear about trends in teaching-only jobs.

I've definitely noticed this trend, though I'm not sure what best explains it.

Do any readers have any helpful insights?

SPEP vs. Leiter Continental Philosophy?

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

I'm wondering what the difference is between SPEP Continental philosophy and Leiter Continental philosophy? I saw someone reference this distinction on a comment on this website. I can kind of intuit that there's a difference, but don't really understand what it is. For the record, I don't do continental, but I'm fairly sympathetic.

Also, in general, does anyone have any insight into what SPEP (Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy) is all about?

I'm not very well attuned to these issues. Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?