The Philosophers' Cocoon

What looks good in teaching statements?

In our most recent "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Postdoc writes:

I'd like to know how search committees read teaching statements. I'm familiar with the standard advice on teaching statements from The Professor is In (give concrete examples, don't be saccharine, keep it down to one page), but I am curious what people on the other end are actually looking for. What can a search committee learn about a candidate from their teaching statement? What role - if any - does a teaching statement play when determining whether a candidate would be a good teacher? And, for good measure, what are some things that SC members find annoying?

Great questions! As readers may know, we've discussed teaching statements a few times. However, Postdoc is asking for a more detailed indication of what search committees look for. So let me offer a few thoughts and then open things up for other search-committee members to weigh in.

What search-committees look for in cover-letters

In our newest "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Anon writes:

Cover letters for me are to some extent the most mysterious part of the application, so much so that I think they shouldn't even be required.

I have read here already that you can tell just by reading someone's cover letter that they are or are not a good fit.

But what are you really looking for in one?

Are you looking for the cover letter to convince you of fit for the position mostly?

Are you looking for the cover to convince you I have tailored it sufficiently and done research about your school?

Maybe I am alone in this but I find this aspect of the application the most frustrating to compose, especially without just repeating thing that are found elsewhere in my dossier.

Do you have like a checklist for what might be considered "best practice" in a cover letter?

This is a great query. I will be curious to hear what other search-committee members think. But let me begin by sharing a few thoughts.

Do the little things matter on the market?

In our newest "Ask a search-committee member", grymes writes:

Here's something I'm curious about, looking back on the job market with at-least-closer-to-20/20 hindsight. My suspicion is that folks on the market (myself included) often commit the following fallacy: 'I'm competing against hundreds of well-qualified applicants for every job, therefore every minute detail of my application is likely to make a difference'. This fallacy (if it is one) tends to be encouraged by sources like The Professor Is In and, occasionally, posts on this blog, like the recent one about putting job talks on your CV. Frankly, I very much doubt that it makes a net difference whether or not you put job talks on your CV, or have a high quality photo of yourself on your website, or whatever. It may turn some people off, it may turn other people on, it will hardly be registered by most search committee members (including those who interview you). Ditto for a hundred other small decisions you make when putting your materials together. The things that land you interviews are (a) the big things that you can no longer control when you're tweaking applications in the Fall, (b) the idiosyncratic tastes of departments and individual search committee members, which you can sometimes appeal to by tailoring cover letters, but which are often invisible, and (c) luck. That's my hunch, anyway. I'd be curious to hear search committee members weigh in.

'Now' responded:

I agree. The most important by far is (a) the big things you can no longer control ...
If you still only have two conference presentations and no publications on your c.v. when you apply for a job, that will really determine how you will fare in the competition for that job. If you still have never taught your own course when your application goes in, all the hypothetical course syllabi in the world will not make a difference for most jobs at teaching oriented colleges. etc.

I'd be curious to hear search-committee members weigh in too. I'm inclined to agree that the big things matter the most: one's publication record, research program, teaching experience, service experience, and overall 'fit' to the department. Nevertheless, I am also inclined to think the small things matter too--particularly how one comes across in one's materials. Allow me to briefly explain.

Listing job-talks on a CV?

In our newest "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Anon writes: Sorry if this has been answered before: should you list previous job talks (from campus visits) in your CV?

My sense is that quite a few job-candidates do this, but every time I have seen it discussed, the consensus answer has been: no, absolutely not. Further, this answer actually seems to me a no-brainer. Job-talks are not 'invited talks.' They are a part of a formal job-interview. Would you list all of the schools you interviewed at on your CV? If you were working outside of academia, would you list on your CV that you have interviewed at places like Google, Apple, and so on? Of course not (or at least I hope not!). My sense is that all that listing job-talks on a CV is likely to do is make you come across as a bit of a show-off (like, "Ha, look at all of my interviews!). Even if that's not what you intend, I don't think that's a look you want to go for. Now, I realize as a candidate you might want to fill out your CV, especially if it's a bit on the short side. However, I still don't think listing job-talks is a good idea. On the one hand, if you listed them in their own category (under the heading of 'job-talks'), that would just look bizarre. On the other hand, if you list them under 'invited talks', you look like you don't know what an invited talk is--as again, job-interviews just aren't 'invited talks': they're interviews. 

Anyway, maybe I'm wrong about all of this. If other people who have served on search committees see things differently, feel free to say so. But, for my part, I'd be very surprised if there turned out to be significant disagreement among search-committee members on this. To me, it seems like one of those obvious "don'ts" (like listing papers merely under review under 'publications', something which, alas, I've heard many candidates do too!).

Listing impact on CVs?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, I posed the following query:

... I recently heard a job-marketeer [ask] on social media...whether candidates with significant citation counts (viz. Google Scholar) or download numbers (at Philpapers, SSRN, etc.) should put these things on their CV. I recall the person suggesting it might be helpful, as it would provide search committees with evidence of scholarly impact (that they might not otherwise be aware of). But I also vaguely recall people discouraging the person from doing it. I think it might be good to hear from actual search-committee members what they think about this.

I'm actually really curious about this. Although my memory is hazy, I seem to recall most people suggesting that the job-marketeer not put this kind information on their CV. However, this seems strange to me...

Pitching 'narrow' AOS's to search committees

In our newest "Ask a search committee member" thread, 'early career anon' writes:

If an applicant has chosen to work in a number of different areas of interest and is less specialized in one particular AOS than other candidates, how should they go about presenting that in the best light to search committees?

Although it's not entirely clear to me what 'early career' means here, I take it the case may be something like this. Suppose one's primary research programs are on free will, philosophy of perception, and vagueness--a number of different areas not unified under a single AOS. In that case, I assume one may list one's AOS as "Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology, Philosophy of Language." However, one's actual areas of research are much narrower than those broad categories suggest. If one is applying to, say, a job ad in Metaphysics, one will come across as 'less specialized in Metaphysics' than many other candidates (since one only does one thing in that area, free will). Assuming this is the kind of case 'early anon' is concerned about, how should a candidate like this pitch themselves?

How do search committees read files?

In our new "ask a search committee member" thread, Tom writes:

What do *you* read first in a file? What don’t you read at all? Do you even *have* a systematic way of going through files, or is it haphazard/varying/based on how much you’ve been drinking?

(My expectation is that the answers to these questions will be wildly different from SC-member to SC-member, so I’m more interested in the diversity of answers than any particular answer.)

Great questions. I expect it might benefit job-marketeers tremendously to hear answers. In the comments section of the above thread, 'One person' replied:

I read material in roughly, the following order: the application letter (some people already show they were not appropriate for the job in the letter), the c.v. (here one gets an overview of the candidate and their accomplishments and qualifications - it is the most useful piece of information), then the rest. The teaching material gives a sense of their teaching, supported by a teaching letter; letters are looked at, but with some degree of skepticism, as there is lots of inflation; the writing sample may be looked at then. Then if they have some sort of research statement outlining future plans - this is useful for when you choose who to bring to campus as point of discussion.

My own practices are fairly similar. I always read CV's first, as to me they are the most informative on the whole, especially when it comes to deciding whether the person meets the minimum requirements for the job. The very first things I look at are the person's listed AOS and AOC.

Ask a search-committee member (June 2019)

Last June, I ran a new series, 'Ask a Search Committee Member'. The basic idea is similar to our "how can we help you?" threads, except that the explicit focus is on posing any burning job-market questions you have to search committee members. Last year, we received a number of really good queries. So, given that the main academic job-market cycle is just a few months away, I thought now might be a great time to run the series again!

Anyway, in the comments section below, please share any questions you have for search committee members. I will then write up a short post in reply (based on my experience on search committees), and then ask other people who have served on search committees to weigh in.

Fire away, the more questions the better! 

Tips for applying to US/UK jobs from abroad?

In our most recent "ask a search-committee member" thread, an academic abroad writes:

Perhaps someone can say a bit more about applications from those who have made a career abroad and are now applying in the US or UK? Our career trajectories tend to look a bit different, and sometimes the whole AOS/AOC thing doesn't apply as straightforwardly either. In some countries, lots of publications come through edited volumes, not journals, and sometimes we have publications in foreign languages.

Moreover, for those whose semesters are structured differently, or for universities in which student evals play less of a role, we might have different teaching materials. For example, my seminars meet only once/week over the course of 15 weeks...The focus here also tends to be on reading less and engaging more intensively with the material. This means my courses are structured differently, and my syllabi look different.

Where I'm at, institutions also place more emphasis on research-based teaching and less on "intro" or survey courses, since those tend to be taught as lectures by the full professors. We aren't in a liberal arts system either, so there are few "gen ed" courses and students to be offered. It's not that I can't teach such classes. (In fact, I love teaching these kinds of courses.) But there is little opportunity for me to do so.

Likewise, it seems like valuable application material space is often spent explaining these differences - and/or why one has made one's career abroad and why one wants to enter/return (in)to the US academic system, when it seems to me that space could be better spent motivating why one is an awesome scholar and a potentially good future colleague.

International scholars can bring lots of really good things to the table and can be really great additions to a department, but I feel like they are often overlooked unless they are senior scholars who have already made their careers, or unless they attended a US/UK institution and went straight from there to the US/UK job market.

Are departments less inclined to give interviews to international junior and mid-career scholars? Any tips for successful applications?

What is evidence of teaching effectiveness?

In our most recent 'Ask a Search-Committee Member' thread, Throwaway Name writes:

Could search committee members discuss their thinking when they evaluate, on paper, whether a candidate is a good teacher? Do they weigh certain application materials more than others (e.g. teaching statement, letters of recommendation, student evaluations, etc.)? In their own experience, are strong application materials of a certain kind correlated to strong teaching abilities? Are strong application materials of another kind not correlated to strong teaching abilities?

Anon added:

I very much second "Throwaway Name's" post. "Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness" is often a standard phrase for jobs, but how is that evaluated? How does that stand out? I really think this deserves a thread of its own.

I think this is a really good query, as I think how search committees think about the issue may be changing a bit. Allow me to explain.

Non-standard publications and the market

In the comments section of our most recent 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, anon writes:

What would publications from https://1000wordphilosophy.com/ look like to a potential search committee members?

The editors do come right out and say

"We publish approximately 10% of essays that are submitted, usually after substantial revisions and editing.

Most, but not all, of our published essays are by professors of philosophy or advanced graduate students in philosophy.

Essays published at 1000-Word Philosophy are peer-reviewed publications. "

I realize not as much weight as journal articles but I 
am still curious.

Anonymous then chimed in as follows:

Hi anon--just one perspective here but my guess it is somewhat representative of folks on research-focused hiring committees: having a publication like this would make no difference to me one way or another when assessing a file. My guess is that some faculty at research-focused would (unjustifiably) count it as a very slight negative, because it makes you look "less serious" as a researcher or something, and that some would count it as a slight positive (but not much of a positive). I have no idea what people in other kinds of institutions/departments would think.

As far as research schools go, this sounds right to me. Research-focused departments are looking for top researchers, where is this typically understood as original work in top-ranked journals, book presses, etc. Since short 1,000 word introductory anthology pieces don't speak to that, my sense is that Anonymous is right: one of these publications is liable to make little or no difference in how anyone evaluates a file (and it could indeed be a minor negative). But what about more teaching-oriented departments?

Publications undermining market competitiveness?

In our newest "Ask a search committee member" thread, Nate writes:

I earned my Ph.D. from an unranked program in 2016. My sense is that the unranked school at the top of my CV pretty much disqualifies me from R1 type schools. However, I've published a lot for someone at my career stage in an effort to overcome the unranked program that I'm coming out of. To date, I've got 11 publications. 2 are in general journals in the 15-20 range on Leiter's recent poll, a handful are in good specialty journals, and a couple are in edited volumes. Given my publishing record, though, I'm now starting to worry that I've published myself out of some of those teaching jobs.

I've had some success on the market so far. I had a fair number of interviews the past couple years, and I got a handful of offers for VAP/Postdoc jobs this past year (I'm currently in a postdoc at a med school). However, I've been pretty much shut out of the TT market. My worry is that my unranked PhD means I'm not a candidate for research jobs and my publication record means that I'm not a candidate for teaching jobs. Is this a legitimate worry? If so, what can I do?

Amanda then responded, "I will just say this - yes, unfortunately, that is a legitimate worry. Whether it is a legitimate worry for you in particular is unclear, I would have to see your CV." I think Amanda is absolutely right here. But let me try to elaborate on some of the issues that I think may be at play here, as I think it may help Nate and others make better sense of their situation as well as what they might do to be more competitive.

Ask a search-committee member (mid-market edition)

Now that we're in the middle of the job-market--with many job app deadlines already passed and at least some interviews occurring--I thought it might be good to run another ask a search-committee member thread.

For those of you new to the series, this thread is a place for you to share any burning questions you have for people serving on or who have previously served on search committees. So, in the comments section below, feel free to ask any questions you like within the blog's mission, including (but not limited to) questions about:

• The process of judging application materials
• Skype interviews
• On campus interviews
• Etc.

I will then post new threads on each query for search committee members (and others) to weigh in!

Interview practice and candidate rankings

In the comments section of our, 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, Anon writes:

Do search committees usually have a ranking in mind when they invite candidates for Skype interviews? How can candidates best prepare for these things, particularly on short notice when one is balancing a heavy course load?

Both are very good questions. I will be curious to hear what readers think--particularly search-committee members, though job-marketeers may be able to help with the second question. Here, at any rate, are a few thoughts of my own.

Interview questions

In our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Recent PhD writes:

I was wondering if any search committee members would be willing to share the kinds of questions one might encounter in an interview. In particular, are there any difficult questions that get asked that tend to throw off candidates? What should a candidate be especially prepared to talk about beyond their research, teaching, etc.

This is a wonderful question. It would be great to hear of examples from search committee members. Here are a bunch that spring to mind to me...

Applying to postdoc & TT in same dept?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Mercado writes:

(1) Should someone who is ABD apply to a tenure-track job and a postdoc that are in the same department? The worry here is that applying to both positions will cause the committee to undervalue your application.

(2) In this kind of case, is a job-search committee the same as the postdoc search committee? That is, do these committees have the same members?

Good questions. Although I could be wrong, I see no reason not to apply to both. To the best of my knowledge, there are usually separate search-committees for each job advertised. I also think it is unlikely (though not impossible) that the committees will talk to one another about their candidate pools--with perhaps one exception (one that might benefit you!): if the TT committee thought very highly of you but you end their second-place finalist, it's possible they could lobby with the postdoc committee to hire you into that position. I've actually heard of something like this happening before. On the other hand, if you don't fare well with the TT committee, the postdoc committee still might think highly of you. So, it seems to me best to apply to both jobs, as I'm inclined to think it will maximize your chances for both jobs.

But perhaps I am wrong about this. Admittedly, I haven't been in a department where simultaneous hires like this have been done, so I could be offbase! What do those of you in the know think?

Tailoring cover letters to schools

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Tom writes:

This question is for those folks who care to see ye olde `I want to be at your specific school because X' thing in the cover letter.

Do you care where in the letter it happens? Should it be first? Right after the stuff about my research but before stuff about teaching? Last? Have I completely misunderstood what a cover letter should look like?

I will be curious to hear what other search-committee members think. Having served on three search committees at a liberal arts university, my sense is that at schools like doesn't matter precisely where you tailor a cover letter to the school. What matters is that you do it and how you do it. Let me explain.

Relationship-status and the market

In the comments section of our "Ask a Search-Committee Member" thread, Anon writes:

Suppose a candidate has a partner who is finishing their PhD and won't be on the market for a couple of years. Would knowing this about the candidate make you worry about whether they might become a flight risk? Should candidates in this situation, and relevantly similar ones, just not talk about their relationship status until after a contract is signed? What do you infer if candidates aren't mentioning anything about having a partner (e.g. on a visit, where multiple faculty members keep bringing up their partners in conversation.)?

My sense is that search committees may indeed worry about flight-risk in cases like this. I would advise most candidates to avoid talking about their relationship status. I don't think people are likely to infer anything from candidates not mentioning their partners. Remember, you are applying and interviewing for a job. Search committee members are not permitted to ask questions about things like these, nor should they expect you to volunteer any personal information. Fortunately, in my experience, they don't! The only time I'm inclined to think it could be wise for a candidate to volunteer any information like that might be if their partner's status might provide the committee reasons to think the candidate will not be a flight risk (such as in cases where one's partner has family in the area).

But these are just my thoughts. I'll be curious to hear what other search committee members think.

Published or unpublished writing samples?

In the comments sections of our 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, ED writes:

Assuming all else equal, do search committees prefer an unpublished paper as a writing sample to a very recently published or forthcoming paper being used as a writing sample?

Assuming so, and now assuming that one thing is not equal - namely, that the unpublished paper still has some minor kinks to be ironed out (because it's unpublished!), would search committees still prefer to read the unpublished thing over the more polished recently published or forthcoming one?

Or is all of this just terribly nit-picky and not worth worrying about?

Good questions. I honestly don't know the answers! I've heard conflicting things. I recall hearing before that some think published pieces look more professional. But I also recall others suggesting it may be best to submit an unpublished piece, as it suggests your best work is still to come. Personally, I'm inclined to say one should just submit one's best work, whatever it may be--as my sense is that what matters most is the quality of what you submit.

What do all of the search-committee members out there think?

Search committees: do additional pedagogical training and research matter?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search committee member", Postduck writes:

How does it look to have pedagogical training from one's institution (e.g. teaching certificates, courses, etc.)? And is it worth doing more than one of these things?

'junior faculty' then added:

Related to the previous comment (re: pedagogical training), what about pedagogical research? Sometimes I get the sense that some view the scholarship of teaching and learning as not 'real' research, so I wonder how search committees respond if they see a candidate who has a research program in pedagogy. To be clear, this would be research related to teaching philosophy (even if it has wider implications).

Lauren offered up one answer:

Re: pedagogical training, it would count in your favor as far as I'm concerned. But how much depends a lot on what it is, how significant it is, etc. One workshop isn't worth much; a substantial course, on the other hand, is stronger. Earning a teaching certificate very much depends on what is required, and I tend to be skeptical about how much those are worth unless the candidate gives me reason to believe otherwise--my own PhD institution originally had a "certificate" but it could be achieved simply by attending a certain number of 1 hour teaching sessions. If your training was more substantive than that, you should indicate that in some way.

My answer is different. Having worked at and hired three times at a "teaching" school--a mid-sized liberal arts university that takes teaching very seriously, as well as research--my sense is that every little thing here helps.

Ask a search-committee member: convincing colleagues to hire an excellent teacher

In my post soliciting questions for search committee members, a search committee member 'G' asks:

Let's say that you were a TT junior faculty member of a department without a graduate program. And let's say that you cared about teaching and you were just certain that if only your department would hire some rock star teachers and assign them to intro-level courses, then the number of majors would skyrocket and those additional students would benefit from increased exposure to philosophy. But let's say, also, that several senior members of your department weren't so concerned about exposing more students to philosophy, or diversifying the field, or increasing the number of majors, or teaching fantastic courses. Those members of the department are impressive scholars, especially for members of a department without any graduate students, but they are basically of the attitude that adequate teaching is all one needs. Or perhaps, deep down, they are skeptical that there even is such a thing as great teaching that can break through to students who otherwise would not major in philosophy. Here is the question: how would you approach your role on a search committee so as to maximize the chances that your department hired a truly fantastic teacher who would just rake in the majors?

New series: Ask a search-committee member

In the Secrets of Search Committees series, I shared some experiences of what goes on behind the scenes in the job market on the hiring side of things. I hope you all found the series helpful, and if I think of any more things to share I will continue adding to the series. In the meantime, I thought it might be worth trying something new: a series where you, the Cocoon's readers, ask search committee members whatever questions on your mind.

My thought for this series is that it might be something like our "how can we help you?" series, where I periodically post open threads to solicit reader queries. In that series, the queries can be on anything. Whenever a reader posts a query, I write up an original post responding to it and inviting reader discussion. I figured a similar series posing questions specifically to search committee members might be helpful. So, in the comments section below, please share any questions you have for search committee members. I will then write up a short post in reply (based on my experience on search committees), and then ask other people who have served on search committees to weigh in.

Sound good? Fire away, the more questions the better!