The Philosophers' Cocoon

The in-person conference quandary

This June I went to my first in-person conference in over two years. It was in UMSL, which is in the town I'm currently based in (St Louis), so it was an easy transition. And it was lovely--exhausting but lovely. I also have a couple of more events lined up this fall. After a hiatus of in-person conferencing,  there's a general sense for many academics that "it's endemic now." We can't really expect improvements in vaccine effectiveness or transmission rates, so basically we have to do life under these circumstances. And academic life involves (for many of us) in-person conferences.

But I worry that this creates disparity in opportunities and professional development, exacerbating disparities that already exist in many cases, such as for disabled and chronically ill people. 

I got Covid in late April 2022 after being very cautious for over two years, and was quite sick for several weeks (sicker I thought I would be given that I got the full vaccination and a booster.) For the few weeks after recovery I reckoned I was OK in terms of immunity and went to a few events that I normally still deem to risky, such as a lovely dinner organized by the local Jesuit training center which is associated to SLU. It was a great event and the food was great, but it was also a very poorly ventilated area with so many people.

Norms for travel reimbursement in the COVID era?

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

What are the current norms about COVID and travel reimbursement? For example, suppose one gets invited for an in-person talk and the host promises to pay. But due to COVID, the trip had to be cancelled, the talk had to be given online, and some travel arrangements are unrefundable. Should the host pay? Or, for example, suppose one is traveling using university money, but again the trip had to be cancelled, is it still okay to submit the unrefundable travel costs for reimbursement?

Good questions. My experience is that many universities have strict policies governing these kinds of things, such that if you don't actually travel it's against their rules to submit travel reimbursements. So, on that, I'd be careful and forthright with your university about your situation. Hopefully, they'll be understanding. In terms of invited talks, if the in-person visit is canceled, it seems to me that the host should clearly cover non-refundable costs. But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

How is the Omicron surge affecting searches?

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

I have a question for any search committee members who may see this and are willing to offer any intel (anonymously or otherwise): Is the current COVID-19 surge impacting (delaying or changing) your committee’s hiring timeline or the decision to have fly-outs versus online teaching demonstrations/job talks? Also, I wonder how a committee might respond to a candidate who expresses reservations about traveling for a second-round interview under the circumstances? P.S. I recognize how challenging this question is as things continue to evolve, and things may vary considerably based on the university’s location.

Excellent questions. It would be great to hear from some search committees in the comments section below!

In-person v. Zoom 'flyouts'?

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

I've attended two first-round interviews so far, and both said the final round will be physical flyouts. I understand that this is the pre-pandemic norm in the US. I will do my best to fly into the US if I happen to get into the final round. Just would have preferred to have all things done online, to make things easier for me, less costly for everyone, and avoid unnecessary risks.

Another job candidate then added:

I agree with @job candidate. I live in a country where getting in and out during the pandemic involves a lot of bureaucratic hoops. And there's the always looming worry that borders will be shut while I'm on a flyout. This is a pretty big risk to take, in addition to health risks and costs of flying.

This is an interesting issue, as well as (obviously) a moral and public health issue. My understanding is that some universities in the US are still doing 'Zoom flyouts', whereas others have moved back to in-person ones. My general sense is also that these sorts of things tend to be dictated not by departments but by upper-administration (e.g. the Provost). So, I'm not sure that in many cases, much can be done here. But I do wonder whether it might make sense for overseas candidates to ask departments that request a physical fly-out if they would be willing to do a virtual one. What do you all think? Do any job-candidates or search committee members have any helpful experiences or insights to share here?

Non-TT faculty & university COVID policies

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, concerned non-TT writes:

I'm wondering if we can get a conversation going about vulnerably employed (i.e., non-TT) faculty dealing with university administrators' unethical decision not to enforce COVID vaccination requirements for those on campus for the coming AY.

In countries with access to ample vaccines like the U.S., there is simply no justification for failing to require on-campus vaccinations (aside from reasonable, medically motivated exceptions, of course) other than kowtowing to conservative politicians making education-funding decisions and trying not to alienate parents and students among the wide swath of the population that has failed to understand the meanings of "freedom" and "choice." I take it that there is a strong moral imperative for faculty members to speak out against this wrong decision, but this of course is a very difficult line to walk when one's employment is dependent on the goodwill of administrators and department chairs.

There's also the difficulty of teaching in a mask (which of course I support, annoying though it may be) or on Zoom and garnering good evaluations for the sake of the teaching portfolio and future employment despite the fact that such classes are quite painful for all involved and tend not to be evaluated very highly.

I realize that this isn't really a question, but might be a good topic to discuss and vent about, with thanks for the opportunity to do so here!

These are good issues to discuss, and I'm curious what everyone thinks:

1. Do you agree that there is a strong moral imperative for faculty members to speak out on this?
2. If so, what do you think faculty should do, particularly (but not only non-TT) faculty?

How have you kept working during the pandemic?

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

I'm a 3rd year PhD student (I've passed my comps. and started my proposal) and here's my query: How are y'all working, publishing, editing, applying, defending during covid pandemic? Though I see philosophy might be even more present those times, I only feel useless, and on top, not having in-person seminars, presentations etc completely blurred the exciting part of pursuing this path. I've definetly not adapted to online courses, even though I've TAed and runned tutorials in both fall and winter. Something I used to be excited doing it is now just too painfull. I've been thinking and feeling more and more that it is senseless to try to be "out-there-soon-to-be-employabe" (i.e., publishing, networking or whatever), and that I should rather have a plan B at this point (I'm 30yo). Am I done with philosophy after 12 years stringing along with it? (p.s.: I know I'm the one who might be able to answer this question, but since there are eventually people here who gave up the career etc, I'd like to hear if someone could relate and/or see this as the first indices of my leaving the field; p.s.2.: I do not consider not defending, just not being "out-there-soon-to-be-employabe"). Thanks a lot.

I empathize with this reader. As a hard-core introvert, I expect that I may have been able to handle the isolation of the pandemic more than most. But still, the changes during this time have deprived me of many professional things that I enjoy, sapping those parts of my life in academia of a lot of joy. Here, I particularly have in mind hybrid classes, where I would often only have 1-3 students in the classroom with everyone else on Zoom (which was really frustrating), as well as the lack of in-person conferences (I presented at two APA's this year, and had been really excited to travel to them, catch up with friends in the profession, browse the book exhibits, etc.). Still, I've been able to keep going pretty well with things like research because I mostly work alone and enjoy working that way.

Grappling with the COVID-era job market

In the comment thread on my post on publishing advice for grad students and other early career people, a grad student writes:

As a graduate student, I do appreciate the time and effort made to help us figure out how to best go about trying to publish papers. My biggest concern is that such posts utterly fail to take into account the current moment. Maybe such advice will be applicable in the future (we can hope!), but for right now, I'd love to see advice that explicitly takes into account the fact that the academic job market has simply collapsed.

This is a great point, and I'd love to offer more posts and discussion how to grapple effectively with the post-COVID reality. I just haven't been quite sure how to do so. I'm definitely open to suggestions! One graduate student planning on defending their dissertation made one suggestion, namely:

I just mean it could also be good to talk about the nuts and bolts of building a plan B.

For example: if I have to devote half my working hours now to developing a set of skills for plan B, as I in fact am, which of the more purely academic skills should get cut first, that are also the least likely to just totally tank my prospects (however antecedently dim) of getting a job in academia?

For me, I've basically leaned into the research and forsaken any hope of developing a compelling teaching portfolio.

My research habits have also changed. I've gone more in the direction of, write and try to publish papers I'm excited to write, don't worry about the bigger picture or how this stuff hangs together. Because all indications are that I've got maybe 18 months left in this profession, and none of that big picture stuff will pan out.

You can hopefully see how serious, and scary, these sorts of decisions can be.

I wonder what readers think: first, on the nuts and bolts of preparing for a plan B, but also, second, on whether this person's decisions are good ones.

I myself don't have any advice on the nuts and bolts of building a plan B. But I have a few thoughts on the other issue. Personally, I think the decision to focus on publishing stuff you're excited about is a great one. It's more or less the strategy that I adopted when my time on the job market looked like it was running out--and it not only made philosophy again; I started publishing a lot more than I ever did before. My rationale was basically this: "If I'm going to flunk out of this profession, I might as well go down doing work that I enjoy and believe in." It was pretty transformative, and I've never looked back.

On the other hand, I'm a bit less sure about this individual's decision to lean into research and forsake any hope of developing a teaching portfolio. I think whether this is a good decision probably depends on three things:

1. Whether the academic job market is likely to be equally catastrophic in future years.
2. Whether this person is willing to stay on the market beyond this year.
3. Whether they are interested in community college jobs.

On (1) & (2): given that effective vaccines seem to be on the horizon, and people are likely to be vaccinated en masse, it seems to me highly likely that the academic job market will recover. Of course, this job market was already brutal before COVID, but that's a different story. The point is, the market seems to me like it is likely to recover pretty significantly--so if this individual's decisions are predicated upon the assumption that the market is going to be consistently like it is this year, I think that may be a bad bet (one anecdote: it looks like my department will probably hire a tenure-track person once COVID is resolved--and I expect many other universities are waiting to do hires as well). So, it seems to me, if this person is willing to stick on the academic market for at least a couple of years after their defense, the drastic decisions they are making now (focusing on research rather than developing their teaching portfolio) might be really short-sighted.

On that note, it's worth thinking about (3): community college jobs. As this discussion revealed, community college jobs can be really great; you just need a wealth of teaching experience (and ideally, experience teaching at a community college) to be competitive. I personally know a few full-time tenure-track faculty at community colleges, and they love their jobs (seemingly more, in fact, than some of the faculty I know at 4-year universities). Moreover, from what I have heard, community colleges are expected to flourish post-COVID. During times of economic uncertainty, people seem to flee 4-year universities for community colleges, and so the latter are likely to need more faculty, not fewer (indeed, I've already seen some of my own students say they are taking time away from university during COVID to take community college classes for economic reasons). So, it seems to me, if this reader is seriously interested in an academic job and they might be happy with a CC job, their decision to lean into research at the detriment of developing their teaching portfolio seems like it could be doubly short-sighted (though, of course, they might not want a teaching-heavy CC job).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Also, if any readers have any suggestions for other topics the Cocoon might cover to address the first reader's concerns (how to better help early-career people in the post-COVID reality), I'm all ears!

Bringing some social life to Zoom conferences (guest post by C. Thi Nguyen)

This is a guest post by C. Thi Nguyen, philosophy professor at the University of Utah

OK, I just survived being Program Chair of the American Society for Aesthetics Annual Conference - a huge, 4-track, 3-day conference that had to go virtual. I didn’t know it was going virtual when I volunteered to head it up, and the entire experience was one long grueling flirtation with disaster. But: it went off with barely a hitch. What I really want to talk about, though, is the surprising success of the experimental social Zoom rooms.

So the ASA Annual has always been my favorite conference. The aesthetics gang is this big, goofy, lovable, amiable family of weirdos. (Who does analytic philosophy... about art? My people, that's who.) And when we realized we had to take it virtual, we thought: we had to do something to recreate that wonderful atmosphere. So Aaron Meskin volunteered to spearhead the effort, and we formed a social idea gang (with Jonathan Weinberg and Andrew Kania) and brainstormed all kinds of experimental ideas.

My guiding observation: big social Zoom rooms full of many strange people are fucking awkward. They're weird; it’s much harder to naturally break into small groups; social chat flows awkwardly. So we tried a bunch of things. First, we ran parallel social sessions, to keep the numbers manageable. (For a 300 person conference, we did 3 parallel social Zoom rooms each night, and ended up with 15-20 people in most rooms.) Second, structure.  We had structured activities for most of the Zoom rooms, including:

• Show and Tell Room
• 3 Minute Silly Talk Room
• Talent Show Room
• Joke Room
• Trivia Room

And they worked... insanely well. Tons of people have messaged me saying they were shocked how well those rooms worked, how much community it built, how fun they were. And I suspect that, even though only some of the attendees went to the social rooms, that the spirit from the social rooms carried through the rest of the conference. A lot of the regulars, and a lot of more talkative newcomers, met and commingled and got to know each other, and I think a lot of the spirit carried into the rest of the conference — especially in the chat.

My very favorite was the "3 Minute Silly Talk" room, which I ran with Anne Eaton. Rules were: people just had to make up a talk on some topic - silly, or small, or maybe just float the inchoate beginnings of a new paper. No topic too wild or too small. 3 minutes to talk, enforced with total strictness, followed by 3 minutes of lightning Q&A. And it was... amazing?

Vague aspirations meet sobering reality: How to do conferencing and seminars post-pandemic

I don't know how and when the pandemic will end, but we can be reasonably confident it will end.

And in this not-too-distant future, we can ask: how will we do conferencing and seminars post-pandemic?

Our present way of doing things (well, pre-2020) burns a lot of fossil fuels. An international flight, e.g., from London to Chicago, generates more CO2 than the average person in dozens of countries does in an entire year. Even in countries where lots of people fly (e.g., in the US well over 80% of people have flown at some point in their lives), the majority of people fly relatively little. It's difficult to estimate, but one ballpark figure estimate says the /average American flies fewer than two times a year. Academics fly much above the average in their countries. 

Though minds are focused on the pandemic, and in the US, on the presidential election too, the climate crisis continues unabated. We had, prior to the pandemic, some vague aspirations of how to make conferencing and other academic meetings more sustainable. We debated flying less frequently, maybe holding part of our conferences online. Some of us placed limits on transcontinental flights. 

Some of our aspirations have now met a sobering reality, with a year (and likely more) of severe restrictions on travel and online conferencing. What have we learned about the viability of conferencing online as a carbon-low alternative to flying around to conferences scattered across the globe? 

I asked people on Twitter (almost 1000 responses) how online and in-person conferences compare, and whether respondents think online is a viable alternative to in-person. (Note, Twitter only allows for 4 responses which made it impossible for me to make the poll symmetrical. A symmetrical poll should include "Only online from now on," to balance out "not a viable alternative".) However, given how the poll drops off at "better than in-person" at only 9.3%, I do think it gives some indication of the mood music.

These results, if representative, are sobering. Over 75% of respondents think that either online conferences are not a viable alternative, or that they're acceptable but inferior. Note though, that the most common response, with over 60% of respondents is that they're still acceptable. 

Teaching statements & COVID?

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

I'm curious whether and how everyone on the market is changing their teaching statements to fit the new realities of teaching. Teaching right now has required significant changes in techniques for most, if not all of us. For example, I'm teaching hybrid, socially distanced classes and my usual activities can't be used. I've tried adapted versions, but honestly, they did not go as well for practical reasons. Should I downplay the in-class activities in my teaching statement? Should we all have paragraphs devoted to hybrid and online teaching generally? What are people doing?

Great questions! I think it would be great to hear from both job-candidates and search committee members. Anyone have any insight?

Grappling with (academic) acedia?

A few weeks ago, I came across this article on social media, 'Acedia: the lost name for the emotion we’re all feeling right now'. Given that the article seemed to be 'making the rounds', I assume some of you probably came across it too, and I'm wondering whether it spoke to others the way it did to me. During the first several months of the pandemic, I would describe myself as more stressed than normal (worrying about my health, the health of loved ones, etc.), but on the whole, I didn't have too much trouble adapting to social distancing. Because I'm an introvert, it actually initially came fairly naturally. However, now that the pandemic is stretching on, I'm finding it progressively more difficult. For example, although I'm doing my best, I'm finding teaching to be a struggle--in part because it's hard to get to know my students, but also because it's difficult to get good in-class conversations going when half of my students are in the classroom and other half are at home. And so on.  Similarly, while I've had some time to get some research done, I've found it more difficult than usual to motivate and find anything like my normal levels of enthusiasm and focus. And, while I've tried to focus on hobbies (particularly music) and Zoom meetups to keep my spirits up, I've found that only goes so far. I miss seeing people in person, and most days seem akin to copies of the last (fewer unexpected things happen when you stay at home everyday!). Anyway, everything just seems difficult. 

Anyway, I'm curious whether readers are having similar struggles, and if so, what kinds of things you've found to be helpful. I realize there's only so much that we can do under pandemic conditions (particularly as a second wave seems to be emerging), but still, I thought it might be good to discuss and crowdsource tips, as it were. Anyone able and willing to share?

Teaching in the time of COVID: what's working?, what's not?

Now that many of us are a month or so into fall semester courses, and have been teaching in new formats due to the pandemic, I thought it might be good to have a thread checking in with readers to see how things are going. What format(s) are you teaching in? What things are you doing that seem to be working well? What things haven't worked well?

In my case, I'm teaching two classes twice a week in-person in the classroom to half of my students each day, while the others Zoom in. By and large, I've tried to keep the class format similar to how I normally run courses, with the first-third of each two-hour session involving discussing student reading responses, the second third giving a lecture, and the final portion of each meeting having students do graded group work. Aside from using Zoom (which I think has actually worked quite well), the one major difference is that instead of having student compose short written reading responses to discuss, I'm having them record short video responses (there are a number of platforms for this, including Flipgrid). My basic rationale for trying this is that I took an online teaching-certification course this summer, and learned that one of the more important things (apparently) for online teaching is to get students engaged with each other. I figured that since my students aren't all going to be in the classroom with each other and will be wearing masks when they are, it would be great to begin each class session with students by playing selected video responses as a springboard for class discussion. I also thought this would probably work well given the general demographic of my students: namely, the fact that they are generally young people who grew up with social media, including short video platforms like TikTok (one quick note: I don't require students to actually film themselves on video. I leave it open to them whether to just record audio instead of video, and I'd say probably 2/3 record video and the other audio-only).

Anyway, I didn't know how this would go, but I have to say: I think it has worked spectacularly well. I have frankly been astonished at how consistently good and insightful their video responses have been. It's clear to me that students have a much easier time speaking insightfully about philosophy than writing about it--as the responses have consistently been far better than the kinds of written responses I've required in previous semesters. I've also found it helpful to play several video responses back to back when multiple students raise similar issues--as this can help them and their classmates see that more than one student had the same kind of reaction to the reading. Now, to be sure, there is a cost here: my students are doing more speaking this semester than normal, and less writing. But, to be frank, I don't think this is a bad thing. Students in my classes have plenty of other assignments where they have to write (including daily group assignments where they collaborate on Googledocs or whatever), and for most of my students who are non-majors, I'm inclined to think that being able to think and speak about philosophical issues competently is probably more important (after all, how many students are ever going to have to write about philosophical issues in their lives after university? It seems far more likely to me that in real life, the ability to think and speak about philosophical issues will be more important--as they are likely to have discussions about morality, politics, religion, etc. with friends, family, and so on).

Other than this, I've tried to keep my courses as close to 'normal' as possible. The only other major difference is that whereas students in previous semesters did group assignments in the classroom, this semester they are doing them via Zoom breakout groups--with some members of groups in the classroom (or leaving the classroom to work outside) and others Zooming in. Aside from giving groups more class-time to complete the assignments, I haven't done anything different here, and it all seems to work pretty well. To be clear, this has been a challenging semester. Teaching this way (half via Zoom, viewing and selecting videos before class) hasn't been easy, and has required more work and juggling than normal. But, on the whole, things seem to be going okay and my students seem pretty engaged and happy.

Anyway, this is what I've been doing.  What have you all been doing? What new things have you been doing that you have found work well? What hasn't worked so well? Why?

Open letter for suspending GRE requirements (Guest-post)

An Open Letter to Philosophy Departments: Please Consider Suspending the GRE Requirement for Fall 2021 Admission

By Frederick Choo (MA in Philosophy - Nanyang Technological University)

Due to the global pandemic, many philosophy departments have already either chosen to ignore GRE scores, or made submission of GRE scores optional for fall 2021 admission. The list includes, but is not limited to, NYU, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, University of Arizona, UC San Diego, Washington University at St Louis, University of Colorado Boulder, and Rice University.¹

I am writing to ask that your philosophy department consider suspending the submission of GRE scores for fall 2021 graduate admissions. Many potential applicants would much appreciate a quick response to this.

Extra effort for teaching remotely in the fall?

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

I have a question about preparing for teaching remotely in the fall: how much (extra) effort should I put into it?

I chose to run the classes asynchronously in the spring when we had to move everything online. I decide to run them synchronously in the fall. I feel that asynchronous online classes are not fair to students many of whom are expected to come back on campus (at least for now for my university) and to pay full or almost full tuition.

While I am learning about some really nice tools that help run classes synchronously, I have some worries and am wondering how much time and effort I should put into it. First, it seems to me that what we are facing is a pretty unique situation, and I am not sure whether we will encounter similar situations in the future (hopefully not!). And I am inclined to teach "real" online classes asynchronously to give students flexibilities. So, I am not sure if I will get another chance to teach remotely and synchronously in the future. Second, while I put a lot of time in it, I am not sure students will appreciate it. I read some articles and it seems that many students are disappointed about remote learning. Yes, I can probably design a really nice class and impress students, but is it really worth the time and effort?

I'll be very curious to hear what people think here, but for my own part I'm inclined to think it's best to keep things simple and as close as possible to how I teach in a face-to-face format. Let me explain why.

Grad program COVID updates?

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

Circling back to a post you made back in April asking about department’s plans to limit admissions for incoming graduate students, I would love to know if any more people have heard confirmation or reliable information about what might happen with certain departments this upcoming admissions cycle! Also, does anyone have any idea if departments will actually be transparent about these changes, or if soliciting information from departments in the fall regarding limited admissions would be something acceptable/appropriate to do?

Great question. In addition to this issue (limiting admissions), I wonder if there are any other updates on the kinds of steps that grad programs are taking this fall in response to COVID. Are programs taking any of the steps that I proposed here, such as extending grad student funding for a year so that students can stay in their program instead of heading out onto what is almost certain to be a uniquely horrible job market? Are programs taking any of the steps that the APA's Graduate Student Council (GSC) advocated for here? It would be great to hear any updates.

Your university's COVID plan: what do you think?

There has been oddly little discussion in the philosophy blogosphere about universities' COVID-19 plans this year, including how students and faculty feel about them. I'm really curious to hear from readers on both issues. How is your university planning to handle COVID this fall? And what do you think of those plans? Because I'm not entirely sure how free I am to broadcast my own university's plans at this point (which I understand are still being finalized), I'll wait to share anonymously in the comments section below. I would also encourage others to share anonymously if they are are unsure how public their university's plans are at this point. What I am mostly interested in is what people currently know of their university's plans, and what different stakeholders (students, faculty, etc.) think of those plans. Any takers? 

Submitting to conferences (in the time of COVID) when you're unsure you'll attend?

In our June "how can we help you?" thread, G writes:

I'm curious about how people decide whether to submit to a conference during the time of COVID-19, especially conferences that are planned for in-person meetings. Take the APA meetings for example, esp. the Eastern and Central. I am almost certain that I will not want to travel to big cities like NYC or NOLA next year. But it would be great if (a big IF) I could get a chance to present a paper to others online. Is it okay if I submit to a conference when I know (or am almost certain) that I only want to participate remotely? (It will be bad if this becomes the norm. But was about during the time of COVID-19? I am curious about what others think.)

In response, skyped-out wrote:

I would recommend that you do not submit to a conference if you have no intention of going to it in person. Put casually, it is douchy. Put more professionally, I think it is unlikely you will gain much from the experience. Certainly, if I am at the conference and I have a choice between hearing a person speak, and hearing a recording or skype/zoom talk I would take the former. I spend far too much time on-line now. I do not want any more of it. And at one point I think it looks silly on cvs when people list talks at conferences which they did not REALLY go to. If this is the new reality, and all talks are like this, then, ... But it is not yet the new reality, and I do not want it to be.

I'm not entirely sure about this. I think skyped-out is definitely right for 'normal times' (pre-COVID). Normally, if you're pretty sure you won't be able to attend a conference if accepted, I think you shouldn't submit. But during the COVID pandemic? I mean, things are so uncertain and fluid right now that it is hard to know with any real degree of confidence what will and what will not be safe in 6 months time. I mean, it looks like it may not be safe to travel in January 2021 (when the Eastern is slated), and so G may feel pretty certain now that they would only want to present via Zoom--but who knows? Maybe there will be better treatments for COVID by then that will make travel less of a life-threatening risk. I think it's just hard to say.

So, in this environment, at any rate, I'm not sure there is anything obviously wrong with G's approach. However, one way of perhaps mitigating this issue is to simply ask the organizers prior to submitting, emailing them with something like, "I'd love to attend your conference if it's safe, but since I'm not sure it will be, can I submit anyway and is there any prospect of presenting remotely if I'm accepted and don't feel safe." This seems to me like an upstanding, forthright way to proceed. What do you all think? 

COVID grad school updates?

Early last month, I floated a tentative proposal for how grad programs might best serve their students during COVID, particularly given how bad the academic job-market is almost certainly going to be this fall. Are programs taking any such steps? For example, have announcements gone out to grad students letting them know they can stay in the program another year instead of defending their dissertation and going out on the market? Have students who are coming to the end of their promised funding (e.g. 5 years) been told they can get an extra year of funding? Are other steps being taken? Or is little being done? I'm very curious to hear what's going on, and if not much is being done, drawing attention to it.

Dossier tips for the COVID-era job-market?

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

How should job-market candidates next year deal with the effects of COVID-19 in their documents?

For example, I suspect teaching evaluations for this term will be all over the place: some will have remarkably good evals, I bet; but many will have terrible ones (the transition might have gone poorly, communication expectations weren't met, etc.) Should instructors issue some sort of caveat? (I mean, obviously everyone will know that COVID happened; but is it worth making this explicit?) Or should we omit these evals altogether?

A related issue concerns syllabi: I would typically put my syllabus in my dossier among the others for courses I've taught. But now I have this weird, ad-hoc syllabus-within-a-syllabus that attends to all the issues that have arisen from COVID-19, including adjusted expectations, new assignments, etc. I think this showcases important skills and highlights innovative approaches to teaching, etc. etc. But I am curious as to its relevance (in the eyes of search committees) going forward.

Any thoughts on these and other issues would be useful. (And yes, I'm aware the market will be a ghost town next year. But many of us are surely going to prepare for it all the same, so we might as well start thinking about some of these things now.)

Good questions, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. Here are a few of my own reactions.

Backup career paths in the COVID era?

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

It would be useful to talk more about the back-up career paths for mint philosophy PhDs. And how to switch to them. This is more necessary than ever since Covid19 will disrupt the already competitive academic job market. If people like me had some hope before the pandemic, now university cuts on jobs and post-docs lead us to face reality: fresh PhDs have passed from having little chances to zero chances — not only in Humanities. So, many would be grateful if even more space could be given to non-academic careers in either the US and Europe. At least, I see also the positive side-effect: the situation will push to think more about the prospectives philosophers have outside academia. Thank you in advance!

This is a really important query, for obvious reasons--as the academic job-market is almost certainly going to be a disaster this year (even more so than normal, sadly). Anyway, here are a few resources to begin with:

• The APA's Beyond Academia Network: mailing list for philosophers searching for non-academic opportunities.
• Phil Skills: a website of interviews with philosophers in non-academic careers.
• Helen's series of interviews with philosophers outside of the academy at The Philosophers' Magazine.
• Our own Alt-Ac Workshop and Alt-Ac Jobs series featuring tips and guest-posts.
• Free range philosophers: more interviews with philosophers with non-academic careers.
• A helpful 'Plan B' article with practical tips at Chronicle of Higher Education.
• Beyond the Professoriate: a website and membership service featuring free (?) career events as well as (paid?) job-search courses, coaching, and other resources (I just discovered this and have no idea whether it's any good).

Finally, because I was curious, yesterday I did simple Google searches for "philosophers in industry", "philosophers outside of academia", and "philosophers non-academic careers. Because (1) to my astonishment I wasn't able to find anything like a list or directory in 15 seconds (let alone after a little more digging), (2) as we've discussed before networking is how the vast majority of jobs are found and filled, and (3) ex-academic philosophers are probably the best people to appreciate the talents and job situation of philosophers, I just decided to create a Philosophers in Industry Directory of my own. As of now, I am taking suggestions for additions, updates, and deletions by email: [email protected]. I hope some of you find it helpful, especially those of you who need a job or will need one soon (e.g. post-graduation).

Basically, I just did a little bit of digging and decided to list people alphabetically by last name, linking to their professional pages and listing their line of work. Although I imagine an individual listed here or there might email me asking to have their name removed or whatever, given that all I've done is list publicly available information on LinkedIn, an informal directory like this seems to clearly fine to put together--especially given that it might drive viewers and talented new employees to their company. Who knows? Among other things, I think it's kinda cool to see in one place all of the interesting and diverse things ex-academic philosophers have gone on to do in their careers. And if the directory turns out to be more trouble than it's worth, then I can always take it down. Until then, enjoy - and feel free to suggest additions, etc.!

In any case, do any of you have any helpful tips or resources for the original commenter?

Clarity

How are you feeling? If you are like me, you've been in lockdown in your house for several weeks now. 

Likely, your experiences are unlike anything you've felt before. Because of the ubiquity of your experiences--weird as they are--they seem too banal to write down. Yet, it's important to do so. Keep a journal. We know a lot about the Great Plague because people like you and me chose to keep diaries, not letting the narrative be dominated by the few. Look back on what you have learned later. Hopefully there is a later. 

Initially, you might have tried to soldier on as you did before, synchronously teaching your classes through Zoom, and getting utterly exhausted in the process. You might have tried to remain a productive scholar, maybe even crank up your productivity, because that's what Newton did, apparently. Maybe you've started baking, knitting, doing your own home repairs, cutting your own hair. 

But now, as the weeks wax on, all that busyness cannot take away this growing feeling of clarity. This clarity is not merely an intellectual feeling. The ubiquitous sound of cars has all but died away. The air is crisp and clear. The birds have never sung more loudly than before. The streets are all but abandoned. 

There are lots of things presenting themselves to you that you have always known, but that you have never truly known. You always knew that departmental meetings are mostly not needed. Now you really know how many meetings we need (it seems more than a few a year, but fewer than weekly. We met weekly in the months leading up to the closure and all those meetings that seemed so important seem like they can often be handled through a vote by email).

On the other hand, there seems no perfect replacement for face to face teaching. Our incentive structures, for tenure, promotion, prestigious jobs do not value us being present for our students in the classroom. Our students need us. Being there for them in person is the best way to serve them. There is something about the physical proximity of student and teacher, the gesture, the eye contact, gauging their faces (did they get it?) that is hard to replace. 

You already knew things were hard for grad students and our contingent faculty, but we now feel it even more. A postdoc I spoke to recently has been receiving emails with heartfelt appeals from his employer with pleas to donate some of his spare earnings to the institution. One should not take it personally--they send this to all their employees, the cushy ones in tenured positions, but also those who will lose their jobs, their health insurance, this summer. What is the mission of our universities? Is it to empower the people through education? Or are they just machines for endowments and tuition fees? How do we turn things around? 

You might feel a sense of shame as you furtively navigate through the aisles of the supermarket, getting your supplies for the week when you see those underpaid workers, showing up day after day. You knew that they are unfairly treated. You've always known their wage does not reflect their true contribution in society. But now, you truly feel it. You know it. Don't try to repress the sense of shame as you go back to the safety of your home. We ought to feel this shame. 

You ready knew that racism is a societal ill that harms people. But now you see it ever more starkly. In Saint Louis, the city I live in the statistics are as follows (at the time of writing): all but three of the nineteen or so people who died of Covid-19 are black. In the UK, BAME (black and minority ethnic) people are disproportionately likely to be diagnosed with, and die of Covid-19. Again, the disparities in health between ethnic minorities and white people in the UK and the US are not news. But now, we witness it in a way we haven't before. In the NHS, the UK national health service, BAME doctors and nurses are bullied more, and face more medical scrutiny. And now, the first ten medical doctors to die of Covid-19 in the UK were BAME. 

You already knew that democratic governments are in crisis. Now, you really feel how they are letting us down. It turns out candidates high in entertainment value, lovable clowns or self-styled businessmen, aren't any help to us right now. The middle class has been largely shielded from the adverse effects of bad government. That's why you might have put up with them for so long. 

You already knew that companies such as Amazon and Facebook have little accountability as they control lots of aspects of our lives. But now, with your options limited, you really feel it. I left Facebook, but like others unhappy with Zuckerberg's policies, I'm back. A lot of social interaction takes place on social media and this is especially the case in a lockdown situation. I've had to use Zoom like most academics, and learned that Zoom was sending data to FB, even of users without profiles. Given how FB governs our social interactions and how Amazon is governing our buying patterns, should we not have more public control in how this all works? 

You already knew that governments have shamefully abdicated their responsibility. But now, with lives lost and no game plan, you really feel it. They bought into the individualism narrative, as Dewey already noted (1927), not acknowledging our interdependence and how our individual actions can harm others. Their laissez-faire attitude has left a power vacuum in its wake.  "Nature abhors a vacuum", Dewey points out, "When the public is as uncertain and obscure as it is to-day, and hence as remote from government, bosses with their political machines fill the void between government and the public." (1927, p. 120) We see it now with Amazon, whose response has been more nimble and swift than the dithering responses of most western democracies. 

Reflecting on the industrial revolution, Dewey remarks: "was a movement, which involved so much submerging of personal action in the overflowing consequences of remote and inaccessible collective actions, reflected in a philosophy of individualism?" (Dewey 1927, 98). The essential workers, our bus drivers, grocery workers, healthcare workers, are now having to choose between foregoing pay and ability to stay alive or to expose themselves to the virus. So much for individualism. 

The ineptitude of our leaders is on full display. I hope no hagiographies of Boris Johnson--and I wish the man well and am glad he recovered--will cover up the massive damage his cabinet did to the country, the thousands of preventable deaths. We can no longer ignore it. Sure, we will be gaslit into believing this didn't happen, as Gambuto says. Our minds will be massaged into ignoring the mass graves, the nurses in corridors mourning dead colleagues. But we should keep this clarity. Write it down. Remember it. 

Vanity of vanities: why the pandemic should perplex us, but not disempower us in our academic work

Right now, lots of academics are struggling with doing research. The Covid-19 pandemic has ushered in a host of adverse circumstances including fear, job uncertainty, job loss for some of us (especially on fixed-term contracts), a gloomy academic market outlook for grad students and others on the market, a makeshift move to online teaching, perhaps also having to homeschool our children.

But many of us are also coping with an overwhelming sense of futility. What's the point of our work now? As one (very prolific) academic recently wrote to me, "It's hard to take philosophy seriously right now though. It doesn't seem very useful."

I do think it's important to be reflective, not just in times of pandemic or other disaster, but just regularly, about whether our research is time well spent or whether we can put our energies elsewhere. Typically, discussions on the usefulness of philosophy lack nuance. A focus on immediate usefulness (as we see in discussions in the public sphere, or in demands of granting agencies) doesn't allow for the indirect value that lots of work provides later on. At the same time, the way journals operate continues to generate incentive structures for us to work on minutiae that are not of large societal interest and that, if we're being honest, we don't care deeply about either. 

Therefore, it is good that many of us become reflective of whether our research is useful. We should allow ourselves to be perplexed by this pandemic. Jane Addams (1902, Democracy and Social Ethics) shows the value of perplexity, both philosophically and meta-philosophically. Jane Addams (1860-1935) was an American social reformer and philosopher. She recounts how her social work with immigrant communities baffled her, and transformed her preconceptions. She could have gone on with business as usual. But instead, she allowed herself to be perplexed, and thereby gain new "sensibilities" that informed her work. 

The state of perplexity is characterized by Charlene Seigfried (2002) as follows: 

‘‘perplexity’’ refers to someone’s personal involvement in a situation that baffles and confuses her, because her usual understanding and responses are inadequate to explain or transform a troubling situation. She can either continue to hold on to her assumptions or begin to call them into question. But in order to resolve the problematic situation in fact and not subjectively, she must first undergo a painful process of rethinking her presuppositions and values. (xxv–xxvi)

When our usual understanding and responses seem inadequate, we can take time to let it sink in, to see how it challenges our philosophical assumptions.

Maybe our perplexity will lead us to change the research questions we want to pursue, or how we want to write, for what audiences, and how. Maybe you decide, that even though it seems futile in light of the magnitude of the pandemic and its wider effects, your research still matters. Ultimately, if your research is worthwhile, if it contributes some good, whether epistemic, practical, or is maybe even if it's just fun and playful, it is worthwhile doing it also now, maybe especially now. If your research contributes some good that is not pandemic related, it's worthwhile to keep doing it. If we value the long-term goals we pursue, ethical, aesthetic, epistemic and so on, if we value this world and want to help improve it, those goals remain worthwhile also now. 

Maybe, if you are like me and have done some public philosophy, you might wonder what you could contribute in writing about the pandemic. While there are lots of philosophers who can say useful things about it, who have the expertise and prior knowledge to do so, not all of us can or should be expected to do so. Indeed, epistemic humility is probably advisable given that we are dealing with rapid decision-making under huge uncertainty. 

COVID-19, grad school, and the academic job market: a tentative proposal

Last week, Daily Nous ran a thread on next year's presumably extra-brutal academic job-market. Unfortunately, as Jonathan Kramnick points out here, COVID-19's effects on the academic job market will likely extend beyond next year ("for all practical purposes, the academic job market next year and perhaps the year after will be non-existent"). The fact that the job-market is likely to be especially brutal over the next few years raises many important questions. I want to focus on two:

1. What should PhD programs do to cushion the blow on their students?
2. What should search committees do to cushion the blog on job candidates?

I want to tentatively float for discussion a particular proposal in answer to both questions. I want to be clear that I am not wedded to the proposal. What I do want to do is get a conversation started, as I think we owe it as a profession to people who will be getting their PhDs during this very difficult time to do what we can to help.

Okay, then, here's the tentative proposal:

1. I'm inclined to think that PhD programs should immediately extend grad student funding for at least two years so that students don't have to go out on the market (or, if they do, they will have something to fall back on).
2. To help 'fund' (1), I'm inclined to think that PhD programs should consider not admitting new students, or at least admit far fewer new students than normal, for at least a couple of years.
3. I think it may make sense for search committees to adopt a policy for several years--to be explicitly stated in their job ads--that candidates who received PhD during 2020 or 2021 will 'receive special consideration' (if only to remind the search committee that any 'gaps' on a person's CV, or their inability to find full-time teaching work, may be due in large part to the extenuating circumstances generated by COVID).

Although I suspect people may have concerns about various elements of the proposal (and I do hope we can discuss them, as well as potential alternatives!), let me explain why I think something like this proposal might be helpful.

Blogging in times of COVID-19

By Gottfried Schweiger (University of Salzburg)

At the moment most of us are sitting at home and are observers of events that are radically changing our lives and for which the outcome is open. The universities are closed and what remains for philosophers is online teaching, writing papers and books. As long as there are no childcare obligations that make all professional activities much more difficult and tedious, if not completely impossible, one might think that the COVID 19 pandemic does not change much for philosophers. Yes, there are no more conferences and jetting from one talk to another is no longer possible. Also the change to online teaching is challenging, but is possible in philosophy in principle, unlike laboratory-based teaching. My impression from my own experience and conversations with colleagues is that productivity is decreasing. On the one hand it is often not so quiet at home, on the other hand the overall situation is stressful, exhausting, even frightening for some. The COVID-19 isolation at home is not a nice writing retreat for most people. This can become a problem especially for early-career colleagues who depend on publications for job applications.

But since we are all thinking about the current situation and what is probably still to come, it is a chance for philosophy and especially for philosophical blogging. Many philosophical questions arise: Allocation of scarce resources, the weighing of different goods (health vs. economic losses), the legitimation of far-reaching state measures and surveillance. At least three debates are now needed: First, a public debate in which all sciences with their different expertise should participate. Secondly, internal debates within the discipline, including a debate in philosophy on the above questions. Thirdly, a debate on the role of philosophy in interdisciplinary and public debate and what role philosophy can play for the public right now. The COVID-19 pandemic has an existential dimension, which is also reflected in all kinds of practical advice on how to deal with it and reflections on the changes in our everyday lives. Questions about the meaning of life and one's own vulnerability now arise for many. This should also be a field for philosophy.

Teaching painful things in an unjust world

This is a guest post by Audrey Yap, Department of Philosophy, University of Victoria, on how, and whether to incorporate Covid-19 material in their classes. 

At this particular time, when many course instructors are transitioning, or preparing to transition, to different kinds of instruction amid a global pandemic, many of us will be struck by the relevance of much material with which we professionally engage. Many instructors are considering the extent to which they want to either include material relevant to COVID-19 in their classes, or acknowledge the extent to which the material they are already covering has implications for our thinking about the current situation. With respect to the former question, Sean Valles (Michigan State), who works on philosophy and public health, has written an extremely helpful Facebook post, and has a relevant interview on the Sci Phi podcast. But chances are that even those who are not explicitly including content on public health and pandemics might find that their philosophy of science, political philosophy, or value theory courses are occasionally hitting a bit too close to home.

But this situation is not all that new, particularly for many philosophers who work on conditions of oppression. Many such academics, including (but certainly not restricted to) feminist philosophers, philosophers of race, philosophers of disability, and philosophers working on decolonization, have already spent years talking to students about material that is both painful and directly connected to the circumstances of their lives. For example, when we teach material on gendered violence to our undergraduate classes, it is almost certain that we are speaking to an audience that contains victims of gendered violence, and perhaps some perpetrators of such violence as well.  In that spirit, this post intends to offer some considerations that have been helpful for me and some other feminist philosophers when we teach potentially painful material. Since gendered violence is one of my research areas, I thought I would share some things that I try to keep in mind when I discuss it in the classroom.

What's happening to spring/summer 2020 conferences?

I realize lots of things are uncertain now, but I am curious about what is happening to conferences you would normally be speaking at, or that you are (co)organizing that were scheduled for the spring of 2020. I am co-organizing a conference at Saint Louis University for June 22-23 2020 that is going ahead. We will do it as an e-conference. This is not only because it is an externally funded project on a grant that cannot be extended (I asked the funder), but also because we are curious about how feasible it is to do this as an e-conference. 

Still, I was supposed to be a paper respondent in one conference which is now deferred to a later unspecified time, and I'm also speaking at a conference that is being moved to next spring (2021). There is one other conference where the organizers have let us know they are closely monitoring the situation, but it seems unrealistic to me that the conference will go as planned (it takes place in the UK). 

This makes me wonder what is happening to philosophy conferences. What are people doing in response to the impossibility of a conventional conference format in spring 2020? Cancellation, deferral, how many will become e-conferences? 

Online academic mental health support groups?

A reader just asked:

Do you know of any online academic (maybe only for philosophers, maybe not) mental health support groups for those of us that either don't have family in the area or are otherwise low in social contact? If there isn't a group like this, I'd be interested in starting one, provided some interest.

Anyone have any tips or thoughts on this? If you feel like remaining anonymous, feel free to email me details at [email protected] I can either pass the details along here or encourage people (such as the above reader) to contact me privately to relay the details. Thanks!

Coping with COVID-19

Given how challenging the coming days are likely to be for all of us, both personally and professionally, the Cocoon has tentative plans for a new series, Coping with COVID-19. The aim of this new series will be very simple: to support each other through this. Are there particular things you are struggling with personally or professionally as a result of this crisis that you could use help with? Alternatively, are there ways of coping with things that you've found helpful that you'd like to share with readers?

If you would like to contribute a post to the series (including anonymously, if that is what you feel comfortable with), please email either me ([email protected]), Helen ([email protected]), or Ian ([email protected]). Feel free to contribute on anything you like within the Cocoon's mission, including but not limited to things like teaching, grappling with illness (viz. you, your loved ones, etc.), parenting through the crisis, grappling with social isolation, and so on.

Again, our hope is that this series will respond to your needs and enable us all to do what we can here to help each other in these difficult times. However bad things are and might become, we trust that we can still do good for one another as a community.