The Philosophers' Cocoon

Tips for choosing a dissertation supervisor?

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

Would be very curious to hear about strategic choices grad students must make when it comes time to form a committee. If i know “famous” professor X would serve as chair on my committee and also for someone in my cohort, and that person is held in better regard than I am, should I avoid having professor X as my committee chair? Is this way of thinking about things misguided? Do faculty compare students? Need one’s chair be the most “famous” person on the committee to be competitive for the best jobs?

Interesting questions, and a good issue more generally. My experience is that the choice of dissertation supervisor can be crucial. Some supervisors are good mentors who graduate and place a lot of students in good jobs. Others can be brutal to work with and rarely graduate anyone, let alone place graduates in good jobs. Indeed, I've heard all kinds of horror stories, ranging from supervisors who take 6 months to provide any feedback on chapter drafts to perfectionists who won't agree to hold a defense until the dissertation meets impossibly high standards. By my lights, these are probably the most important things to know: does the supervisor graduate students within reasonable time-frames and place them in jobs? Are they supportive and helpful or neglectful and impossible to work with?

While I have heard that faculty do compare students--including in recommendation letters--I'm not sure how huge of a concern this should be. For again, the best supervisors I've seen are ones that graduate a lot of students and regularly place them into good jobs. Whatever 'ranking' of students is going on, it doesn't seem to hurt their students' job prospects! Finally, in terms of whether you need the most 'famous' person to head you committee, I think that probably depends a great deal on what your job-market aspirations are. If you're in a top-ranked PhD program and out for an R1 job, then yeah, I think it probably makes sense to have high-powered people on your committee. But if this is not the case--if you're a better fit for a job at a teaching-focused institution--then I suspect it doesn't matter all that much (though you might want that person on your committee anyway so that you learn the most as a philosopher and write the best dissertation you can!).

But these are just my off-hand thoughts, and I'm perhaps not the most in the know here. Anyone with experience in these areas care to weigh in?

Co-advisors for a dissertation?

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

I am a grad student and a faculty member suggested to me that I may want or need co-advisors for my dissertation given my department's faculty and the two intersecting areas I want to work in. I can imagine that this has both pros and cons. Can anyone offer any advice about this? Has anyone had co-advisors? If so, how did it go?

Interesting questions. I've never heard of co-advisors for dissertations before. One obvious potential benefit here is that you would have two people who are highly invested in the dissertation. However, the obvious potential con is that they may want fundamentally different things out of it. I didn't have co-advisors, but something like this happened to me. When I was doing my dissertation, my advisor thought that I should make the theory broader than just Rawlsian nonideal theory. However, one of my other committee members thought the dissertation should focus primarily on Rawls. Yet, precisely because the latter wasn't my supervisor, they deferred to my supervisor. What would have happened if they were both co-advisors? I can imagine it would have been a stickier situation. And I could imagine it could be an especially sticky situation if the co-advisors are in quite different areas. Here, I imagine it is important to think about the personalities of the potential co-advisors, and how well they might 'work together', as it were, in supervising a dissertation in common. Then again, this is really just me speculating. Anyone with any experience here able to weigh in?

PhD programs closing applications due to COVID?

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

University of Chicago recently announced (after announcing their 2021 admissions deadline) that they will not be accepting any new PhD students next year. I have also heard that some departments won't know until September if they will have the funding to accept new students.

Does anyone think this situation will remain an outlier, or come September are we likely to see several programs closing their applications for this year? If not, how many fewer spots do you think will be available for those who do accept new students? Should students applying for their PhD right out of undergrad be looking especially hard at funded MA programs right now?

I realize that some people may be hamstrung in terms of what they can say openly, but it would be great to get some idea of how many philosophy PhD programs are planning to do this. Anyone with inside information willing to weigh in? If you're concerned about open stating what your program is, you can always write a anonymized comment like "My program is planning to not accept PhD applications this year" and comment under your school email address (which is not published) so that I can tell which comments are duplicate entries and only approve one such comment per program. In any case, I think it's probably always a good idea to apply to funded MA programs, which can be great stepping stones to better PhD programs.

Becoming a book reviewer (and should grad students do it?)

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

How does one get to or is asked to do book reviews for top or decent journals? Related question, how do you know when your paper is good enough to be sent to a journal? I'm currently a PhD student.

We've already covered the related question here recently. Particularly if you are a grad student, the safest way to determine whether a paper is publishable is to send it to some faculty mentors and see if they think so! As you progress through your career, you may come to trust your own judgment--but in general, it's still good to send your work to other people (including conferences) to see how others receive it.

In any case, I'd like to consider the question about becoming a book reviewer. Here, another reader gave the following advice, which seems right to me:

I recommend that you contact the journal editor or the journal book review editor. They may ask for a c.v. and information that might indicate that you would be qualified to write a book review for a scholarly journal.

However, I'm curious: do readers think graduate students should even try to review books? Here's why I ask: when I was in graduate school, I knew some students who seemed to think that book reviews were a good use of their time. But, at the time and especially in retrospect, it doesn't seem that way to me. Some of the students I knew who did this only published book reviews, and never got around to actually publishing any articles--and they seemed to think that book reviews would look good on their CV. But this is not the case, right? The chance that a book review is going to help you get a job post-PhD, it seems to me, approximately zero. This isn't to say that book reviews are worth doing. I think they are, and have reviewed a number of books myself. I'm just not sure that it's a good idea for grad students to do them.

What do you all think?

Directed reading courses & alternatives?

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

I am a graduate student interested in pursuing directed reading courses with faculty. I'm hoping to so because my department doesn't have people working in my areas of interest and I want to continue to train up before reapplying to PhD programs....

Taking for granted that these considerations might be different from department to department, I wonder how graduate students should conceive of directed reading courses, if anyone has suggestions for how to approach possible faculty supervisors, and other considerations related to these courses that students may not be aware of from the faculty perspective. E.g. should graduate students prepare a proposed syllabus before approaching a possible faculty supervisor? Would it be too much to ask people from other institutions to supervise such things?

Secondary to this, I wonder how these courses are considered by those reviewing the transcripts of PhD applicants--though this might not get much uptake here.

As two readers replied, asking people from other institutions to supervise a directed reading course is pretty much out of the question. They will receive no compensation for it, and asking people to do unpaid work is likely to come across as a bizarre ask. The way I see it, there's a much better alternative available, albeit one that takes some real initiative: organizing a self-directed reading group of your own. There is a long history of scholars doing this. To take just one case, Einstein famously organized the 'Olympia Academy' with a group of friends while working in the Swiss patent office. They were simply an informal reading group that read and discussed Hume, Mill, Spinoza, physics, philosophy of science, etc. In today's internet age, figuring out stuff to read in a new area is not very difficult. All you need to do, to begin, is check out resources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the entries of which standardly involve bibliographies that can serve as obvious reading lists. The trick, of course, is to get some other people--particularly, others with some philosophical skills and training--to do the reading group with you. Yet, if you're currently in a grad program (as the OP mentions), then this shouldn't be prohibitively difficult to do. Surely, there have to be a least a few other grads in the program who might have an interest in it. And who knows: maybe a faculty member or two might be interested in it too!

There are other possible ways to solicit interest in reading groups, particularly now that we are socially distanced: namely, online networking. On that note, let me offer just such a way right now: the comments section below! Is anyone out there interested in setting up a self-directed reading group online? If so, just post below the subject-matter you're interested in along with your name and contact information. Who knows? If there are enough of you out there willing to share your interests and information, maybe there will be enough overlap between some of you to get a few groups started.

Getting a 2nd PhD to stay in philosophy?

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

I have a PhD in philosophy but haven't been able to get a TT job despite a few years on the market. I still want to be a professional philosopher.

My publication record is good enough for tenure at nearly any R1. But I came from a Leiter low-ranked school, and multiple search committee members have told me that this makes me unhireable.

Is it possible to get a second philosophy PhD, from a school like NYU or Princeton, to check the 'pedigree' and 'fancy advisor' boxes?

One reader responded as follows:

[N]o, that is not possible—no high-ranking program would accept someone who already had a PhD . Do you really have a tenure at an R1 profile? Like multiple articles a year + a book with a top-notch press, something like that? I do not think that what you propose is wise, even if it were possible. I would invest in conferencing (I know, Covid, but for the time being, online conferences)—if you become well-known in your sub discipline, you can get letters etc, to overcome the lack of “clout” of your home institution. it’s always a gamble, though. I know very smart accomplished people from high-ranked programs who have been shut out—no interviews, year after year. It sucks—you always think someone else has the golden ticket, truth is, there is no golden ticket.

While I think this reader is almost certainly right that a second philosophy PhD is out of the question, there's another fairly obvious possibility that I'm curious about readers' thoughts to: seeking a second PhD in another discipline. For example, suppose you work in moral or political philosophy. Although some philosophers (e.g. Scanlon) think empirical work is irrelevant to normative philosophical matters, there are those of who who deeply disagree--people who think that things like empirical psychology and political science are vital to draw on in moral and political theorizing. So, if moral or political is your philosophical focus and you really want to stay in academia, why not consider pursuing a second PhD in one of these areas? Doing so could not open up other job-markets to you (e.g. academic and industry jobs in psych and poli-sci), but also give you time to keep publishing in philosophy. Similarly, if the person works in logic, epistemology, or philosophy of science, there are all kinds of science-y PhDs they might pursue. 

If, as this reader claims, they really do have an R1-tenure-worthy publication record, then I have to imagine that someone in philosophy would eventually hire them if they stay on the market, particularly if they keep publishing at a good clip. Given how terrible the market is, it's all to easy to have an extended 'string of bad luck' (I spent 7 years on the market myself!). So, again, why not pursue a 2nd PhD in another field? Doing so, again, could enable this person to stay on the philosophy job-market while preparing them for additional job-markets. It would, of course, mean another 5-7+ years in a philosophy grad program. However, if they really don't want to leave academia, this seems to me a better option than, say, long-term adjunct work.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Navigating grad program politics when leaving?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, a grad student writes:

I am a second year PhD student at an unranked program here in the US. Lately I've felt really disenchanted with the current state of the academic job market and I am considering transitioning to either high school teaching or applying to law school.

In short, my question is how should one go about planning a transition from a PhD program? For instance, when should I tell my DGS? My advisors? And is it wrong to essentially hang around for a few years for the income/health insurance until I have something figured out (or can get my LSAT above a 175)? I love teaching and doing research so I don't hate the work, but I have come to the conclusion it's not worth staying if there's no job waiting for me.

Appreciate any advice on how to navigate the department politics of leaving programs.

These are great questions. I don't have any experience here, so unfortunately I don't think I have any good advice to offer. But I suspect there are at least some readers out there with experience, either as grad students who have left their program or as faculty who have seen grad students leave their program. Anyone have any helpful tips and/or answers to the OP's specific questions?

Advice for people who start graduate school in the midst of a pandemic

(This is a talk I am giving to the incoming graduate students at my department).

Welcome, incoming graduate students; I am so pleased you are joining us. I'm excited to see what lies ahead for you. I'm your placement director, and was asked to give a brief talk to you via Zoom, as we are still in the midst of a pandemic. 

If I had spoken to you last year, I would've talked in detail about my journey into philosophy. Everyone's experience is different, but it's often helpful to hear from a diversity of experiences, particularly if they are from people who don't fit the archetype of a philosopher, for example, someone who is (like me) from a working-class immigrant background, who is not a white man, whose philosophical interests are unconventional, etc. 

My trajectory to become a philosophy professor was unusual. When I started my second postdoc in 2013 I wondered if I would ever be able to land a tenure-track job. I turned to various mentors, informal ones and even a job market consultant, to try to learn the secret to job market success in academia. I then discovered there are many donts. Don't co-author in philosophy, certainly not with your partner if you are a woman. Don't publish in non-philosophy journals. Don't blog or do public philosophy, that is for senior people with the security of tenure. There were also many dos. Always have at least three papers under review (I did that! Now I think, wow that's exhausting!). Write the sort of paper you see appear in Mind or Philosophical Review. Hang out with important people. 

I've since learned you can't just distill success in grad school and on the job market into some formula. I know lots of people who fit all the dos and dont, and who have at the time they finish the PhD job CVs that would suffice for tenure at a research-intensive school. Yet they do not receive any offers for tenure track jobs. And I also know people who flouted the rules and did well.

So, my advice back in 2019 would have been this, and I think this advice still applies. It's important to cultivate good habits that help you be productive and to get your work out there (see here for an excellent list of tips by Liz Jackson). But also, you must do so in such a way that you can grow authentically into the person that you want to be. 

Bringing up the authentic self in the context of job market advice may seem strange, because the advice of job market consultants, advisers and many placement directors seems to be that you should not be yourself. Rather, they argue you should become a narrowly specialized candidate who is well networked and who writes papers that appear in top journals. They think you should fit your professional persona to the demands of the job market.

However, people with long-term high job satisfaction as academics tend to be people who are able to live and work authentically, to do the work they love and value, and teach and do service in line with their values. Obviously, there is a lot of work that you might not love as a professor. Examples may include grading, committees, admin (in the UK), or teaching that intro course for the nth time. Still, it strikes me that professors who are enduringly happy are people who have somehow merged their professional persona with their values, and who are doing things they delight in.

What does this mean concretely? In research, it means that you should do work that excites you. Writing a dissertation is difficult and a lot of job market failure lies in people who do not complete their PhD. You are in it for the long haul, you will be with us for at least five years, and you need enough love for the topic to be able to complete it. You must not lose your love for reading or other things you valued. Don't be tempted into the trap of "I will focus everything on being an academic and will make time for the rest of my life once I have tenure". That is counterproductive and unsustainable.

We are now in the midst of a pandemic. Among its many ramifications is a likely deep economic crisis, the extent of which we don't yet know as we're still grappling with the virus. The effects will likely be bigger and longer-lasting than the 2008 financial crisis. The philosophy job market never recovered to pre-2008 levels after the previous crash, as can be seen in this figure from IHE. We are not even countenancing the beginning of an economic recovery yet from this pandemic (after all, it isn't over), and what shape that recovery will take is hard to predict. In the light of this crisis mode that higher education undeniably is in, my advice needs to be adapted.

Advice on preparing for/taking comp exams?

A reader writes in:

I'd appreciate some advice on comprehensive exams. This fall, I have to do an exam in my proposed area of study, metaphysics. The exam involves a take home portion (answer a number of questions in essay form) and an oral portion on what I've written and the other literature chosen for the exam. I'm nervous about the oral portion of the exam because I've never had to do one before. And there is quite a lot of material that I will be questioned on. It's easy enough to study material and write a paper on it over a longer period of time. But to master the material, retain it, and then respond to questions that I won't have prior knowledge of seems terrifying. Any tips or advice would be much appreciated!

It's been a very long time since I took comp exams, so I'm probably not a very good person to provide advice here. However, I expect that plenty of our readers have recent (or even current) experience preparing for or taking comp exams. So please, if you have any tips or advice, share away!

When should one start trying to publish?

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

[I]s it ever too early to be trying to publish? if so, what are the downsides of trying to publish too early?

[M]ore specifically, I'm an incoming first year phd student at a top program and I have a couple of articles drafted that I want to try to get out into the world. [I]f I were still in undergrad, I'd have a trusted advisor read them and advise me, but I'm not. I don't have any relationship with people at my soon to be grad school yet, and because of the pandemic, I don't want to assume that I'll be interacting much with potential advisors this fall, or sending them independent work to read. [T]he way I see it, there wouldn't be much harm in sending off my articles to good journals and hopefully getting some helpful comments from reviewers (or, unlikely but very best case, actually getting published!) since reviews are anonymous, right? Or am I missing something?

Good questions! One reader chimed in with a negative answer:

Yes it is too early. Undergraduates should not bother publishing, unless you were told you were the next Saul Kripke. And you should not send undergrad papers to journals to get feedback. It is not that kind of service. Referees referee for free, and they do so on the understanding that a colleague - an equal - is sending in a manuscript that they have some reason to believe is a contribution to the professional literature. You are missing something.

I also think it is too early. There are two fairly obvious downsides for this reader attempting to publish their papers right now: (1) the papers might not be all that good, and (2) if they were to publish stuff that's not all that good, it could affect their long term prospects as well as their reputation among faculty in their grad program. The only potential downside to not publishing right now is that someone else will publish papers defending similar arguments before they do (which, to be clear, could be a serious downside!). Fortunately, there seems to me to be a fairly obvious solution here. Let me explain.

Apply to Phd programs this year or next?

A reader writes in:

I am an MA student in philosophy considering whether to apply for PhD programs this cycle...I have my PhD applications more or less ready to go, but I also have the opportunity to take a year off and do something else. (My advisor has told me that this particular something will look good on my CV given my area of interest, but I also don't get the sense that I would need to do this thing first in order to be competitive.)

I plan to go for the PhD basically no matter what happens in the world. What I'm unsure of is whether it makes more sense for me to apply this cycle or next cycle. I can see things going either of two ways: (1) things are really bad this cycle but it all basically bounces back by next year, or (2) things are bad this cycle but just continue to get worse for several years afterwards. If (1) holds, then I'm better off waiting a year. If (2) holds, I'm better off trying to get in now before things worsen even more. The problem is that I'm not really in any position to have an informed guess about which outcome is more likely. Are there others who are in a better epistemic position here, if only slightly? Should I apply this fall or wait a year?

This is an interesting query. Given how competitive grad admissions are, to me there's an obvious answer that gets the best of both worlds, as it were. Apply this year and see how you do. If you get into your dream program (which is really tough to do), then feel free to accept. If not, well there's always next year! However, let me offer a few more thoughts before opening things for discussion.

Going into debt for an excellent MA program?

A reader writes in:

When applying to graduate programs, the typical sentiment is that it is unwise to go into debt for a graduate degree because, due to lost wages from not working/not advancing a career for 5-6 years, one comes out of a program 'doubly in the hole', so to speak. Since even a funded program has real world costs in lost wages, these costs should not be compounded by paying large tuition amounts, especially in pursuit of a tenuous job market that is likely to leave one jobless in the end.

But, for someone who wants to go into academia in the humanities or social sciences where jobs are so scarce, is this really wise? Say someone could get into a masters program at a top school, perhaps one in the UK or the US, which isn't funded but is regarded extremely highly in one's field, isn't it worthwhile to take on debt for a program like this because it secures a significantly higher likelihood of actual job prospects? Isn't that a better move than taking a funded offer from a decent but not outstanding school, and then very likely not getting a job after? It seems to me that one can take on the explicit debt of a student loan, or the implicit debt of a funded program with unreliable job prospects. The former gives a much better chance at paying back losses, but the latter?

Would love to hear from someone who has tried this route with success. Sometimes it feels like the only people who offer this advice (never pay to do graduate research) are professors who got their degrees 15+ years ago when the job market was less abysmal, and people who went into a mid-level funded program and couldn't find work after. I wonder if there is also a group of those who paid for opportunities (MA programs, visiting student programs) at top universities and managed, through resume additions and/or networking connections, to get themselves into PhD programs with better placement records, who are now employed and paying off their debt, and who we don't hear from.

I will be applying to both philosophy programs and political theory programs, and this question might very well pertain more to political theory. Philosophy appears to have done a better job at releasing its grip on prestige when evaluating applicants, and the MA-prep programs are more prevalent in political theory or history-type programs, but, nonetheless -- having done a post-bacc in language study, for instance, seems to increase chances for those looking to study Ancient Phil in the Ivy League. Doing a program in political thought at Cambridge of UCL in the UK is attractive departments with a focus on political phil. Chicago Phil directs its not-quite-there applicants to its MAPSS program in the humanities (students who have done great books MAs at places like St. John's College, or Bard College in Berlin are well represented at Chicago). All of these are expensive and unfunded, and surely there are some students who were not independently wealthy and who did not get into these programs on scholarship.

I'm really glad someone posed this query, as I think it is very important for prospective grad students to get clear on the issues here. Although I'll be curious to hear what others think, here's my answer: I think what this reader describes is a catastrophically bad idea. Let me explain why.

Statement of purpose tips?

In yesterday's thread soliciting tips from philosophy grad program admissions committee members, one committee member wrote:

[S]ome [applicants] have (this one I should stress) an unprofessional, weird, or otherwise poorly written statement of purpose. It might, actually, be a good idea to have an independent thread on writing a good statement of purpose. I've seen so many bad ones, and I think a lot of people get very bad advice on this. Some pitfalls: oversharing (for no particular reason); saying how ever since you were a kid you've been asking questions or some other very generic origin story; poorly written or ungrammatical; extremely conversational. Some mention retired faculty or faculty who are not at all research active. This is more understandable, but you should generally do your research, because if you say "I want to work with X" and X is retired or not the kind of faculty member who should be working with graduate students, your statement is not very compelling. My preference is that if you don't know the someone's work at all, don't mention them. You might look through our roster and notice a strength in a certain area—just mention that strength rather than saying you want to work with specific people. Like "Your department has strengths in X and Y, this is attractive to me because ... I am particularly intrigued at the prospect of working with Professor A. Her work in area X has had a strong influence on my own studies and trajectory ..." etc. If you say "I'm interested in working with professors A, B, and C" when B is retired and C hasn't published in 20 years, it's pretty clear you just read through our faculty website and listed everyone with an AOS in your area.

I think a thread on this is a great idea. Although, again, I haven't served on a grad admissions committee myself, I've read some statements of purpose for students I've written recommendations for (both inside and outside of philosophy) and I agree: most of the ones I've read seem to me to strike the wrong tone (too conversational, too autobiographical, etc.), and don't seem to 'get' what a good statement of purpose should do. Consequently, I think it would be great to hear more answers to the following two questions:

1. What should a strong statement of purpose for a philosophy grad program do?
2. What should a strong statement of purpose not do, and why?

Tips from grad admissions committees?

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

For those of us who will be applying for PhDs this year- does anyone have experience being on an admissions committee? If so, how do you whittle your initial pile of applications down to a short-list where you actually read the samples and review the apps in depth?

What are you looking at? GPA? Undergrad reputation? SOPs? What is your advice for making it past that first cut?

Great questions! I actually have a couple of excellent students who are planning to apply to PhD programs this year, so I'd love to hear some tips here myself. Anyone with experience willing to weigh in?

Dissertation proposal advice?

In the comments sections of Liz Jackson's post on tips for success in graduate school, a current PhD student asked for a thread on dissertation proposal advice. I think this is a great idea. Coming up with a viable dissertation proposal was without a doubt the most difficult part of graduate school for me--and my sense is that something similar is true of a lot of grad students. I actually had to come up with two proposals, as my dissertation committee rejected my first one. I think the tale of my proposals may be helpful to share, as I pursued two very different strategies each time: one that worked well, and one that (obviously) didn't. Allow me to quickly share the story, and then open things up for discussion.

I've always had a tendency to work alone (indeed, it's a relatively bad habit I struggle with to this very day). As I explained a few years ago, believe it or now I'm an extremely shy and introverted person. In graduate school, this meant that once I finished coursework and comprehensive examinations, I initially tried to come up with a viable dissertation proposal all on my lonesome. I retreated into reading books and journal articles, and aside from department colloquia and some social events, mostly worked in an isolated fashion. It did not go well. First, I bounced from idea to idea. At one point, I started developing a proposal defending internalism about moral motivation. Then I got a bit stuck on that, and got enthralled by some stuff on voting and opinion polls (which I returned to many years later in this book chapter).  Anyway, I spun my wheels on these two topics for about a year-and-a-half, after which point I drafted up a proposal and three chapter drafts on one of the topics. Mind you, this whole time, no one had seen any of my work. I hadn't shared it with my dissertation supervisor, nor had I shared it with any other faculty or fellow grad students.

Now, I know what you're thinking: bad move, right? Yes, it very much was. However, like many grad students (in my experience, anyway), I lacked self-confidence, and as a shy and introverted person I was basically 'scared to put myself out there.' So that's what I did--and I've seen other grad students do similar things. Of course, at some point I had to show other people my work, so after drafting up the proposal and three chapters I sent them to my committee and arranged a proposal defense. It did not go well. The night before my scheduled defense, my dissertation supervisor called me and said the committee had rejected my proposal and there would be no defense. Suffice it to say, there were a few tears after that phone call. The next day (I believe), I walked into my supervisor's office (and then the office of another faculty member) and asked for help. Much to my surprise, they both expressed confidence in me despite my failure, and gave me some advice. My supervisor invited me to join a dissertation reading group he was in the process of putting together. I started attending, and even though at the time I had nothing viable, it was incredibly useful to see what kinds of things other grads were working on. It helped me to see what a viable proposal might look like! The other faculty member encouraged me to read widely, far outside the topics I had been previously exploring. This too was incredibly helpful. Indeed, it quickly led me to my eventual dissertation topic! Let me explain.

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.

12 Tips for Success in Philosophy Graduate School, guest post by Liz Jackson

Guest post by Liz Jackson, Ryerson University, reprinted from her personal website. 

I graduated from Notre Dame in 5 years. I finished my dissertation in my 4th year, and had 4/5 dissertation chapters published by the time I defended (Nov. of my 5th year). My 5th year, my first year on the market, I got both a research post doc and a tenure track job (a 2-2 load with an MA program). Here’s some tips for how I did it.

1. Write regularly, on a schedule that works for you.

• Some people advise to “write every day” or even “write two hours / 500 words every day.” However, better advice is to write *regularly*. On days when writing is going well, write as much as you can. On days when it is going poorly, switch over to reading, email, class prep, or some other task. Or just take the day off (see #10).
• Note that writing regularly may look different in various stages of your life. Sometimes, you might write 9-11am every day. Sometimes, you might write for 1 or 2 bigger blocks every week. Sometimes, if you find yourself super motivated or with a lot of free time, you might write a whole paper in a short period of time. Be flexible based on the season of life you’re in. But also realize that getting into the habit of writing regularly will do wonders for your productivity.

2. Fight the urge to procrastinate.

• Grad school comes with a lot of freedom. No one requires you to work 9-5, you’re normally not under regular, tight deadlines, and you can mostly set your own schedule. Because of this, it is easy to put things off to the last minute. I highly, highly recommend resisting this urge to procrastinate. (I think this is the #1 reason I was successful in grad school). My first semester of grad school (before I took this lesson to heart) I saved all my seminar papers to the last few weeks of the semester, and then I was forced to write 3-4 papers in less than a month. Don’t do this to yourself. Instead, set regular, small, measurable goals. Now, I normally set weekly goals, then break those into smaller daily goals, such as “read article X” or “polish section 2 of paper Y” or “add a paragraph responding to objection Z.”
• Utilize accountability groups and writing groups. These can help a lot with resisting procrastination, force you to wake up at a decent hour, and are also great for advice and social support.
• Be a chipper, not a binger. Meet your goals in small steps that you chip away at regularly, rather than doing an entire project all at once, especially right before a deadline. A caveat: I personally think it’s fine to, e.g. spend an entire day writing then not write the rest of the week, as long as you are not doing this right before a deadline. If you like to work in big chunks, no problem, but don’t save everything until right before it is due.

3. Utilize productivity tools.

• Pomotodo and Todoist (both free apps) have been life changing for me. Pomotodo breaks up your work in 25 min chunks, and then you get a 5 min break to check texts/social media/email. (I also recommend using an app that blocks social media/other tempting websites if you struggle with this). Todoist helps you keep track of your to-do list in “project” categories, and comes with a handy calendar. So, if a cool conference comes up on Phil events but it isn’t due for 6 months, add it to your Todoist app and you’ll see the CFP about a week before. It’s also a great way to set daily goals. 
• There are a lot of other tools out there as well; experiment and find ones that work foryou, even if it’s a physical calendar/planner.

Stay in grad school or go on the market?

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

All things considered, is it better for your future academic job prospects to delay graduating and stay in graduate school or to graduate with a PhD in these Covid times? I have heard people in the profession talk about how extended "length of time to get your degree" can count against someone on the market. Alternatively, I have heard people talk about how having a "stale" PhD (i.e. your chances of getting a TT job decrease every year that you are on the market after you earned your PhD) can also count against you on the market (aka the "staying fresh" rule). I currently have completed my dissertation and am one of the older graduate students at my university (between 5-9 years in the program). I am not sure if it is better for my future academic employment to defend and graduate sooner rather than later. Everyone thinks that the job market in the Fall will be terrible. Some think that hiring committees in the future will be more understanding about getting your PhD in a post-Covid era, but I am not sure how sympathetic they will actually be. Any advice or insights are most welcome!

From my perspective, the answer here is clear: generally speaking (and within reason), it is far worse to come out of grad school too early and run the risk of 'going stale' than it is to stay in graduate school and look like you have a 'long time to completion'. Allow me to explain.

Can good publications offset grad program rank?

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

On the topic of "tippy top" schools, how much can good publications offset coming from a lower ranked school on the job market? I'm set to defend in the fall and my department isn't particularly notable. I have however been fortunate enough to get two publications in top tier journals. Should I keep aiming to publish at high ranked journals or I am better off submitting to mid-level journals where I may be more likely to accumulate publications?

I'd be very curious to hear what readers think, particularly those who have been involved in hiring. For my part, I have to sadly confess--as I have before--that I am skeptical that publishing in the highest ranked journals is a very good job-market strategy for candidates coming out of lower-ranked programs. Allow me to explain why.

Publishing advice for grad students?

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

My department discourages students from professionalizing too early--but they are vague on when professionalization should start ramping up. They actively discourage us from publishing (and they encourage us to get the dissertation finished first). (I think they're trying to counter people who get distracted by publishing and then let the dissertation collect dust.) So, is this normal? What IS the best publishing advice for a graduate student, when should we start publishing?

'Current grad & incoming prof' then responded:

Particularly if research is your goal, you should start publishing as soon as possible. Once you have a couple chapters, the dissertation can be hastily wrapped up at any point you get a job; but publications are what help you to get the job in the first place. Jason Brennan gives the good advice of always having 3 things under review (which I haven't ever been able to maintain, but may be a good motivator). The dissertation should always be thought of in terms of material for potential future publications, never as an obstacle to publication. Or at least this is how I went about things and what helped me.

The original reader then responded:

This is one of those things that becomes SO OBVIOUS once somebody points it out, thank you! It's going in my "tips and tricks" file :) It fits with thinking of research projects along a pipeline: try to move different projects along so that there's always three at the review point in the research pipeline.

Although I think Brennan's advice here is fairly good, I also think there are other nuances to be aware of here. Let me explain.

Having an advisor who is a non-specialist?

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

Not sure if you've covered this already. What are your thoughts on a PhD student having a supervisor who is competent and knowledgeable but not really established in the student's area of interest? For example, student x is working in contemporary metaphysics, and x's supervisor works mostly in ancient but has also done some work in contemporary metaphysics. Also, suppose that the student is not at a tippy top school. Bad idea? Makes no difference?

Another reader then responded:

Don't do it. It is vital that your advisor be an expert in your area. Why? Because she is supposed to, first, help you get to the front of the research frontier in a way only an active research can. Second, when it comes to a letter of support, someone working in Ancient, saying that a dissertation or student work in contemporary metaphysics is really important and cutting edge, counts for very little. Think of it comparatively. There are bound to be, for every job you apply for, at least 3 others who have a similar background and set of accomplishments as you who ALSO have a letter from a supervisor who actually works in the area. What is a search committee supposed to do.

I do not know how far down you are from the tippy top, but there are prejudices against lower ranked schools. I worked at an okay 4 year state college, and my colleagues showed a real disdain for applicants from such places. And a few of these were really quite unaccomplished colleagues. Personally, I just looked at the accomplishments, and the work.

While I understand where this latter reader is coming from, I nevertheless think their advice may be too simplistic. Allow me to explain.

Recovering from grad school mistakes?

In the course of a spirited and important discussion responding to some professionalization tips (and yes, grievances) a new tenure-track faculty member shared, a reader shared the following story:

Re: disappearing from your committee

I was guilty of this when I was a grad student in a Leiterrific philosophy department. There were about a year and half at the beginning of my dissertation that I felt like I was adrift and I became very depressed. My advisors were not giving me very constructive feedback ... and I felt like I didn't know what I was doing. I felt like I couldn't talk to my committee unless I have completely "figured things out" so as not to come across stupid - I knew I depended on their positive opinion for my career, which further paralyzed me. When my advisor finally reached out to me to stage some kind of "intervention," I tried to explain the depression and how I had recently joined the dissertation support group run by the university counseling center. What I was told by my advisor that (a) if I couldn't take the pressure and produce writing consistently, then I was not cut out of grad school, and (b) when my advisor joined a dissertation support group when they were in grad school, the support group was useless ("they don't understand how philosophy works"). I was flabbergasted and cried in their office. I felt ashamed and humiliated.

I want to stress to faculty to be sensitive to the mental health needs of your grad students. Avoidance is a key sign of depression.

Faculty members ought to "lower the stakes" when interacting with grad students - not every interaction is about evaluating your worth as a philosopher. Making students feel like every interaction with you is about making a good impression or about what will go into a letter that will decide your career is exactly the wrong thing to do. Interact with your grad students like they are human - they will have strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's okay to get have a silly conversation where the expectation is not that one is being evaluated. Helping grad students realize that they can come to you with "stupid" or "half baked" ideas, and that will not be held against them, will help with the disappearing problem.

In a follow-up comment, I mentioned that I had an eerily similar experience. Throughout graduate school, it seemed like every single little thing I was doing was being judged. Although I made it through course work and comprehensive exams well enough, things really went awry at the dissertation stage. I too spent about a year-and-a-half completely floundering, which left me so depressed that I too systematically avoided my committee and disappeared from my department more generally. And I wasn't the only one. I knew others in program who did the same. Some of them eventually finished the program, others didn't. Like this reader and many other graduate students, I had not only lost my confidence: my overall mental health was shot. Anyway, I too eventually showed up in my advisor's office and came clean about everything. The difference was that instead of shaming me, my advisor expressed empathy and confidence in me. To this day, I think this kind and supportive treatment may well have saved my career.

Fortunately, despite being treated callously by their advisor, the above reader reported in a follow-up comment that they too made it through grad school and recently got a tenure-track job. They wrote: 

I think that conversation in my advisor's office helped to crystalize for me that I needed to find allies and people out of my committee who will give me the kind of support I needed. The dissertation support group helped me see how my advisor's behavior did not reflect on my worth as a philosopher. I was lucky that there were other philosophers around who encouraged me and read my drafts and gave me constructive feedback.

If any other grad student is reading, I hope that you know you can make "mistakes" in grad school and still come out on the other side. (As far as I know) all my committee members wrote me positive letters, even though I went through a period of disappearance and depression - grad school is tough!

I cannot over-emphasize how important I think this comment is. First, although it may not be true for every graduate student in every situation, cases like these show that it can be possible to royally mess up in grad school and make it through to the other side. Even if there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel, it can be possible to find your way through. But second, as both of our cases show, a crucial part of doing so seems to be finding support. When I was isolated and trying to find my way all on my lonesome, nothing seemed possible. It was only when I found empathy and support--just like this reader--that the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel began to appear.

Which brings me, finally, to the point of this post: what mistakes did you make in graduate school, and how did you recover from them? My hope here is that if readers share stories of their own here, it may accomplish several important things. First, it may give struggling graduate students some much-needed hope. Second, it may give them good practical advice and strategies for recovering from mistakes. Finally, it may clarify just how important it is for grad faculty to be understanding, forgiving, and empathetic--and by extension, helpful in 'getting the word out' on how important it is for grad program cultures to support struggling students. Anyone willing to share?

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.

Professionalization tips for grad students?

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

I am a somewhat new assistant professor at an RI university with a PhD program. I am supervising a thesis, on several other committees, and I have taught several graduate seminars. I have been a bit surprised by the way some graduate students interact with professors - notably, they seem to be unnecessarily shooting themselves in the foot. I will add that I am an easy going person, and I try my best to not let any of my personal judgments affect how I treat students, but of course, no one is perfect. And I know many other professors who don't have the same views as I do, i.e., they think it is okay to hold certain types of behaviors against grad students. Since this is a forum for early career philosophers, I thought my experience might be worth mentioning and perhaps discussing.

1.When professors provide comments on your work, at least reply to the email and say something like, "thanks for your feedback." If the professor works in your area, it is wise to attempt to have a conversation about the comments once you have had time to digest them. For one, you can often learn a lot this way and improve philosophically, and two, this professor might be writing you a letter. Responding to comments shows a certain type of motivation and willingness to learn, but can also convey to the professor that you are improving, and depending on what you say, they might be impressed by your response. No reply at all risks irritating the professor, and it also makes if far more likely they won't think anything about you either way, positive or negative, and this makes it much harder to write a strong letter.

2. If you need to drop a graduate course, send the professor a quick email. Maybe you are dropping because you don't like the professor and the course. That's okay, but it still seems pragmatic to send an email of the type, "I wanted to let you know I dropped your course. For various reasons, I realized it just wasn't the best fit for my schedule this semester. I hope this won't cause disruption." Letting the professor know is simply courteous. Often graduate students are assigned to do various things in certain weeks of the course, and this needs to be rescheduled if a student drops.

3. Do not just disappear from your committee. If you are having a hard time getting work done, at least send emails and try to communicate the trouble you are having, or that you are indeed thinking about and trying to move forward. For one, your professor might be able to help. And two, it is hard to write good letters for students when you don't know them well and you don't know their work well. Reading drafts over a couple of years is a way to get to know a student's work much better than just reading the final dissertation draft before you are ready to defend.Besides, if you plan on going on the market ABD you had better have given your committee enough material so they can write a decent letter.

4. When there are emails about the program asking for feedback and ways to improve, reply! There are a lot of complaints on here about how departments run their grad programs. However, several anonymous surveys were sent out to our graduate students about ways to improve the department and the response rate was very low. There was plenty of time to do the surveys, and several requests for responses were made. While the department might not always listen, they might listen sometimes, especially if they are going to the trouble of asking.

5. If you are taking a grad course, and your professor offers to give feedback on uncompleted drafts, take advantage of it! Getting feedback can prove to be very difficult, and it is wise to take advantage of any opportunity that is made easily available.

I know graduate students are in a very rough position. And as I said, I do my best to not hold anything of this against them. But it is also prudent to behave in ways that will maximize your learning experience.

Of course, I am only one person. I would be happy to hear from other grad professors - maybe my experience is off base, or maybe I am just expecting too much.

I think these are fair tips, and would encourage other grad faculty to weigh in on them and propose tips of their own in the comments section. However, I also want to propose a general tip for grad faculty, both new ones (like the above reader) and more experienced grad faculty: namely, to be forthright about the above kinds of concerns, but also understanding. Let me explain both halves of this tip.

Publishing in undergraduate journals?

A reader writes in:

An undergrad in my class intends to submit [their] work to undergrad journals. I am unfamiliar with the practice, as from my background...I can’t evaluate the value of this practice, and thus can’t give [them] any sensible advice. Is having some publication in undergrad journals of instrumental value? e.g. for one’s future career, for applying to grad school etc.?

I'm curious to hear what people think. I've never served on a grad admissions committee, but I'd have to expect that the value of an applicant publishing in an undergraduate journal would be marginal at best. I would think that admissions committees focus more on things like writing samples, letters of recommendation, grades, and GRE scores (to the extent that schools still use them). Further, I wonder whether publishing in an undergrad journal could even be a mistake--if, for example, the work is not very good. But I'm not sure. Anyone with experience here care to weigh in?

Advice for grad students: two worries

In the comments section of Jonathan Flowers' recent post on how we support black philosophers, a concerned reader writes:

I would like to comment on this post to point out a worry I have had in [how] faculty interact with graduate students on this website. I believe that most faculty are wealthy white people and when they interact with graduate students there is the expectation that they occupy a position of delayed adolescence — that is, that they have few or no financial or familial responsibilities. If the philosophers here are serious about changing the culture of philosophy departments...then there needs to be a tectonic shift in how you understand graduate students.

A similar worry motivates hesitation about all of the vocational training advocated for here. While in principle I think it is a good idea, I desperately fear that the white elite of philosophy departments will naturally considered privileged white men as more likely to achieve faculty positions and so will be trained for this purpose while less fortunate graduate students will be “subtly” encouraged to look for opportunities elsewhere. In other words, in currently existing philosophy departments, where there is often the de facto segregation of black students, these vocational trainings can be further impediments to seeing students of color as “really” philosophers in the same sense as their white peers.

I'm curious whether other readers share these concerns, and if so, what the best way of grappling with them might be. My own primary concern at the Cocoon--particularly when it comes to job-market advice and advocacy for better grad program 'training' for non-academic career paths--has always been with the vulnerable position graduate students and non-tenure-stream faculty are in. According to statistics I've come across, only about 50% of PhD students ever finish the PhD, and in philosophy, only about 35% get full-time academic jobs within 5 years. Second, as a grad student who barely finished my PhD program (coming up with a viable dissertation topic and finishing it were both real touch and go affairs) and who then spent 7 years on the job market--and who was married and deeply in student and credit-card debt to boot--I was deeply well-acquainted with what it is like to be in a vulnerable position with familial and financial obligations without a good plan B.

This, in brief, is where the advice and proposals for changing various features of the profession that I offer come from--as aiming to help grad students, early-career faculty, and the profession better address the vulnerabilities that I've seen graduate students and non-tenure-stream faculty encounter. Still, for all that, it may well be that the advice and forms of advocacy that I and others engage in on this site need to change in substantial ways. I'm very curious to hear what others think!

How to choose which journal to submit to?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Nous Kid on the Block writes:

I'm a grad student polishing up a paper I hope can become my first publication. I haven't submitted anything for publication before and I would be interested in hearing how more experienced philosophers think about choosing a journal for their work. Obvious considerations include (i) whether you are responding to work published in a particular journal (ii) the prestige of a journal, (iii) the reputation of a journal in terms of turnaround time, etc., (iv) whether the journal typically publishes 'work like yours,' whatever this amounts to in terms of quality, subject matter, methodology and the like. I'm sure there are things I'm missing and, of course, I am largely curious about how people weigh these considerations and others.

Although I'm mostly just interested in hearing how people think about this sort of thing in general (I will of course ask my advisor for thoughts about my specific case), I'll mention a few specific features of my situation in case it's helpful for people to have something to react to. My paper is on a frequently-discussed topic in mainstream analytic moral philosophy. It is largely devoted to discussing two recent articles published in top journals (one generalist, one specialist). I'm relatively early in my grad school career, so I don't at this time feel a tremendous time crunch to get the thing in print (i.e., it wouldn't be the end of the world if I aimed high and had to slog through a few rejections).

I'd love to hear people's answers as well. For my part, I don't think I've ever developed a very good sense of these things, and suspect that I've probably wasted a lot of time sending work to journals that weren't the best match. Anyone have any helpful insights to share? As far as I'm concerned, the more detail, the better!

Motivating PhD programs to focus on industry jobs

Following the Philosophers in Industry directory I'm working on, I had an interesting conversation the other day about what grad programs could do better in terms of helping to place their students in good non-academic jobs. I have been out of grad school for quite a while now, so I am not entirely sure what current practices are like. But when I was in grad school, the focus within the program was entirely on academic jobs. Like most PhD programs, mine had a placement director--and a very good one at that. Our placement director helped candidates workshop academic job-market materials, strategize, do mock interviews, and so on. Still, the focus was overwhelmingly on academic jobs. And while I have heard through the grapevine that some programs may be doing a better job focusing more on non-academic work, I suspect that many programs still probably focus primarily on the academic market. In my next two posts, I want to discuss two things:

1. Some steps grad programs might take to better support students pursuing non-academic work.
2. Why grad programs should be motivated to do so.

I want to focus on the second issue first, and here's why. Laying out a series of steps that grad programs might take in order to better place students in non-academic jobs isn't likely to be very effective if grad programs aren't motivated to change. And, on that note, one issue that I have heard may stand in the way of grad programs doing more when it comes to non-academic work is that grad faculty simply may not be motivated to change what they do. On the one hand, faculty in grad programs simply may not value their students leaving academia for non-academic industry jobs. Anecdotally, I have heard these sentiments to be quite common, with grad faculty sometimes expressing extreme disappointment or disregard toward students who let them know they plan to leave academia. On the other hand, grad faculty may not do much when it comes to helping students find non-academic work because they, the grad faculty, have never had a non-academic career themselves, leaving them at a bit of a loss about what they can do to help students find non-academic jobs.

Here, though, is what I think we should say to grad programs to better motivate them: in today's post-COVID environment, graduate programs are likely to need non-academic support in order to survive and flourish. Let me explain.

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.

Brennan on two types of grad students

In a recent Inside Higher Ed interview on his new book, Good Work If You Can Get It: How to Succeed in Academia, Jason Brennan states:

Anecdotally, there seem to be two types of grad students. Some treat their Ph.D. as an extension of college. They want graduate school to be a time to stew and develop. Others treat it more like an M.B.A. -- or, to use another metaphor, they act like athletes training for the Olympics. The latter think strategically. They try to ascertain what their CVs must look like when they go on the market to have the best chance of getting a job. They engage in backward induction, trying to determine what they need to do year by year to make their CVs look the right way when they enter the market. These students appear to be the most successful in terms of getting a job. For that reason, I suspect they are in the long run less stressed and happier, though admittedly I don’t know of survey evidence verifying that.

As I make clear in the book, I am not endorsing the way academia is. Indeed, I wrote an entire other book (Cracks in the Ivory Tower) on the bad business ethics practices of higher ed. But the current book is about succeeding in academia as it is, rather than how it should be...

I'm curious about Brennan's anecdotal claims here. First, do grad students who approach things strategically tend to fare better on the job-market and in their careers than grad students who treat graduate school as "a time to stew and develop"? Second, are the former "less stressed and happier" in the long run? Let me explain why I ask, and then ask readers to weigh in.

What to do after finishing grad coursework?

(update: comments now open - sorry!)

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

I'm excited to finally be wrapping up the coursework stage of my PhD program. This is a milestone for me because, as much as I like philosophy, I really don't enjoy sitting still, usually in a shamefully tiny desk, and listening to class. I'd always prefer to talk philosophy in office hours or read at home. Now that I don't have to go to classes, should I? How should I go? To what end? Should I disregard time in classroom and just work independently? Should I do something like take one grad seminar a term, just so I keep learning? I see more advanced graduate students in my department taking this last approach pretty frequently. I realize this is a pretty personal decision, but I'd like to know how people have navigated the change from required to optional coursework. I would especially like to here from people who do not particularly enjoy spending time in a classroom.

I think this is a really important query, for reasons I detail below. In brief, my own experience in grad school (not just firsthand, but also observing other grad students at my own program and beyond) is that the period after finishing coursework becomes increasingly fraught with dangers, ones that all too often derail people's careers. I'll explain why momentarily, but am curious what everyone else thinks: what do you think grad students should do after finishing classes? Why?

Are grad programs planning to limit admissions?

In my recent post advancing a tentative proposal for how PhD programs should respond to COVID-10, I suggested (among other things) that they might consider dramatically reducing new admissions. In the comments section, a reader writes:

Thanks so much for this helpful post. As a college junior about to apply to philosophy grad programs next year, I suppose this post makes me really nervous - philosophy admissions are incredibly competitive as is, and adopting policies to stop or massively reduce the intake of new candidates would mean twice the number of people competing for a spot. So I guess my question is, how likely do you think universities will adopt a policy like this in the coming cycle? Is it likely enough that I should probably stop spending so much time working on my application (I was going to get a part-time job this summer to focus on my writing sample and GREs in the remaining time) and start looking for realistic opportunities elsewhere? How worried should I be about my prospects next cycle?

I appreciate this reader's concerns, and I am sorry that my post has worried them so. This is a very difficult situation we are all in, and every choice for how to deal with it carries real costs. My own thought is that graduate students and academic job-marketeers tend to be among the most vulnerable members of the profession, and so my proposal was meant to help safeguard their interests. But I do appreciate that, if programs reduced admissions, that would affect the prospects of prospective students like this one--and those costs need to be carefully considered and weighed as well. I myself am not sure what the right balance is, or whether there is a determinate answer as to what the right balance is. I think these are important conversations to have, and encourage readers in the comments section of this post to weigh in.

In any case, what do you all think the answers to this reader's questions are? Are PhD programs likely to substantially reduce admissions this coming year? It would be great to hear from some people in the know. Do any readers who work in a philosophy PhD program have any insight? In terms of the reader's other questions (should they stop spending so much time on their materials?), I guess I'm inclined to say that the answer depends on one or both of the following things: (A) the answer to the factual question above (whether programs plan to limit admissions), and (B) how invested the reader is in attempting to become an academic philosopher. Here, a little autobiography may be helpful. When I was an undergraduate, my thesis advisor, Dan Dennett, warned me very strongly against pursuing graduate work in philosophy. He told me, as many of us tell our students, that there are so few jobs in philosophy that the chances I would ever get one were small. Philosophy, though, was to that point in my life the only thing I was passionate about. I loved doing it in a way that I didn't love doing anything else. So, of course, I didn't listen to his warning. For a while in grad school and while on the market--during periods that my career looked increasingly tenuous--I regretted that I hadn't listened to him. Alas, now that I won the lottery and got a permanent job (which, hopefully, I won't lose due to COVID!), I'm glad that I didn't listen to him: I love doing philosophy now as much as I ever did.

I don't think there's any simple takeaway from this story--for, as you can see, my own attitudes to my choice to pursue a PhD in philosophy vacillated wildly depending on how my career went. One potential takeaway, though, is that whether it makes sense for a person to stop spending so much time working on an application depends at least in part on a person's own life narrative and "how much they want it." In my case, philosophy was simply my only passion--so I went for it, Dan's warning be damned. Again, it was a risky choice--and maybe not even a rational one--but that was my reason for making it. So, I guess I would suggest to this reader, what does philosophy mean to you? Can you see yourself doing something else? Are there other things you enjoy? If so, then if programs seem likely to admit far fewer applicants, then sure, maybe spend less time on your application. However, if philosophy is the only thing you really enjoy (as it was for me), then maybe put your all into your application regardless. I think this kind of decision really has to be up to you. No one, I think, can answer those questions other than you.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? And again, does anyone have any inside insights on the reader's factual question: Are PhD programs likely to substantially reduce admissions this coming year?

Grad programs rescinding offers/funding?

A reader wrote in here:

Some schools (I have heard of [redacted]) are rescinding funding for already admitted students. I’ve heard other schools are not accepting anyone waitlisted. Can we get a discussion thread on this issue? It strikes me as morally wrong to in effect rescind an admission. Those students probably turned down other offers to go to [redacted], and are now completely screwed. Do they count as some of the precarious workers deserving of protection?

As I don't think the Cocoon is a place to make public allegations of impropriety, I've redacted parts of the comment. Still, do readers know: has this been happening? If so, what should be done about it? 

APA Grad Student Council (GSC) statement

The APA released today a statement by its Graduate Student Council entitled, "Supporting grad students during COVID-19." I think it's a really good statement worth reading, disseminating, and acting upon to whatever extent possible.

What I learned from leaving academic philosophy (Guest post by Samuel Kampa)

By Samuel Kampa

By the end of April 2019, my academic career was over. My on-campus interview did not yield a TT job. For personal reasons, I made the wrenching decision to turn down a one-year postdoc offer. Every other opportunity ended in polite rejection, impolite rejection, or ghosting. With mixed feelings, I applied for non-academic jobs and eventually accepted a position at an education technology start-up called Yellowdig.

My story is not exactly a page turner. So why am I telling it? I'm encouraging you—no, urging you—to consider a similar "alternative" path, especially in light of the inevitable recession to come. A year ago, "TT or bust" was a common but ill-advised attitude toward the job market. That attitude should be unthinkable today. COVID-19 is an accelerant to a fire in academia that has been raging for at least a decade. When that fire is finally extinguished, the landscape of higher education will be unrecognizable at best and decimated at worst. Philosophy departments will stop hiring. Universities will receive less funding from states and lower yields from endowments. Enrollments will shrink at an even faster rate. Driven by the necessity to teach at scale, colleges will increasingly shift classes online. One by one, non-elite liberal arts colleges will shut their doors. And all but the most elite graduate students will feel the pain of the contraction. You might have thought staying in academia during a pandemic was the safest course of action. You'd be wrong.

If my story matters, it's only because it highlights lessons I learned too late. Like many of my grad student colleagues, I knew less about what it took to get non-academic jobs than I thought I did. My current position is a product of dumb luck, charitable interviewers, and just enough personal preparation. Be smarter than me; learn these lessons now. My intention is not to scare you, but to inspire concrete action. And if I'm "catastrophizing", it's because graduate education really is a catastrophe⁠—albeit a very white-collar, first-world catastrophe. How you respond to this catastrophe will determine the amount of needless pain you'll experience in the near future.

Tips for a prospective student during COVID-19?

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

I’m not sure that there’s anything anyone here can say to help, but I am a prospective Ph. D student in the process of picking my program, but COVID has made any visits impossible. Obviously, I’ve tried Skyping/phoning various students and professors in the departments I’m thinking of choosing, but it simply doesn’t feel like I’m getting the same wealth of information I would have with an in-person visit. Is there any fix for this?

I'm not sure that I have any good advice beyond this: I'm not sure that prospective grad students can get the best information from campus visits or talking to people. Why not? Well, what will ultimately matter to your future self, that is, to you once you end up in a program? Judging from my own experience and what I've heard from many others, you're probably going to care about (A) your chances of finishing the program, (B) your chances of getting a job, and (C) the likelihood that you'll be happy in and flourish in the program.

But what's the best evidence of (A)-(C)? Not, I think, first-hand experience during a visit--or what people might say about the program when you talk to or Skype with them. Why? Well, because generally speaking when you talk to people they are either going to try to sell you on the program, or, in the case of those who are disaffected, deter you from entering. What you don't really know is how representative any of what they say really is of actual life in the department, viz. any of (A)-(C). What can give you a better feeling for (A)-(C)? Well, there are job-placement statistics, some of which include surveys of how well students rate their programs. If I were a prospective student trying to decide between programs, these are methods I would prioritize, especially given that decades of empirical research indicate that the most reliable way to make selection choices is to use data-driven methods (rather than personal experience or intuition). But sure, if in addition to studying the facts, you want to talk to people to try to gauge fit, go for it. 

But these are just my thoughts, and I know that I am much more enamored by hard-data approaches than many others are. Given that students normally have until April 15 (I believe) to make decisions, anyone have any thoughts/tips of their own to share?

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.

Responding to prospective grad student emails

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, just curious writes:

This is a question for faculty in departments with a graduate program. I often receive inquiries from prospective graduate students. These may come from students who have a good shot of getting into the program, but more often, I fear that these students either do not have a shot at getting in, or they don't even apply.

I get about 5-6 of these a year. They can be time-consuming to respond to, and I feel it is not really my professional duty to spend hours of my time informing prospective applicants about our program, especially since a lot of information is available on the department website. Moreover, I suspect that many of these inquiries are meant to get the students an 'in': they are under the illusion that if they interact with some faculty member over email, they will have a better shot at admission. At least in our department, this is not the case. Since a student is often simply trying to interact, thorough responses to their inquiries often lead to even more questions.

What are possible approaches to such inquiries? I feel I should have some ready response to them. Prioritizing these emails means taking away from other pressing matters of business and obligations to people who have (say) actually enrolled in our graduate program. But at the same time, I don't want to be rude. Suggestions?

I don't work in a graduate program, so I don't have any thoughts beyond this I guess: maybe grad programs could (if they don't already) come up with a "frequently-asked-questions" flyer or webpage that grad faculty like this could just point prospective students to, adding a brief comment in the response email that out of fairness to other prospective students they're not able to say much about the program beyond that. I dunno. What do you all think?

The ethics of letter writing

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Amanda writes:

So I have been shocked at the number of people who apparently agree to write a letter of recommendation for a student who they have very little confidence in, or even none at all. I have seen "recommendation" letters that do not say a single positive thing about the person they are supposedly recommending. A letter might focus on describing the class the professor taught (that the student was enrolled-in) describing the content of a paper the student wrote while saying nothing good about the paper, or sometimes straightforwardly expressing doubts about the student's talent, commitment, or attitude. I've seen many letters that are only a few lines long.

Of course, it is possible that these professors told the student that they would write this kind of letter. But I doubt that holds in most cases. So I am curious: what do people think are the ethics of this kind of thing? I would assume most think that it is wrong to agree to write such a letter, but maybe I am off base? Does it matter whether it is a letter for grad school or for a job? Do some think that chairing a committee comes with the obligation to write *some* letter if the student passes? Do writers have an obligation to tell students if the letter is going to be not so strong? And what, if any, is the minimum standard of confidence in a student a writer must have to ethically agree to write a letter? Is it wrong for a program to accept and graduate a student, say at an expensive MA program, but then refuse to write a letter?

I'd love to hear thoughts on this. One part of early career philosophy is that first time you are asked to write a letter of recommendation, and then the increasing frequency with which you get those requests.

These are all very good questions. My understanding has always been that it is an unwritten rule to only agree to write a letter if you can write a positive one--or, failing that, to be up front with the person requesting the letter that your letter might not be that strong. But, of course, as we all well know people don't always follow rules, written or unwritten. Further, I suppose it's always possible that some are unaware of these supposed rules, and that there may even be some who disagree with them (thinking they have some obligation to warn programs about particular candidates). I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks as well!

What do you all think?

Recommendation letter conundrum

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

I have a question about the ethics of recommendation letter writing. Some time ago a former student approached me and asked whether I would consider writing a letter of recommendation for his masters application. At the time I told him that I was willing to write a letter, but that I would expect for the student to work with me through the application process. By this I mean, I wanted to see drafts of the student's writing sample and statement of interest. This was in part to improve the student's application by providing feedback, and in part to give myself more exposure to the student's writing which would, in turn, improve my letter.

Since then, the student's revisions have been consistently very poor and hastily thrown together, and I am starting to wonder whether I can, in good conscience, write a strong recommendation. It's too late in the process for me to expect the student to seek out an alternative letter writer. My question, then, is whether anybody has advice on how I should conduct myself: should I be as honest as possible, to the point of (presumably) damaging the student's prospects, or should I perhaps restrict the focus of my letter to the student's course work that they wrote for me over a year ago (which is somewhat better than what they've since shown me)?

I should add that this would be my first time writing a letter of recommendation for a student.

I'm very curious to hear what everyone else thinks, but here are my two cents. It seems to me the thing to do here is to probably sit the student down and be kind but forthright with them, letting them know of your reservations and the reasons for them. See what they say. Maybe they just weren't very aware of how hastily thrown together their work seems--and maybe they'll take it as a big wake-up call to do better. Who knows, maybe they'll go back and put together some very good revisions. That, I think, would tell you something about them (e.g. about their resilience and willingness to work hard). On the other hand, if they respond poorly, then that tells you something about them too. Either way, you have more to go on in making a further decision about whether to still write a letter, and if so what kind of letter to write.

But these are just my two cents. What are yours?

External committee members for European PhDs

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, European PhD candidate writes,

I am currently a PhD candidate at an European university, and I wonder what exactly the relationship between the candidate and the external members of their committee is.
What are exactly the tasks of the external committee members?
How soon should one invite an external professor to be member of their committee?
Can one ask the external members of their committee to write letters of recommendation on their behalf?
Thank you in advance!

This is a great query. Unfortunately, given that I've spent my entire career in academia in the US, I don't know anything about it. But I'd be very curious to learn more and help European PhD candidate and others in their position out. Anyone with experience here have any helpful answers?

Poll results: service and the market

A couple of discussions the past few weeks got me thinking about the role that service (to one's department, university, the profession, etc.) plays on the job market. First, a little over two weeks ago, Daily Nous hosted a discussion on whether graduate students should receive compensation for service work. Second, around the same time, a colleague in the discipline at a research university mentioned on social media that they actively discourage their grad students from engaging in service, the rationale being, if I recall, that it's just not worth grad students' time and energy. I weighed in on this discussion, saying that my experience working and hiring on four search committees at a liberal arts university is very different: namely, that service may substantially benefit candidates on the market for jobs at universities like mine. 

Anyway, both of these discussions got met thinking: do search committee members, and search committees as a whole, care about service? Do candidates' service records affect how they are evaluated by search committee members? If so, how?

Because these seem to me to be important issues, I decided to run an informal poll asking search committee members to weigh in on a few questions. To be clear, it is just an informal poll with a relatively small sample size (N = 29), not a formal study--so the results should be presumably taken with a serious grain of salt. However, here are the results:

• Number of respondents: 29
• # self-reporting as from R1 research universities: 18
• # self-reporting as from regional state universities: 4
• # self-reporting as from non-elite liberal arts universities: 3
• # self-reporting as from elite liberal arts universities: 1
• # self-reporting as from community colleges: 1
• # self-reporting as from 'other': 2

Q1 - A job-candidate's service record (viz. service to their department, university, community, etc.) can play a real role in how I personally evaluate their candidacy as a search-committee member:

Q2 - The search committee(s) I have been on have taken candidates' service records (viz. service to their department, university, community, etc.) into account in their collective deliberations on who to interview or hire:

Q3 - Depending on your answers to Q1 & Q2, what kind(s) of service may play a role in how candidates are evaluated?:

All responses, complete and unedited:

• "Diversity related service, public philosophy, service that brings in media attention, service that attracts grads to the department, undergrads to classes or the major."
• "All forms, but especially technology, diversity, and proactive, positive contributions to the profession."
• "Course development, curriculum reform, labour organizing, establishing MAP chapters, etc."
• "Student outreach, diversity initiatives, reading and discussion groups, syllabus reform."
• "Service with students."
• "Anything that indicates that they would be a responsible member of my department--graduate representative, serving on committees, organizing events, etc."
• "In a UK context, it really is a must. You need to be able to show some "admin" experience, e.g., being part of committees, taking on admin roles in your department."
• "Has the candidate been involved in any diversity initiatives on campus, or leadership/shared governance roles. At my institution we need people to do a lot of service because we are badly understaffed, and we also need people who can help with diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts."
• "Undergraduate mentoring; teacher training related initiatives; diversity related initiatives (e.g. MAP chapter)."
• "It's not so much that kinds of service matter, but when debating candidates with differing research outputs, variations in teaching and administrative loads become relevant to predicting future performance."
• "Anything that indicates that the candidate is a team player."
• "Stuff that shows experience working with grad students, stuff that shows they would be a leader in enriching our intellectual community."
• "I don't care about journal refereeing. I take an absence of departmental service, or only insubstantial-looking service lines on the CV, as something of a red flag; it suggests to me that the candidate won't pull their weight in the department. Larger professional service roles suggest the candidate is becoming connected, which is a weak positive sign of reputation-building (which can matter for tenure)."
• "Work that showed a serious commitment to various kinds of diversity (running a MAP chapter, teaching philosophy in urban schools, etc)."
• "I was not allowed to officially consider any service, only the vague 'capacity' to take on roles within the department. This is a serious issue, and I wish that I could take into account junior colleagues that have undertaken senior roles (perhaps to the detriment of their research outputs). If able to, evidence of taking on important departmental roles would be great to ensure that we are hiring someone that can cope in those roles (i.e. future chairs of departments!)."
• "Primarily we have looked at administrative experience--has this person served as a chair, been in charge of adjuncts, performed class scheduling, served as an advisor."
• "Founding/running undergraduate clubs, recruitment efforts (with data to show their personal involvement), conference volunteer work, tutoring/mentoring students in an official capacity."
• "Philosophy club, public philosophy, pedagogical committees."
• "None."

Q4- I answered the above questions on the basis of my experience serving on search committee(s) at:

Again, this is just an informal survey--but I for one find the results intriguing, especially the qualitative answers to Q3 (indicating the kinds of service respondents care about, and their reasons for doing so). Anyway, I hope you all find this information helpful, and would be curious indeed to see what a more formal study might find!

Showing recommendation letters to students?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, letterwriter writes:

I was wondering what people think of showing one's letter of recommendation to their students. The student has not asked me to do it, and of course they agree to the letter being sent without them seeing it. But I think by showing the letter to the student I might get feedback to help me write a better letter for that particular student. Perhaps they would alert me to the fact that something they find important isn't highlighted, or that I made some factual error. Is there any reason I should refrain from doing this?

I'm curious to hear what people think about this. Personally, I don't think I would want to do this, as I'm inclined to think it is important to be forthright in letters, including how the student compares to others as well as what areas they could improve in--and I am not sure I would be as forthright as I think appropriate if I were to show students their letters. In terms of avoiding factual errors and highlighting things the student may consider important, one alternative is to ask the student for relevant information prior to writing the letter. However, if others think that showing letters to students is a good idea, I am always willing to be persuaded. What do you all think?

The importance of a good grad adviser

Each year, applicants accepted to PhD programs have to decide where to enroll. When I was in that situation, I made my decision on what in retrospect seem to me to be really naive, simplistic grounds. I basically looked at how highly ranked a program was, and whether it had good faculty in my area(s) of focus. Having talked to some recent grad school applicants, my sense is that this is still how a considerable number of them seem to decide where to enroll. However, I now think that this is exactly how not to make this kind of far-reaching decision. First, program rankings do not appear to be very good proxies of something that I cared about, and suspect most applicants care about: academic job placement rates. According to the ADPA report, some highly ranked PhD programs place their graduates well, others fare poorly. Conversely, some low-ranked and unranked programs have even better overall placement rates than top-ranked programs. Secondly, there are grounds for thinking that one's choice of PhD adviser/supervisor is one of the most important parts of one's graduate experience, in ways that in turn can have profound effects on one's professional prospects. Let me explain.

One of the more striking things I've noticed in my time in the profession is just how much the success rates of grad students depend upon who their adviser is. Some advisers basically never graduate any students, the vast majority of whom drop out. Other advisers do graduate students, but their students' average time to graduation is like 7-10 years, and their students rarely get full-time academic jobs. Then there are advisers who crank out new PhDs left and right, and whose students routinely end up hired quickly into tenure-track jobs. Then of course there are qualitative differences. Some advisers are encouraging, supportive, quick to provide feedback, provide good job-market guidance, professional connections, and so on. Other advisers are abusive, neglectful, take months to provide feedback, provide no job-market guidance, etc. All of these kinds of advisers can and often do exist within the very same program, including at top programs. So, it can be vital to end up with the right one!

I'll tell my story in a minute. But before I do, here's why I'm writing this post: I came across this Inside Higher Ed piece today where I learned about a 2018 study in Nature that found that "factors strongly correlating with overall satisfaction [of PhD students in grad programs] include number of publications, work-life balance and, especially, the adviser-advisee relationship." So, don't take it from me: take it from science. If you're applying to PhD programs, don't focus all of your attention on rankings, average placement record for jobs, or the overall quality of a program's faculty. No, try to figure out before accepting an offer whether there is a faculty member there who would be a good adviser for you, and whether they would be willing to supervise you should you get in there.

What to put on a grad application CV

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Olivia writes:

I am applying to PhD programs in Philosophy. Many require submitting a resume/cv. As someone just coming out of undergrad, I do not have the level of publications/academic achievements that I am seeing on current grad students or faculty. What kinds of things should be included on this and how should it be organized? Should employment history also be included?

Good question. Given that grad school applicants may have little to report besides where they received the undergraduate degree or MA, what in the world should they put on their CV when applying to grad school?

Writing good letters for grad applicants

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

Can someone explain to me the basics of writing a letter of recommendation for a PhD applicant? How long? What do you spend time talking about? Do you make direct comparisons? Is there a big difference between writing one for an undergrad vs a MA student?

Great questions! Although I've had a few students accepted to MA and PhD programs, I can only report on what I do. Here, in brief, is how I go about things...

Age and Phd Programs

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Anon #21 writes:

How old is too old to be admitted to an elite philosophy PhD program? (the type capable of placing at least some students some of the time in tenure track positions at research universities)

And, how can older (30-35 yo) candidates make themselves credible to elite PhD programs?

In my case, I have studied and worked in another academic field at very prestigious universities for many years after doing my undergraduate degree in philosophy. I know that I am unsatisfied with the kind of work I can do in my current field and that working as a philosophy professor would be incomparably more satisfying and fulfilling than being a professor in my field. I have publications in credible peer-reviewed philosophy journals though not top journals.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I'm curious to hear from readers about this who are in the know. For my part, I've known a few older people who entered PhD programs after other careers who fared very well in the profession--but beyond this, I don't know much here. Anyone have any insight?

How grad applications are evaluated?

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

The deadlines for submitting PhD applications are approaching. Any advise for applying in 2019? Any recent shifts in how applications are evaluated? Being an international student, how much of that effect my chances positively or negatively? And how to deal with the demands of the GRE?

I've never done grad program admissions, so unfortunately I have no insight to share. But given that a non-trivial number of our readers may be undergraduates or MA students applying to PhD programs, it might be good to hear from people who have served on admissions committees: how do you and the admissions committees you've served on evaluate applicants? Have things changed at all in ways that it might help candidates to know about?? 

Tips for PhD program transfer applications

A reader writes in: "do you have any advice about what a statement of purpose should look like for a PhD student transferring PhD programs? I’m sure it should look different from (say) someone applying out from undergrad or an MA program, I just don’t know how exactly. I think this could be a nice question for the Cocoon community."

I think this is a great question. Although I transferred between programs myself many years ago, I must confess that I don't quite recall what I did in the application process. Does anyone who has served on a PhD admissions committee have any insight? I think it would be good to hear tips not only on this reader's main question (the statement of purpose), but also any all-purpose tips related to coming across well as a transfer applicant. 

Continental Programs & the PGR

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, Cautiously Optimistic writes:

I start my master's in three weeks, and I am already thinking of the next step...After looking at the PGR, none of the ranked programs are continental programs. This is disappointing because I am partial to phenomenology and existentialism, and the programs they recommended FOR continental philosophy were stronger in epistemology, logic, etc. than my desired area. I worry that people take the PGR too seriously considering its bias. Is it best to apply to PGR programs, or non-ranked continental phd programs that have good placement? I am interested in Stonybrook (who have Steinbock) and Penn State (who have Nicolas de Warren), but neither Penn State nor Stonybrook are top PGR programs. Will this hurt me in the long run?

As Martin Shuster noted, "There are certainly non-ranked PGR programs that place quite well if not better than ranked ones (e.g., University of Oregon or Vanderbilt)." Indeed, the ADPA data make that pretty clear. I also personally know people who went to non-PGR-ranked Continental programs that have excellent placement rates who went on to get tenure-track jobs. So I'm with SPEP Grad Student, who wrote, "Take a close at placement data, if it is available." If I were entering grad school today, I'd be more concerned about the placement rates of the programs I was interested than I would be concerned program rank. 

But this is just me. What do you all think? It might be good to hear from current grad students and recent grads from the kinds of programs Cautiously mentions (Stonybrook, Penn State, etc.).