The Philosophers' Cocoon

Who to get letters from for grad school applications?

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

I'm a student preparing to apply to PhD programs in philosophy. Many programs specify that they want letters of recommendation from philosophers. My question is: for the purpose of recommendation letters, who counts as a "philosopher"?

Does "philosopher" solely supervene over individuals with PhDs in philosophy? Would individuals with PhDs in, say, Ethics or Theology qualify? Does it matter if an individual with a PhD in these philosophy-adjacent fields teaches in a philosophy department, or publishes in philosophy journals? Or is this too far into the weeds, and students should ask the faculty most acquainted with their work and research capabilities to serve as recommenders?

Good questions. I'm not 100% sure, but I expect that admissions committees at philosophy PhD programs will want letters from people with philosophy PhDs who are able to comment in a well-informed manner on one's philosophical abilities and work. Although people in philosophy-adjacent fields (such as Theology) may be able to write on an applicant's general academic abilities and ability to put together well-reasoned work, my guess is that people on philosophy PhD admissions committees will be more likely to trust the judgment of someone who has a PhD and publishes in the field.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Applying to PhD programs several years after an MA?

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

I have been wondering the potential drawbacks of applying to a PhD program several years after completing an MA program. Might such a delay reflect unfavorably upon an applicant in the eyes of admissions committees? Additionally, what steps can one take to mitigate any negative perceptions, aside from pursuing further academic credentials? Could publishing one's work be a viable alternative?

Fair questions, and I confess that I don't know the answers! Anyone have any insights?

Write recommendation letters for students you barely know?

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

Should you write letters of recommendations for undergraduate students who took you for a 300-student lecture, whose work you didn't personally grade and with whom you had no interaction?

I'd have thought the answer is obviously no, but then I wonder whether this disadvantages students, who need the letters and who can't always find a way to get to know professors... Is refusing at least a decent thing to do, or is it unfair to vulnerable, shy or otherwise struggling students?

Good questions. I'm not sure that I've encountered this kind of situation before, so I'm not sure exactly what I think. I suppose you could always ask such a student to provide you with some of their work to review, and then go from there. But again, I don't think I've ever encountered this situation. To the best of my recollection, I've only been asked to write letters for students who have taken multiple courses with me, and all of our courses are 25 students or less and we have no TA's, so I always feel well-positioned to decide whether I can write a good letter.

Anyway, what do you all think?

Honest grad school advice?

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

Why doesn't anyone give honest grad school application advice? It's pretty much common knowledge, and confirmed by accessible online data (programs' grad student list that displays their background), that prestige simply matters more than anything else in applications. Despite this, it's told as if one can write a brilliant writing sample and get in anywhere. People who get in everywhere are usually NOT people with brilliant samples; it seems neither necessary nor sufficient to have even a good writing sample. Most people get cut in the initial stages before their writing samples get a careful look. The so-called *elite* schools should just state on their website that they most likely won't admit you if you're not coming from another elite institution. Whatever they say, the statistics are obvious that that's who they are admitting. Instead, everyone goes on and on about how important writing samples are, misleading, or even worse, stealing from and scamming hundreds of people every year. Why is that advisors, programs' websites, etc. don't make this extremely clear?

Fair questions. As unfortunate as it may be, I suspect that the data on this is not nearly as widely known as the OP assumes. Time and again, I've been surprised at things that many people in the profession aren't all that aware of--in large part, or so it seems, because some people don't appear to spend nearly as much time online (on blogs, etc.) as other people do. Of course, all of this is consistent with the fact that people advising undergrads and grad applicants should be aware of the relevant data, and be honest with grad applicants about their chances. But then one salient question is perhaps how to best incentivize this. Perhaps the APA could do more here? Any other ideas?

Improving the grad program application process for students and programs?

A reader writes in:

I am a faculty member at a (currently) unranked PhD department, and we've been considering numerous ways to improve our program. Some of these improvements will be internal - making sure we provide quality courses, excellent instruction, guidance on professional development, doing whatever we can for our job candidates to improve job placement, etc. Yet some improvements depend on us increasing our initial applicant pool.

In conversations with faculty at other (ranked) institutions, we've heard complaints that they receive far too many graduate applications. Meanwhile, we generally receive far too few. Some of this, of course, has to do with the rankings/quality of the relevant departments. But the rankings, while helpful in some respects, also function as a clearinghouse for what applicants’ options are, resulting in unranked departments not being “search engine optimized” to receive applications. Many undergrads do not know which grad schools they could apply to, or which ones they have a realistic shot at getting into, or just generally not having enough information about grad school options. I suspect that at least some of those applicants who are competing against so many at higher-ranked or ranked institutions would be happy to apply at other grad programs, including our own, if they knew about them and knew that their odds of getting accepted at these programs is much higher than at other programs. We imagine that it would be helpful if applicants could know which grad programs to apply to (if they were all linked or listed in one place, for example), and if they had some information about approximately how many applicants there are on average each year at each program.

One (infeasible) way to do this would require a huge amount of institutional uniformity, something along the lines of law school applications using SLAC, where all applicants could submit using a single portal, then pick which schools to send their application materials to. Another (more feasible) way might be having grad applicants self-report - something along the lines of how job applicants self-report on job-reporting threads. This led us to wonder whether this would be something to ask others about at the Cocoon. Maybe there is already something like this that exists that we aren't aware of. If not, does anyone have any ideas about how something like this might be implemented? Is this something that other programs would be interested in, too?

Good questions - what do readers think?

What do professors expect from grad students?

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

The DailyNous posted about a hidden syllabus and asked grad students to say in what ways their behaviors differed from what professors actually expected. That assumes that we know what professors expect, but at least in my program there aren't really clearly stated expectations except boilerplate requirements. I would like to know what professors in fact expect from grad students, and also what type of things they looked out for in writing recommendation letters.

Interesting query (the Daily Nous post is here). Another reader submitted the following reply:

Clearly, the most important things to comment on are your research - ideally, your published research, for then your letter writer does not look like a bozo who is just supporting his student (even with lies), and teaching. That is what hiring departments want to know about. And evidence based remarks are really what are wanted - "she is a great teacher", means less than reporting on her evaluations or classroom observations of her teaching. But softer things might include evidence of their involvement in a department - do they attend and participate in colloquia? I went to a lower ranked program, and everyone of the people from my programme who ended up with a decent career was actively involved in the life of the department.

It would be great to hear from other faculty who work in grad programs: what do you expect from grad students in your program, and what types of things do you look for in writing recommendation letters?

Tips for prospective PhD student visits?

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

Now that some PhD application results are coming out, what advice is there for how to prepare for a graduate campus visit? Should I read articles written by some of the faculty I hope to work with and specifically ask questions about it? Should I email graduate students ahead of time to ask if I can take them out for coffee to ask questions, or should I let the department handle arranging conversations with students? What sort of questions should I be asking these students and professors anyway?

Excellent questions! Anyone have any helpful tips to share?

Listing a course one has taught as an AOC?

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

i am an abd grad student. I thought I had my AOS/AOCs figured out, but my department threw me a curveball and is having me teach a class that is outside of those areas. i'm not really worried about teaching the class and i am interested in the material, but i don't research this stuff at all. i fear that adding it as an AOC will look a little strange, both because there are now too many and because it doesn't really 'fit' with the rest, but i also don't want to undersell my capabilities when the ability to teach a wide range of classes is valued. if anyone has faced this situation, or evaluated someone like this from a committee perspective, i would be interested to know what you think.

This is a good query, as people always seem to have questions about what constitutes a 'legitimate AOC.' My understanding has always been that an AOC is supposed to be something that one would be able and qualified to teach an advanced undergraduate course in, even if it isn't an area that one does active research (i.e. publishing) in. So, I would think, at a minimum, an AOC should be something that one either has graduate coursework training in, and/or something one has cultivated some advanced competence in by some other means (such as by teaching lower-division courses in the area regularly and developing a more advanced background in by reading more widely in that area).

Consequently, my sense is that it is probably not a good idea to list a course that one has merely taught a couple of times in grad school as an AOC. Fortunately, in many cases, I don't think that much is likely to turn on this for a job-candidate. If a department otherwise likes you, they want/need someone to teach X, and you have taught X before, then that's likely to be a mark in your favor, AOC or no.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from readers in general, but particularly from members of search committees!

Prestigious PhD programs in Continental Philosophy?

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

Most of my department and its graduate students identify very heavily with "the continental tradition," of the sort that is most represented by the "SPEP" (the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy). I work in core analytic M&E, so it is a tradition which is *extremely* foreign to me.

My question is this: which PhD programs are considered the "prestige" programs in this tradition? For us folks working in the analytic tradition, it's the "Leiterrific" places. But due to unfamiliarity with the SPEP-affiliated side of the profession, I have no idea what the equivalents might be. This might not be the best question to ask here, since I know that rankings of all sorts are typically looked upon here with an eye of suspicion (often rightly so!).

I recognize that any list of the "prestige" programs in the SPEP arena are going to be subjective and highly anecdotal. But that's okay -- ultimately the PGR is, too. I just need to get some sense of which programs are considered the exceptionally strong ones, and which programs are considered maybe also strong but less exceptionally so. (My tentative sense is: maybe Penn State, Northwestern, Stony Brook, and Emory? Maybe DePaul, too?)

I would like to note that I actually have legitimate professional reasons to be asking about this, but I would like to keep them private for reasons of anonymity.

Interesting question, and I'm not sure what the answer is! I do know that there is placement data out there indicating which continental programs tend to have the best job-placement rates (some of which are better than the best analytic programs)--in fact, I know this because I posted it on the Cocoon a few years back. Alas, I can't seem to track it down. Anyone able to find that post? In any case, another reader submitted the following reply:

As a grad student in continental philosophy, things are very volatile, since many of the "best" continental programs come from smaller Jesuit universities who I believe were harder hit by COVID and general declining enrollment than others. As far as the "top tier" of continental programs, I think Penn State and Emory are the two 'best' programs, in that they are the best funded and most likely to remain strongly continental. Many of the mixed continental programs are shaking off their continental faculty and the smaller programs are losing a lot of lines.

Anyone else have any helpful insights?

Developing a mentoring program for underrepresented groups?

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

I have heard that many search committees consider it a notable plus (and some perhaps even an unspoken requirement) that one has experience mentoring/working with people from underrepresented groups in philosophy (or perhaps it is enough to have mentoring experience more broadly-please advise!).

There are very few formal opportunities for PhD students at my (very large, very diverse, relatively prestigious) institution to do any type of robust formal mentoring (we teach to diverse groups, of course, but it seems like search committees find it good to have more one-on-one type mentoring experiences). I want to help design a systematic, mutually-beneficial program that can actually benefit undergrads and create meaningful connections while also helping PhD students get formal mentoring experience that can help them on the job market.

I know my department will support this endeavor, perhaps even with funding (they are super supportive of things like this, both job related and DEI related), but I am curious if anyone has advice, models, links, books, articles, podcasts, warnings, etc. about current programs of this type and what has worked/not worked well for others? I first and foremost want to make sure we go about designing the program in a way that it will not cause any further harm, exploit vulnerable undergrads, or waste people's time.

Any suggestions or stories would be greatly appreciated! I think there is potential to create something truly beneficial for all parties, if such a program is crafted with care.

What a great query--I'd love to hear some suggestions and experiences too! Anyone have any tips, resources, or experiences to share on creating a mentoring program like this (particularly ones that might help a PhD student like the OP)?

Finishing a grad program remotely?

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

Now that I have completed my coursework, I would love to finish my graduate program remotely. What are the norms for doing this sort of thing? It seems like most graduate students that do this have some kind of visiting student affiliation with another department. But is this sort of affiliation necessary? What else should I consider here?

Good questions! I don't know much about this, but my initial reaction was to wonder whether grad programs might be biased against this kind of thing, much as many workplaces are with respect to remote work. However, "recent PhD" submitted the following reply:

I know several people who do this for a variety of reasons. I certainly didn't go into the department when I was writing my dissertation during the pandemic. I think the biggest hurdle is funding. If you have to TA to get funding and all classes is in person, you obviously have to show up. People I know who are doing this are either teaching online or on fellowship/grant money.

Any readers out there have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share?

Adjuncting in grad school & the job market

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

I'm on the market for the first time. I have a good bit of teaching experience, but more and more I'm adjuncting at local colleges and not where I'm earning my PhD. Two questions. (1) How should one list adjuncting positions? I have a 'Teaching Experience' section of my cv that lists the courses and institutions I've taught at. But would it be good to also list 'adjunct instructor' under an 'Employment' section? My worry with this is that it'll just look cheesy or forced. (2) Will having adjuncted at a handful of schools hurt my prospects for a permanent position? My thought is that some search committees might look at my cv and think, 'Oh, nice PhD, nice publications, but this is just some professional adjunct.'

Fair questions, and I'm not entirely sure what the answers are for the job market as a whole. But I will say this: having worked and hired many times at a teaching-focused institution, I think the OP's experience adjuncting while in grad school will only help them (and may even help them significantly) when applying for positions at schools like mine.

In my experience, one of the biggest problems that new job candidates who are ABD or just out of grad school can have for jobs like these is simply not having enough solo teaching experience (particularly experience teaching multiple classes at the same time, which is much more difficult than just teaching one, as one typically does in grad school). The OP's experience adjuncting is likely to not only demonstrate greater experience in teaching, but also suggest to hiring committees that they value teaching (as they have chosen to pursue teaching opportunities rather than focus solely or primarily on research). Both of these things are likely to look good to hiring committees at teaching-focused institutions. So, if I were the OP and applying to jobs at SLACs or community colleges, I would by all means list their adjunct work under Employment, but list Employment beneath Education--as that will highlight the fact that they are still in grad school and adjuncting at the same time (which, again, I think is likely to look great for teaching-focused jobs).

What the OP should do for jobs at research institutions, on the other hand, is not as obvious to me. Should they list their adjunct work under 'Employment', or simply indicate it in the teaching experience section of the CV? I tend to think that CVs should be as perspicuous as possible (and that since adjunct work is employment, it should be listed as such), but then again, maybe that would "send the wrong message" to hiring committees at research institutions? I have no idea (maybe teaching experience will look good to them too!).

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Anyone else with suitable experience with these matters (particularly those who have served on search committees) care to weigh in?

Dealing with a demoralizing graduate advisor?

An anonymous reader ("grad student was wondering") writes in:

I have a difficult relationship with my advisor where I feel pretty demoralized after every meeting with them. Their style is quite harsh and it’s often unclear to me what is of value in my work (they do not ever explicitly give me positive feedback). To be clear, they provide excellent feedback but it can be really difficult to receive it. It makes it hard to feel motivated to continue working on my dissertation. What advice do people have for being motivated to work in spite of this and 2) doing something to mitigate the situation. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I'm so sorry to hear this reader is grappling with this, and hope we can help. I've had some friends deal with similar situations--advisors who regularly reduced them or other students to tears, or who were so harsh that their PhD students routinely dropped out and rarely graduated. It sure would be nice if programs more to prevent this kind of thing from happening as often as it apparently does--but while I've grappled with the more general problem that the vast majority of feedback one tends to get in academic philosophy is negative, I've never quite had to grapple with this kind of situation first-hand. So unfortunately, I'm probably not the best person to offer advice here.

But what about you, my fellow Cocooners? Do/did any of you have a harsh, demoralizing PhD advisor? If so, how did you handle it? Any helpful advice?

Publishing a translation in grad school?

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

I work in medieval philosophy. My original training was as a classicist and I love doing translations of philosophical texts. I'm an early PhD, currently teaching fulltime but unassociated with an academic institution, with only only one publication. Both that publication and my dissertation are on the texts I want to translate for publication.

Given my CV, do I have a shot at successfully pitching a translation to a publisher, or should I wait until I've published more?

Is there a chance that a journal could be interested in publishing an article-length translation?

(I'm aware that starting a book/translation project may be a less efficient use of my time than writing articles. That's an important consideration but not what I'm asking about at the moment.)

Fair questions, and I have no idea what the answers are, as I don't work in historical areas or on translations. Anyone who does have any helpful insights to share?

Writing good grad school recommendation letters?

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

Question(s) about writing a letter of recommendation for a student applying to philosophy graduate programs:
1. How long is your letter? 2 pages single-spaced?
2. How detailed should it be? For instance, should one spend a paragraph explaining the student's thesis?
3. What do you typically highlight?

These are all excellent questions. I've written a fair number of recommendation letters and had fairly decent success at having students accepted into good programs. I'd say my typical letter is about 2 pages, though in one case I wrote a 5 page letter about a student that I felt really strongly about. In terms of how detailed, I think that depends, but I typically try to highlight what is interesting and original about their work as well as relevant personal qualities (such as diligence, ability to handle setbacks, feedback, engage others philosophically in conversation, etc.) that seem relevant to me to likely success in a grad program.

At my university, philosophy majors don't typically write theses, but if the student wrote some excellent papers (including an independent study paper), then of course I'll discuss one or two of those. I also try to make the overall strength of my recommendation clear (e.g. "they have my highest recommendation"), and also say something about how they compare to other students (e.g. "this is the best student that I've had in 20 years of teaching", "they are one of the 10 best students that I've had", "they are in the top 10% of students that I've had", etc.)--as I've heard many times that grad admissions committees look for this sort of thing.

Anyway, these are just some things I do. It would be great to hear from other letter writers, as well as from grad school admissions committee members on the kinds of things they look for in a good letter!

Data Analysis of the PGR (by Frank Saunders Jr.)

Frank Saunders Jr. (Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Yonsei University UIC) writes in:

I wanted to share a project that I thought readers of the blog might enjoy: interactive dashboard visualizations of the 2021-2022 PGR results. I've created a total of 10 dashboards that can all be found along with explanations on my website here. I hope that prospective students and other interested readers might find the PGR data a bit more navigable and potentially useful in this form rather than in table form alone. In particular, the visualizations make it very easy to compare a school’s overall score with its score within an area of philosophy.

[T]he visualizations are now part of a bigger project I’m working on, Data Analysis of the Philosophical Gourmet Report (PGR), which includes creating a relational database for all public PGR data from 2006 onward, creating new visualizations of different data points, and offering analyses. This project is still in its early stages, so I’d be very keen to learn what sorts of data points or analyses readers would be most interested in seeing studied or visualised. 

Moving away from one's dissertation area on the market?

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

I'm a senior grad student finishing up my thesis. I'm finding that there's not much more to say within my thesis research area, and I've also recently found new interest in a different and less studied area of philosophy. Would there be problems when it comes to trying to get a job that I no longer want to work on my original area of specialization and want to switch tracks on to a new topic that would require me to start almost from scratch?

This seems to me like it would be probably be a big mistake for a grad student just heading out on the market. Although I moved into a number of different research areas myself while on the market--and it seemed to help me on the market in due time--it also took me a number of years to do so. I also didn't give up on my dissertation project, but instead took time to publish articles based on it while publishing in different areas.

My worry is that if the OP simply moves away from their dissertation, they will look they either can't stick with a project or like their dissertation project was not a fruitful one. Hiring committees want a clear sense of who you are and why you're likely to publish well (e.g. for tenure, etc.), and for someone coming out of grad school a dissertation is supposed to be a major piece of this picture. Again, I don't think there would be anything wrong with the OP beginning to branch out into other areas--but abandoning one's dissertation area for a new area altogether seems to me to be incredibly risky. Then again, if the new research program is super, who knows?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Putting together a good academic website?

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

Do people have any thoughts/tips about putting together an academic website? I take it that it's a consensus good thing, but are there platforms/kinds of content/organization tips that people would recommend?

Good question! I discussed websites briefly in this post in our Job Market Boot Camp a few years back, but I'm not sure how good or helpful that advice was. I did my best with my own website just by looking around at other people's as examples--but I've seen websites that are far better than my own.

Anyway, what do you all think? What should a good website look like? Links to ones that you think are particularly good would be helpful, I think--and do feel free to self-nominate by linking to your site, if you think it would be helpful!

Making major changes for 'minor revisions'?

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

Suppose after submitting a manuscript for review, I get back comments (perhaps I even get the verdict 'minor revisions'). Am I allowed to make major changes to the manuscript beyond what the reviewers recommend, and should I note this somewhere?

Basically, while waiting for reviewer reports, I've gotten feedback for the paper from a conference and want to make some major changes.

Good question! Strictly speaking, you're "allowed" to do anything you want. Revise-and-resubmit verdicts are technically rejections where you are simply invited to resubmit the manuscript for another round of review. The more salient question is what the wise thing to do here is, and I think that probably depends a lot on your situation and what you value. Let me explain.

Applying to PhD programs: worried you are too 'weak' of a candidate?

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

I am interested in applying to philosophy programs, but I'm worried I'm too weak a candidate. The pluses: I concentrated in political philosophy in undergrad, and I see myself to be an outstanding learner and writer with pretty good samples and a solid idea for a potential dissertation proposal. I also have references who can speak well about my theoretical abilities. Finally, I took one philosophy course--in French!-- during my MA, from which I finished with a 3.9. The minuses: I majored in political science, not philosophy. I wasn't exactly part of any philosophy department, and I ended up taking just 4 philosophy classes and then went on to get an MA in a social sciences program. My undergrad GPA was only about 3.6 overall, with a couple of B+'s in the philosophy classes. I would attribute this in my statement to personal reasons (my sloppier grades correlate with time, not subject) and explain that I've grown more capable since my MA. I also have virtually no background in analytic philosophy, but I'm absolutely willing to learn. Can anyone give me realistic prospects on being admitted to a decent program or if I'm in over my head? Needless to say I would be thrilled to study it--I just want to know if it's seriously worth applying.

Maybe it's just me, but Daniel sounds to me like he would be a fine candidate for philosophy Phd programs. Actually, maybe it's not just me! EM submitted the following reply:

I did my undergrad in political science and an MA in political theory. I too had taken only one philosophy course. I was admitted to every philosophy PhD program I applied to (Toronto, UCL, Oxford, Edinburgh). I’m not bragging,just showing it’s possible. However, if your interests still lie in political philosophy, why not do a UK political theory PhD where the philosophy/theory divide is much less important.

It might be good to hear from other people who were in a similar position as Daniel (were you able to get into a good PhD program?), as well as from PhD admissions committee members. Are there things that someone like Daniel can do/should do to be more competitive?

I imagine one thing he might do is to apply this year, and in the meantime take some philosophy grad classes as a non-degree-seeking student. Then, if he has trouble getting into a desirable program this year, he could have more classes (and successes in philosophy) under his belt if/when he applies next year. My spouse did this in a different field a decade or so ago, and it enabled her to get into a top PhD program in her field.

Fall CUSP Graduate Workshop Applications Open

CULTIVATING UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS IN PHILOSOPHY

—DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AT PENN STATE—

Our Fall CUSP Graduate Workshop application is now open. The workshop will take place October 23-26, 2022 in person. Selected students will be brought to campus for the institute (all expenses paid). Click here to visit the Fall CUSP eligibility criteria.

The application for Summer CUSP is now closed. Please check back regularly for more information coming soon!

WHAT IS CUSP?

The Philosophy Department at Pennsylvania State University organizes two distinct CUSP (Cultivating Underrepresented Students in Philosophy) programs each year. These programs are directed toward prospective graduate students in philosophy from traditionally underrepresented groups (including African Americans, Chicano/as and Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asian Americans).

The Summer Institute is intended for rising undergraduate sophomores or juniors who are considering pursuing an academic career in Philosophy and wish to learn more about what it means to be a part of the discipline; and the Fall Graduate Workshop, for college seniors, recent graduates, and working professionals who want to continue their graduate education in philosophy and are currently working on their graduate applications for the following Fall term.

Publishing to get a teaching job w/o 'running dry'

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

I am an advanced graduate student in a good, but not elite, program. My goal would be to land a teaching oriented job, not a research focused job. I have over 5 papers in good, but not excellent, journals.

Here's my question. I am plugging away at my dissertation, which is composed of 3-4 stand alone papers. I could submit two of them right now for publication. But, should I do that, I worry I will have nothing new to send out after I land a permanent job, should I be so lucky. Of course, I will have new ideas for papers in the future. But I am so focused on my dissertation right now that I would need a good bit of time to get back in a position to publish new work. So, should I sit on my dissertation chapters, and so have 'rounds in the chamber' when/should I land a permanent job, or, should I just publish as much as I can now, looking as good as possible for the market, but risk 'running dry' after/if I land a job? I understand that maximizing my number of publications isn't necessary or even beneficial for certain teaching jobs, but the idea of sitting on papers that are ready to go is a little annoying, to say the least.

This is an excellent question. Another early-career reader submitted the following reply:

I would submit everything right away and not worry not much about future lack of paper ideas. The review process can be long; a lot can happen after you submit that adds up to the wait. For instance, you might be rejected by several places before landing an R&R.

I entirely agree, but let me add some detail as to why...

How to decide what (and when) to read?

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

I'm a grad student working on my dissertation. There is just so much published in my research area and related areas. I always feel overwhelmed and not know exactly which to read first, and feel guilty that I'm not reading faster than I am, and not reading more topics that are written by under-represented scholars. And when I'm reading, I feel guilty about not writing more. How did you, or would you now, decide on what to read? How much did you read per week? How did you balance reading with writing?

These are really excellent questions, though perhaps not for the reasons one might expect. My own sense is that one of the biggest mistakes that grad students and other early-career people do is to spend way too much time reading. It was certainly a mistake that I made...

Tips to shorten course prep?

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

I'm a grad student that started teaching. I am spending literally an entire day and sometimes more preparing for lectures. Reading, rereading, writing notes, making slides. How much time do others put into prepping class? Do you have any useful tips on more efficient ways to prep?

These are excellent questions. Another reader, "Plato", submitted the following reply:

You need to set limits. Also, the strategies of flipping the classroom actually do work. You need to get students doing more of the work, and ideally, outside the classroom. That way, you facilitate a discussion, and correct misunderstandings. They will learn more, and you will not burn out. But it does take some nerve, and good planning.

I entirely agree. Prepping all day (or more) for a single class seems like way too much to me. Earlier in my career, I spent a lot more time prepping than I do now--about 2 hours per class for a 3/3 course load. That meant that I spent the better part of a day prepping for a full day of teaching three classes. But one of the best lessons I learned is the one that "Plato" suggests. Flipping the classroom, putting more responsibility on students to do work and come to class prepared to talk, can vastly lessen the amount of prep time one needs. And, to be honest, it seems to vastly improve student learning and experience. Instead of composing long lectures, compose shorter lectures with some group assignments interspersed throughout. Then give students 5-10 or more minutes to come up with answers to discuss. Also, consider requiring class participation. This past year, I required students to come to class with 3-5 questions on the daily reading (complete with page citations), and required them to say something substantive at least once per class--and if called upon to share a question, they would have to share one that hadn't already been asked (with a page citation showing that they had engaged with the text. It worked like a charm!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Any useful tips for the OP?

Still on grad school wait lists?

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

I am an international student who applied to PhD programs in the US this past application round. I was rejected by all schools except for one, which put me on a waitlist of six in mid-April with me being “high on the list.” Yet to this day there is no final word on my application, neither via email nor through the application portal. I emailed the DGS two months ago for an update but didn’t hear back. My question is: is it all too common to have an application pending at this time of the year? Thanks!

Good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I would email the DGS again and ask; it is highly unusual that they still haven’t notified you about the outcome. Best of luck!

But another reader added:

I recall a friend being admitted to a law school program on Sept 1 - after being short listed - and the school term began in 6 or 7 days. That is an extreme case, but it happens. He ended up finishing about 12th in his class (which is quite high). And I do recall a few late entries where I did my grad school in philosophy.

It does seem to me to be extremely late to still be on a wait list, but you never know. Do any other readers (either grad students or grad admissions committee members) have any helpful insights to share?

Deciding whether to review a paper?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an early grad student writes:

I'm wondering how to decide whether to referee a paper. I just got my first request, and from what I can gather from the abstract, this doesn't seem like an editorial call I'm particularly qualified to make. Would appreciate any thoughts.

This is a great query. Another reader (an editor) submitted the following reply:

Do not agree to referee a paper you believe you are not qualified to referee. Referees are to give their expert opinion - if you are not an expert, then your opinion is irrelevant.

I think this seems right as far as it goes (if a bit blunt!), but I'm curious whether we might be able to give the OP more helpful positive advice. How do you decide whether to review a paper? 

How often to meet with committee members?

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

I don’t meet a lot with my committee members and they’re quite hands-off but I know some people that meet theirs very regularly. I feel like I’m falling behind a lot, and I want to meet them more but I’m slow at putting out work to show them. So I’m wondering how often did you meet with your supervisor and other committee members, and how often do those on committees want us to meet?

This is an excellent question, and I'm curious what readers' answers are. Although it's obviously been a while since I've been in grad school, my sense is that one of the most serious and common errors that grad students make is to avoid meeting consistently enough with their committee members, or at least with their dissertation supervisor. Let me explain.

When to submit to journals in grad school?

In our May "how can we help you?" thread, a grad student asks:

I'm sure you get questions like this all the time so feel free to direct me to an answer if one already exists. But does anyone have a good metric for when a paper is ready to submit for publication as an early to mid stages grad student - when someone tells you you might get a publication out of it? It's accepted at any conference? It's accepted at an APA? You just feel good enough about it!? I assume none of these things are necessary, but do people take any to be sufficient?

These are excellent questions. I feel like we have discussed these issues sometime before, but if we have I can't quite track them down. My sense is that the best thing to do here is probably to have a few faculty in one's grad program read the paper to see whether they think it is ready. What do you all think?

Preparing grad students to teach (Guest post by Tim O'Keefe)

Tim O’Keefe is Professor and Director of Graduate Studies at Georgia State University’s Department of Philosophy.

Graduate students do a lot of the teaching at their universities, and for those who go on to work in academia, teaching is a substantial and important—for many, the most substantial and important—part of their jobs. But by and large, philosophy programs do little to prepare their graduate students to teach. My own experience was the “sink or swim” model, with a lot more sinking than swimming, and my impression is that that model is still widespread. Although I hope that I’m wrong and things have improved, a 2016 study concludes that, on the whole, “the discipline of philosophy requires no, and offers little, teacher training for graduate students.” (Here is that article, and a version that isn’t paywalled.)

The terminal M.A. program in Georgia State University’s Department of Philosophy is unusual in two respects. Almost all of our students are responsible for teaching their own courses in their second year, with most teaching Critical Thinking, but a fair number teaching Intro to Philosophy or Intro to Ethics. (This past Fall semester, we had 37 sections of Critical Thinking taught by our graduate students, and 10 sections of Introduction to Philosophy or Introduction to Ethics.) And with so much of our teaching done by graduate students in just their second year of graduate school, we’ve developed an extensive teacher training program, because we owe it both to our graduate students and to the undergraduates they’re responsible for.

In “Preparing Graduate Students to Teach: One Model,” George Rainbolt and Sandy Dwyer describe Georgia State’s program. (The article starts on page 4 of the linked APA newsletter.) We don’t claim to have the best way to help graduate students learn to teach, but we’ve developed something that has worked well for us. The article isn’t long, but let me summarize it here.

7 Years Later Excerpt #4: Student Evaluations

Given that many of us have just had our semesters conclude, I thought it would be appropriate to share a snippet that focuses on how graduate students should assess the end-of-semester evaluations that they receive from their students. If you have additional or different advice on how to interpret or react to these evaluations, feel free to mention it in the comments.

---

At the end of each semester, students will have an opportunity to evaluate their courses. In doing so, they will score you (usually on a 5-point scale) and the course on a wide range of metrics. There is some variance across institutions, but they are typically asked to rate things like how much they learned in the course, how much the instructor helped the students learn, how well the instructor knew the material, how organized the course was, and their perceptions of the course as a whole. If you’re a teaching assistant, the questions will be a little more specific to your interactions with students in discussion sections.

As you will learn after your first semester of teaching, reading these evaluations can be disheartening. Even if the numerical scores are reasonably good, there will almost always be some written comments that are not very complimentary. Sometimes, they will insult your character. Other times, they will disparage your course or your teaching style or make weird insinuations about your personal beliefs. What’s the appropriate reaction to student evaluations?

The first important piece of advice is not to overreact. Student evaluations are notoriously unreliable indicators of the quality of instruction. Here are a few of their documented shortcomings:

• The empirical literature on student evaluations generally shows that they do not correlate with student learning or teaching effectiveness.
• Course evaluations tend to correlate with students’ expected grades. Other things equal, an easier course – where a higher number of A grades are given – will result in more favorable evaluations than a more difficult course. As a result, some have argued that student evaluations contribute to grade inflation and encourage less rigorous teaching.
• Typically, all students enrolled in your course will be allowed to complete course evaluations, even if they do not regularly attend class. Thus, some students who complete evaluations may have a deeply inaccurate sense of what a typical class session is like.
• Student evaluations can be affected significantly by arbitrary factors, such as whether or not students have access to cookies when completing their evaluations.
• Student evaluations tend to be biased against female instructors. Overall, men are perceived as more knowledgeable and as having better leadership skills even though students appear to learn just as much from women as men. These biases may be more pronounced in large courses.
• Even assuming these evaluations are unbiased and reliable measures of student learning, they are still too imprecise to be an accurate way of assessing the quality of instructors’ teaching relative to their peers.

There are also other problems associated with interpreting student feedback even if we bracket these considerations. One common problem, especially in larger courses, is that written feedback on these assessments tends to be internally inconsistent. Sometimes you may see one comment that praises your passion for teaching while another laments that you are not enthusiastic about teaching. One student will regard your lectures as boring while another praises them as extremely interesting. The most recent example of this in my own teaching occurred when I received comments that said one of my courses contained too many readings and contained too much material while simultaneously receiving comments that said the course did not cover enough content. When you have directly contradictory feedback, it is often difficult to know which perspective is more accurate.

Another problem is that students sometimes base their assessments of your teaching on claims that are just plain false. Students will claim you do nothing but lecture even if you devote significant class time to discussion and other in-class activities. They may accuse you of grading short answer responses based solely on whether you agree with their opinion. In some cases, they will make remarks that demonstrate that they do not understand course policies. Written feedback based on demonstrably false claims should be disregarded.

As a teaching assistant, you will also sometimes be held accountable for things beyond your control. Students might comment on your evaluations that they did not like the exam formats or textbook choice, but as a teaching assistant, the primary instructor makes decisions about course content and assessment. You will usually have extremely limited – if any – influence on these choices. Students may also make direct comparisons between you and the instructor: a charismatic and experienced professor may indirectly cause you to be scored lower than you would be otherwise since you will look worse by comparison.

Overall, you should approach end-of-semester evaluations with a healthy skepticism. However, these evaluations do often play a role in tenure, promotion, and the distribution of teaching awards. They will also be an important component of your teaching portfolio if you elect to apply for academic jobs. Thus, they should not be ignored. As a general rule, you should strive to maintain about a 4/5 (or equivalent) on your numerical evaluation scores once you get a few years into graduate school. Evaluations with these scores will generally keep you competitive with other applicants: higher scores are obviously better, but most faculty are aware of the problems with student evaluations. Hiring decisions are unlikely to be made solely based on marginal differences in the numerical scores on student evaluations.

Use your initial teaching experiences as opportunities to define your teaching style and improve your weaknesses. Look for patterns in your student evaluations, and if you notice that you are persistently scoring low on a metric, then take some steps to address that in future courses. Most importantly, seek feedback from faculty in your department – especially those who observe your teaching directly – about ways in which you can improve. As you get better at teaching competently, your evaluations should improve (unless they were very high to begin with). Finally, remember that it will often be impossible to please everyone: some students, despite your best efforts, will not like you or your class. So do not lose sleep over occasional negative feedback. It’s a persistent feature of almost all evaluations, even those that are excellent overall.

Tips for running a reading group?

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

I am thinking of running a reading group with a few early graduate students, some of which [are] working with myself. But I don't have much experience with this. I can imagine different options for the structure, content, etc. I would be grateful if you could share you advice and experience.

This is a great query. Anyone have any helpful tips on what works well (and what doesn't)?

7 Years Later Excerpt #3: Teaching Competently

In the previous post in this series, I discussed how to approach leading discussion sections. This time around, I'm broadening the scope to the fundamentals of teaching competently. I'll have at least one more post on teaching after this. Afterwards, I'll probably turn to some other aspects of graduate school, such as long-term planning or job market preparation. 

---

When you first start teaching, you might think you should aspire to do it well. By teaching well, I mean teaching in ways that captivate students, educate them effectively, assess their mastery fairly and comprehensively, provide ample support to students in need, and respect university guidelines and regulations. In the abstract, this all sounds great, and it’s an admirable ambition to want to teach well. However, for those new to teaching, it’s not realistic. Teaching well requires a level of skill and expertise that early career teachers will almost never be able to achieve. Even the few newcomers to teaching who have the ability to teach well should probably not try to teach well at that stage of their careers. This notion might strike you as counterintuitive, so let me elaborate a bit.

Teaching well is difficult and requires a substantial amount of time if you aren’t an experienced instructor. I recall anecdotes of graduate students telling me about how they devoted 30-40 hours per week to teaching a single course of 25-30 students. Those courses may have been amazing, but this behavior is not admirable or prudent. As a graduate student, you must balance teaching responsibilities with a variety of other goals: making progress toward your degree, submitting papers to conferences and journals, participating in department events, and so on. Devoting 30-40 hours per week to teaching a single course does not leave enough time to adequately prioritize these other commitments – at least not if one wants to maintain good mental health and avoid burnout. Moreover, once you finish graduate school, you will never be able to devote that amount of time to a single course. If you obtain a faculty position, you will probably teach at least 3 courses per term, and they might all be different subjects: you definitely won’t be able to devote 30-40 hours to each one. That means you should aim to develop teaching strategies that can later be extended to contexts where your teaching load is significantly higher.

Here’s the general point: trying to be an exemplary teacher when you’re just getting started with solo teaching is not an appropriate goal. Instead, you should aim to teach competently. As I use this phrase, teaching competently means to teach in a satisfactory or acceptable, but not outstanding, way. Teaching competently involves the same general goals as teaching well but sets the standard for success a bit lower. You don’t need to captivate students to teach competently: it suffices to maintain the motivation of those who are engaged and avoid turning off the remaining students. Teaching competently does not require that you be a master of test design and assessment –  something that requires many courses’ worth of exam creation and refinement – it is enough to design your exams so that course content and exam material align and that students have clear expectations regarding exam content.

7 Years Later Excerpt #2: Leading Discussion Sections

By Trevor Hedberg

In the last entry, I discussed how to handle grade inquiries. This time around, I consider how to lead discussion sections -- one of the other core responsibilities of a typical teaching assistant.

---

As a teaching assistant, one of your central responsibilities will usually be leading 1-3 discussion sections each week of the semester. Typically, you’ll have 20-30 students in each section, and they will last 50 minutes, but there is some variance across institutions. So what exactly do you do to lead a discussion section? To some extent, it will depend on the instructor. In some instances, the instructor wanted me to cover some new material during these discussion sections; in other cases, I was told to just get the students talking and not worry about presenting any new course content. Sometimes, I was asked to administer quizzes or conduct assignments; sometimes, I didn’t have to do that.

The one key aspect of a discussion section is that you are supposed to get the students to discuss aspects of the course content. This might seem pretty basic, but you may not receive much direct instruction on how to get the students talking productively. (Some faculty members seem to think that graduate students will just figure it out.) Moreover, if a discussion section is not going well – that is, if the students aren’t talking – then it can get very uncomfortable very quickly. Additionally, if students feel like discussion sections are boring or pointless, their disengagement will get more pronounced as the semester progresses. That’s an outcome you obviously want to avoid, so here are some pointers on having good discussion sections:

• Always present a bit of material to the students – even if it is not required. You might think that you can just come to class with a list of prepared questions about the week’s material, ask the students those questions, and see where the conversation goes. That might work sometimes, but it’s unreliable. Some students will not have done the assigned readings for the week, and some students probably missed at least one of the week’s lectures. That means a large portion of students may not be familiar enough with the material to respond to your questions productively. Thus, you should always present a little material to the students, even if it is only a few of some of the key ideas or themes that were already covered in the week’s main lectures.
• Don’t base all your questions on the reading material. Echoing an important point above, you cannot assume that everyone in class (or even most of the students in class) will have read and understood the assigned reading for the week. If you want to dig into a key idea from the reading, make sure you review this material with the students first. But in addition to that, make sure you have a few general questions on tap that students can respond to even if they have not read one word of the assigned reading.
• Use thought experiments. Students tend to respond well to thought experiments – the trolley problem, the experience machine, Mary the colorblind neuroscientist, the prisoner’s dilemma, and so on. While there’s a legitimate debate to be had about the usefulness of thought experiments as support for premises in philosophical arguments, they remain effective pedagogical tools for getting students to reflect on philosophical problems. If you can identify a thought experiment that’s relevant to what you’re covering, consider using it 
• Use real-world examples. Many students, especially in introductory level courses that they are taking to fulfill a general education requirement, struggle to see the relevance of philosophy to everyday life. You can diminish that skepticism by basing your discussion in part on real-world cases that illustrate the key concepts for that week’s course material. This strategy may be easier to employ in ethics courses (since ethical dilemmas manifest in the real world frequently), but if you’re creative and willing to do some digging online, you may be surprised what you can find.
• Use videos. Students nowadays read less frequently than students from several decades ago but consume far more visual media. A short, relevant video to get discussion rolling can be effective, especially with the wealth of free, easy-to-browse videos available on YouTube.
• Don’t allow only a few students to dominate discussion. Some students will obviously be more prone to participate in discussion than others, but you don’t want your discussion section of 30 students to consist of you talking exclusively with only a handful of them. If you have trouble getting others to participate, consider having them work in groups or write down an answer to a prompted question at the start of class. Some students will be more comfortable participating when they have written remarks they can read or otherwise use to form their answer.
• Get to know your students. Your discussion sections will usually be small: 20-25 students. Find a way to learn your students’ names – either via the creation of a seating chart, sheer memorization, or some other method. Part of making these discussion sections go well involves crafting a relationship with your students so that they are more willing to participate. Also be willing to talk to them before class officially starts. Be polite, and be approachable.

There are certainly other techniques that could be employed, but these are my starter strategies. Do you all have any others that graduate teaching assistants should employ?

7 Years Later Excerpt #1: Handling Grade Inquiries

By Trevor Hedberg

For the first few excerpts from 7 Years Later, I'm going to focus on teaching. Most do not have much preparation for undergraduate teaching prior to the start of graduate school, and I found it to be one of the more challenging aspects of graduate school when I was getting started.

---

One of the more awkward aspects of being a grader, teaching assistant, or instructor is handling students who confront you about the grade they have received. Addressing grade inquiries is an inevitable part of being an instructor – it’s not a situation unique to being a graduate student. No matter how clear your grading criteria or how much class time you devote to recapping mistakes from the most recent exam, there will always be some students who ask you for more information about why they received their grade. However, as a graduate student, these interactions can be particularly vexing since you will have less experience dealing with them. There are at least three distinct types of grade inquiries, and different responses are appropriate to each one.

First, there are grade inquiries that boil down to grade entry errors. One type  involves the score on Canvas or Blackboard (or whatever learning platform your institution uses) not matching the score listed on the assignment itself. Another might involve too many (or too few) points being deducted on a particular question. Imagine a “-3” next to a 30-point question but a numbered score on the page of 25/30. Resolving these kinds of inquiries is straightforward: confirm that there’s a mistake in how the assignment was scored or how the grade was recorded, thank the student for reporting it to you, and correct the score. Obviously, You don’t want these grading errors to happen often – not all students will notice them, which means they sometimes result in inaccurate assessments of students’ knowledge, and persistent errors of this type will cause students to lose confidence in your professional competence. However, you will grade enough assignments that some mistakes of this type will happen. That’s okay; just correct them and move on.

The second type of grade inquiry, which is probably the most common, involves genuine misunderstanding. This is a case where a student sincerely does not understand why they received a particular score on a question or assignment. This could be because written comments given on the assignment were too minimal, they don’t know how to interpret the feedback, or they were absent when you went over the exam in class. Handling these inquiries in philosophy courses tends to be more challenging than doing so in courses like physics or calculus. In STEM courses, instructors can usually reference an answer key and explain how the student made an error in their calculation or defined some term incorrectly. But explaining why a student’s argument is not very strong can be trickier.

Tips for supervising grad students?

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

I am an advanced assistant professor getting ready to start supervising both an MA student and a PhD student for the first time. I would love to hear advice about how to do this well.

This is a great query. I haven't supervised grad students myself, so I'm not sure there's much that I can say. But it would be great to hear from readers--not only those who have experience supervising grad students, but also from grad students themselves! Do any of you have any tips or advice on how to supervise MA and PhD students well? Any do's or don'ts?

Grad school acceptance tips thread

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

With the deadline to accept graduate school offers being about a month away, can we get a thread going on deciding factors and questions to ask current grad students and faculty at programs we've been accepted into? What are some tips to get more of an idea of the climate and other subjective factors at a department during prospective visit days and one-on-one meetings?

These are all excellent questions. Here they are in order:

1. What should one's deciding factors be when determining which grad program to enter?
2. Which questions should one ask current grads and/or faculty of programs one has been accepted into?
3. What are some broader tips for getting an idea of the climate and other subjective factors:
   
   1. During prospective visit days?
   2. More generally?

What do you all think? It would be great to hear from current and former/recent grad students in particular, as well as from grad program faculty. 

The Philosopher's Nest (grad school!) podcast

Kyle van Oosterum and Lewis Williams (both DPhil students at Oxford) have really interesting new podcast, The Philosopher's Nest, which interviews philosophy grad students and is 'dedicated to showcasing the work, insights, and experiences of graduate students in philosophy.' 

The first batch of episodes 'include discussions on the graduate admissions process, the conflicting advice given to graduate students about publishing, and the challenges faced by women in philosophy', and I really look forward to checking them out!

Williams and van Oosterum are also 'very much interested in hearing from graduate students who might like to feature on an episode!' and note that 'Interested students can contact us at thephilosophersnest@gmail.com.'

• Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3bJAFKB48sjl0iECJokN6Y
• Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-philosophers-nest/id1614219208 
• Website: http://www.philosophersnest.com/

7 Years Later: An Introduction

By Trevor Hedberg

I spent a lot of time in graduate school digging up information about what I should expect during graduate school and what I should do to be competitive for academic employment when I finished my dissertation. Back then, information about these topics existed, but it was scattered across a random assemblage of online resources, and the the authors of these blog posts and short guides sometimes disagreed about the best methods for writing papers, finding a suitable work/life balance, teaching effectively, and so on. Things have definitely improved since that time. There are more avenues for graduate students to learn this information, and discussions of these topics have progressed enough that some points of consensus have emerged on these matters. But even now, the main thing I was looking for back in 2010 and 2011 has not been produced.

What I wanted as a graduate student was a single document that answered the many questions I had about graduate and professional life. How do I write a course syllabus? What is the proper conduct at academic conferences? How do I complete a revise-and-resubmit so that the paper gets published? How do I prepare for my first job search? You get the idea. And I did find answers to these questions eventually, but I wanted those answers all in one place and presented in a unified and cohesive voice. Ideally, this document would have also provided some additional resources related to the topics under discussion. The best I could find was typically a short guide that covered a small fraction of the relevant aspects of graduate school or focused on just one in particular (such as how to write publishable papers).

After a while, I decided it might be worth trying to write the guide that I had been unable to find as a graduate student. After working on it intermittently for many years, I am finally getting close to its completion. My plan is to release 7 Years Later: Surviving Graduate School in Philosophy sometime during the upcoming summer. The main title alludes to both the fact that 7 years is about the average length of time it takes a typical graduate student in the humanities to earn a PhD and the fact that my own time in graduate school (obtaining both an MA and PhD) took about 7 years. The broad framework for 7 Years has been outlined on my website for the last several months. Frankly, it has ballooned to a much larger size than I had originally envisioned: it may be about 60,000 words when it is complete.

Leading up to the guide’s full release, I’ll be publishing snippets of the guide here on the Philosophers’ Cocoon. Some of the guide’s content is based on blog posts I’ve written here in the past few years, but the content I will share in these snippets will be new. My hope is that I will get feedback on some of this content that I can then incorporate into the released version. I’m not sure yet how many of these snippets I will end up publishing here, but I’ll be starting with a few related to teaching as a graduate student. The first one of those will go up next week.

Grad program choices: 4 or 5 year program?

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

I would love to hear any thoughts on 4-year versus 5-year PhD programs (for example at U Toronto). If I have a choice between them and equal annual funding for each, is it crazy not to take the five-year option with an extra year to prepare for the job market? Or is it crazy to not take the opportunity to do the PhD in two years, given that I have an MPhil as it is?

Excellent questions. Of course, a lot depends here on the actual programs here (which is a better fit for the OP's interests, which has a better climate for grad student, better mentoring, a better placement record, etc.). I'd advise focusing on those things first and foremost. But bearing all that mind, if all other things are equal, I'd absolutely go for the 5 year program, and not just because of the extra time to prepare for the market. Just as relevant here, I think, is how things can 'go sideways' at the dissertation stage. Dissertations often don't go remotely according to plan, and can take years longer than one expects--in which case a year of extra funding can be really critical for even finishing the program (without going into a ton of debt).

Finally, this probably goes without saying, but I'd advise the OP to take care to double-check on just how much their MPhil will count in the PhD program. My understanding is that at many PhD programs, students with MA's aren't excused from much (if any) coursework--so, if you have to take courses and write a dissertation, 4 years of funding is really not a lot of time at all: I took 6 years to finish at Arizona after I had the equivalent of an MA, and this wasn't uncommon at all for PhD students back in my time (though it's been a while now, and I know a lot has changed, including the length and nature of dissertations).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Candidates writing their own recommendations?

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

Though I take it to be frowned upon, I get the sense from graduate students that it's very common for some senior faculty members to ask students to write their own letters of recommendation, and then edit them. I'm curious if admission committees ever feel like it is obvious that an applicant has written their own letter. Is it unethical to do so? Or are letters so 'inflated' anyways that this isn't a major concern for applicants or committees?

These are excellent questions. I too have heard of this practice, and frankly find it a bit astonishing that it apparently occurs. It sort of seems to defeat the purpose of an outside letter of recommendation to have a candidate write it themselves, no? So, I'm curious too: how common is this practice? What do readers think of it? And, do committees ever suspect that a candidate wrote their own letter? 

Departmental controversies and grad student prospects

In our January "how can we help you?" post, a reader asks whether a public controversy or grievances about a department "could impact the department's graduate students in terms of potentially harming prospects for employment in the future or getting accepted to a workshop or conference?" 

The Cocoon isn't a gossip site, and is supposed to be a safe and supportive forum for all, so I want to be very careful here (and ask readers to be respectful of this). But, given that there have been a number of serious public controversies associated with various philosophy departments over the years, I think it could be good to answer this reader's question, if only to put them and other grad students in a similar position at ease--as grad students are (obviously) in a vulnerable professional position.

In brief, here's my answer: I'm pretty confident that no one one is likely to hold stuff like this against grad students. We all recognize that grad students are normally likely to be innocent bystanders in departmental controversies, and that it would be wrong to hold situations against them over which they have little if any control. My confidence here is bolstered by the fact that I've seen many grad students come out of departments where there were very serious controversies (and indeed, scandals) end up getting jobs, invited to all kinds of things, and so on. 

So, I'd encourage this reader and other grad students in similar situations not to worry about their career prospects, at least not any more than any other grad student or job candidate. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Mental health (e.g. PTSD) diagnoses and grad school

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

I am ABD. I have recently been diagnosed with PTSD. This wasn’t exactly a shocking diagnosis for me to receive, but something about the isolation during COVID and recently getting my own apartment allowed this issue to bubble to the surface. I feel stuck. I am tempted to go on leave to try and focus on recovery, but I’m worried I won’t come back to my PhD program if I do, and I really really want to finish my dissertation. It’s hard to focus. I am all over the place, emotionally speaking. And I am coming to terms with the fact that I have been using school to smother my trauma— I’ve almost taken that strategy as far as you can take it! Tips? Suggestions? Help? Anyone else managed PTSD while they are working on a dissertation?

These are excellent and important questions, as are questions about managing mental health diagnoses in grad school (and academia) more generally. Studies have found "strikingly high" rates of mental health issues among graduate students and faculty. Do any of you have any tips, particularly for the OP?

Should grad students work on trendy topics?

There's an interesting ongoing discussion at Daily Nous on which topics of research are trending for graduate students and recent PhDs. Having served on six search committees now, I'm really curious to hear from other search committee members: do you think it is advantageous, disadvantageous, or neither on the job market for grad students to work on trendy topics? Why? 

Here's my hot-take: I expect it is probably advantageous for getting an R1 job, but potentially disadvantageous for getting a job at a teaching institution. Here's why: R1s seem likely to want to hire the 'next big thing', and one obvious path to this is to hire someone who does really good work on a hot topic in the profession. However, trendy topics tend to be pretty narrow, and it's easier to stand out in a pile--as a researcher and teacher (for teaching jobs)--if you do something different than most candidates. This, again, is just a hot-take hypothesis. But I wonder if there is something to it. 

One quick note: I'd like to keep this discussion to search committee members. Here's why: job-candidates reporting their experiences may result in a misleading picture of things due to base-rate issues. If (e.g.) 90% of job-candidates work on trendy topics, then as a merely statistical matter, candidates who work on trendy topics will tend to get a lot of jobs. So, if we hear from candidates, we run the risk of committing the base-rate fallacy. We don't entirely obviate this by hearing from search committee members, but at least in their case we might get a picture of which types of candidates they prefer and do well in their hiring processes, all things being equal.

UK research council funding?

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

I have a couple of questions about UK research council funding. Firstly, I hear it is highly competitive, but can't seem to gauge how competitive, at least in comparison to US R1 Grad school admissions. Do people know the sort of success rate for applicants? Also, it seems that you compete against people from other subjects, so how well do philosophers do on average?

Secondly, how valuable is it when applying for jobs? For instance, would it be better to go to Oxbridge or a highly ranked UK institution without funding or a lower PGR ranked or unranked UK institution with UKRI/AHRC funding? And is the perception of it different in the UK/Europe to the US?

These are all excellent questions, and I have no idea what the answers are. Do any of you have any helpful insights?

Funded MA at Texas Tech

From Texas Tech:

To all undergraduates interested in pursuing graduate study in philosophy:

The Texas Tech Philosophy Department is now accepting applications for its Master of Arts Program in philosophy.

Our M.A. students are regularly admitted to some of the best PhD programs in philosophy including most recently NYU, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, and UCLA. Recent placement can seen on our website here: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/philosophy/degrees/placement.php

We are able to offer students generous funding packages. Teaching Assistantships are provided to almost all of our graduate students which include tuition and fee waivers that cover more than 80% of tuition and fees as well as a stipend of an additional $14,000 a year. Additional fellowships of up to $5,000 may also be available as well. 

For financial aid purposes, US students should fill out a FAFSA form as early as possible. For full consideration, all other applications materials should be received by Feb 15th, though applications are still accepted and considered on a rolling basis after this. Further information about our program can be found on our website here: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/philosophy/degrees/gradprogram.php as well as on the attached poster.

Please contact Dr. Amy Flowerree, Director of Graduate Admissions, at Amy.Flowerree@ttu.edu with any questions. 

Undergrad submissions to grad conferences?

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

Hello! I am helping organize a graduate student conference and we've received a submission from an undergraduate. I can't think of a reason to exclude them from the review process (other than the fact that we are branded as a venue for grad student work), but I'd love to hear if other people have thoughts about the benefits of a grad-student-only conference environment. Is it needlessly elitist of us not to consider their work?

Interesting question. On the one hand, as the OP notes, the conference is branded as a forum for grad students to present their work, and I guess admitting an undergraduate might mean one less opportunity for a grad student to present their work--which seems relevant. On the other hand, undergrads can use forums to present their work as well, and some undergrads may very much benefit from presenting at a grad conference. So, I don't know. What do you all think?

Did you receive adequate mentoring?

Laurence B. McCullough (Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Baylor) writes in:

As a retired professor, I follow your blog to keep up with what is happening in the world of philosophy.  I spent my career as a medical educator.  In the Baylor Center we (Baruch Brody and I, then the only two senior faculty) had a program for mentoring for all junior faculty.  We met with our colleagues regularly both formally and informally, read their work, advised them on academic matters, etc. 

We called what we did mentoring for success.  For example, Baruch and I mentored a junior colleague who followed Baruch as Director of our Center and therefore as my boss before I retired.  This is common, and a point of considerable pride, in the world of medical education. 

I am struck as I follow the postings on your blog by the absence of mention or mentorship.  I benefitted from mentoring when I was junior faculty, especially from a philosophy colleague at Texas A&M (where I was on medical and philosophy faculties and my first position).  I get the sense that many of our colleagues whose comments you post have no mentoring.  Perhaps mentoring – the absence of it, when it helps, when it does not help – would make a good topic for your blog.

This is an excellent query, and I'm thinking of running a short series on the topic. But, before I move forward with that, I'd like to ask the Cocoon's readers a few questions:

1. If you are a current or recent graduate student, what kind of mentoring are you receiving (viz. research, teaching, professionalization, the job market, etc.) have you received or are you receiving? Do you think the mentoring you've received is appropriate/adequate? Why/why not?
2. If you are or recently were a junior faculty member (e.g. a postdoc, TT faculty, non-TT faculty, etc.), what kind of mentoring have you received or are you receiving? Do you consider it appropriate/adequate? Why/why not?

How many applicants are PhD programs receiving?

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

I wish you all a happy new year. I would like to ask if the readers who serve on the admission committees at their schools (or are otherwise acquainted with the situation) know or have any guess how applications to PhD programs they have received or expect to receive this year, especially compared to the last year (when the applicant pool was so big) and earlier years (2020, 2019..).

This is an excellent query. I have heard anecdotally that some programs are way down in terms of the number of applications they've received this year, while other programs are either similar to or up from recent years. I've also heard, again anecdotally, that this might have something to do with whether programs require the GRE--which, for obvious reasons, might push applicants to apply instead to programs than no longer require them. 

Any readers (e.g. on PhD admissions committees) willing to share how large their applicant pools are this year compared to recent years? This might not only provide some idea of big-picture trends (in philosophy PhD applications in general), but also perhaps help us to understand the causes of them. It might also be good to hear from applicants too! Did you apply to fewer PhD programs this year for some reason? If so, why?

Disinviting someone from your dissertation committee?

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

I have a question about disinviting someone from my dissertation committee. Is it 1) possible, 2) acceptable, 3) a bad idea (for strategic/interpersonal/departmental reasons, etc.), or 4) a good idea (given the below)?

The problem I am having is that said committee member does not engage with me AT ALL. This person won't answer emails, including requests for meetings, or give ANY feedback, etc. and is on my committee b/c given their area and my area, it made sense. But it seems they will not be in a position to recommend me when all is said and done, which is pretty terrifying. And despite my best (and many!) efforts, I feel I have no relationship with them not even a bad one, really, since so unresponsive. So I would like to disinvite them (I don't have a replacement yet), but I assume this is extremely controversial. Thus, seeking advice.

This is an excellent question, and I am sure some other grad students have (or have had) experience with similar situations. Mike Titelbaum (Wisconsin) submitted the following response:

That's a really tricky problem you have, and I'm sorry you're stuck with it. Besides the concerns you mentioned with "disinviting" one member, there's the additional problem that if that person is very well-known in your field, when you apply for jobs folks might wonder why that person wasn't involved in your dissertation, and might informally ask them what they think of your work.

Maybe one way to move towards a solution is to recognize that there are two groups of people here: Those that are officially listed as being on your committee, and those who help you write the dissertation. Those two groups don't always have to be the same. Many grad students have three people on their committee, but work closely with only one or two and hardly ever interact with the others. Heck, I've sometimes worked closely with someone on their dissertation without ever being on their official committee. So the fact that this person won't help you doesn't mean you necessarily need to get them off your committee.

If I were you I'd try to gain more information about this person, based on experiences of their colleagues and your fellow grad students: Is this ghosting behavior typical for this person, or is it an indication that they dislike your work? Even if they're unresponsive now, when dissertation defense time comes around will they read the thing and show up where they need to be? It's possible that even if they're behaving badly now, they will come through at the end and then (if they like the dissertation you produce) write you a perfectly good letter. If you do get information that leads you to remove them from your committee, I'd recommend identifying a replacement first. It's a lot easier to say to a cantankerous faculty member that you'd like to sub them out for someone else with whom you've struck up a good relationship, than to simply tell them you don't want them involved with you any more. And until you get a substitute, it doesn't sound like having the bad member on your committee for the time being is doing you any active harm. Good luck!

This strikes me as wise advice. You don't necessarily need to work closely with all of your dissertation committee members. What you do need is to write a passable dissertation and get good letters of recommendation from faculty whose letters are likely to help you on the job market. So, along with Mike, I think the contextual details matter a lot here. Is this just how that committee member is? Might they still write you a good recommendation letter at the end of the day? Would it look bad on the market if you didn't get a letter from them? Can you write a good dissertation working primarily with your other two committee members? These, I think, are probably the questions the OP really needs to answer in order to make the best decision.

One additional note: what the OP describes could even be a proverbial blessing in disguise. Dissertation committee members can sometimes disagree substantially on the direction a dissertation should take--which can give rise to difficult binds where you have to choose between which committee member's advice you follow. I've heard that in some cases, situations like this can lead to a divide within the committee itself, angering the committee member whose guidance isn't followed. So, in principle, it could actually be good to have "fewer voices involved" in working on the dissertation, particularly if the OP's other two committee members are responsive and helpful. So, long story short, I think the answers to the OP's questions are probably: (1)  Yes, it's possible; (2) Sure, it can be acceptable; (3) and (4) whether it's a bad idea or a good idea depends on the details.

But these are just my thoughts (and Mike's). What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from grad students who have faced this kind of situation, including how their decision worked out in the end, but also from grad faculty (including dissertation committee members). What do you all think?

Learning how not to rely on one's PhD advisor

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

I don't think I'm alone in this, and I'm looking for advice from those who've gone through it or something like it.

I have an excellent relationship with my advisor. With his guidance, my mediocre ideas become significantly less mediocre, and even, on occasion, quite interesting. I've worked with other professors and, to be honest, we're on the same wavelength in ways that I haven't experienced with others.

While I'm incredibly grateful to be working with them, I'm also a bit anxious about what's to come. At some point, I'll move on, ideally to a job, and it will be less and less appropriate for me to lean on my advisor to lift up my work and make it more intelligible. What can I do to prepare for this? Should I just hold on as long as possible? Will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?

These are very good questions. Timmy J. submitted the following response:

My own adviser told me that most of the point of grad school is to get voices in your head. You get your adviser’s voice is your head. You get some of your cohortmate’s voices in your head. Maybe you get frege or Kant or whoever’s voice in your head. Then you leave but the voices stay and some large portion of the help they could give before they can still give later, albeit in a disembodied way. Yeah yeah it’s weird and mystical and whatever. But it sorta helps me deal, and maybe it’ll help you too.

This seems right to me (I still bear in mind many lessons that I learned from my advisor). However, I don't think they are the only way to handle the OP's situation--and I also think it can be critical to develop one's own voice, as it were, becoming one's 'own philosopher' (there are, for example, some preconceptions about research that I was taught in graduate school that I now firmly reject). In any case, what other strategies are there? One strategy that I have seen is for people to slowly wean themselves off of their advisor, staying in close contact with them for their first few years out of graduate school, meeting with them via Zoom, sharing work, etc. My sense is that this can work if one's advisor is a caring and conscientious person, particularly given that advisors can want their former students to succeed. Not all advisors are like this, however--and so, one might very well find oneself 'ripped away' from being able to rely on them. In that case, my sense is that one's situation can be very much akin to being thrown into the deep end of a pool and simply having to learn how to swim. 

Long story short, I don't think there's just one way to answer the OP's questions. I think a lot depends on you (are you 'naturally independent' or someone who really needs support networks?), on your advisor (are they willing to stay in close contact and be helpful once you graduate?), and on context (is your first job out of graduate school in a large research department or small department with high teaching loads?). Because things can differ so much, I'm very curious to hear from readers. How did you handle the kinds of issues the OP asks about? Did your strategy work well or not?

Finally, I do want to say a few things about the OP's third and final question: "will I get more confident in my own work as I become more independent?". My sense is that you probably will. My own advisor once told me in graduate school that at some point, one undergoes a transformation of sorts. You begin to realize that, whereas for your entire academic career as a student, you had to satisfy your professors with your work, now the main person you need to satisfy is yourself. Sure, you need to convince referees to publish your work. But, at some point, you'll get a sense of how to do that while being the kind of philosopher you want to be. And, in my experience, it can be a really wonderful experience, generating not only a kind of confidence in your work, but indeed, a kind of confidence that doesn't depend so much on others for validation (which, I think, can be a really liberating experience). But again, this is just my experience. What's yours?