The Philosophers' Cocoon

(Better addressing) why grad students drop out?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) asks:

What are the main factors that cause grad students to drop out of programs, and how can these be mitigated? How can programs better support e.g., mental health, wellbeing and other outcomes?

These are both excellent and important questions. My sense is that many grad programs could probably do a lot more to better support struggling grad students, but that these issues are often just not talked about openly. In my experience, a lot of graduate students end up suffering in relative silence, not knowing what to do or who to turn to--and, perhaps in part because they are afraid to speak out, grad programs may not know what they could be doing to help.

Finally, of course, there may in some cases be simply a lack of will. Some grad faculty might not think it is their responsibility to help grad students through personal crises that affect their academic performance and ability to finish the program. Although I strongly disagree with this, it is worth thinking about what might be done to incentivize a more proactive and helpful approach in grad programs--such as, perhaps, the APA (or AAUP?) developing some kind of 'best practices' document or instituting some of kind requirement for programs to be transparent about their dropout rates in order to remain in good standing with the organization (which, insofar as it could reflect poorly on the program, particularly to prospective students, might incentivize programs to do better).

Anyway, I'm not sure--but I think these are very important questions, given how much is at stake in the lives of grad students. So, then, how would you answer Helen's questions? What are the main factors that lead grad students to drop out, and what should programs do better?

What do (and should) grad applicants prioritize?

On Twitter, our own Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) asks several interesting questions, beginning with the following:

What considerations do philosophy grad students have where to apply/which offer to accept? How important are (relatively speaking) the following factors...Stipend/package, training (e.g., teacher training) placement rate, relative prestige of the dept, professors they really want to work with, specialization, geography (is it a city they'd want to live in), "climate" (welcoming to e.g., women, minorities), research culture.

I think it might be good to hear from readers on two things:

1. Which considerations they did prioritize (or are currently prioritizing) in deciding which programs to apply to and accept admissions offers from.
2. Which considerations people think grad applicants should prioritize, and why.

After all, I expect that some people might have chosen programs for particular reasons, but then in retrospect with they had prioritized other factors instead. What do you all think?

Grad school writing sample tips?

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

I'm a prospective graduate student preparing for the application cycle this fall. I'm hoping to pursue analytic philosophy, but the courses offered at my undergraduate institution were mostly in ancient, medieval, and continental philosophy. My quandary is in choosing a writing sample from the papers I wrote for these courses. In the paper I think might be my strongest, I analyze and interpret a continental thinker through tools drawn from an analytic thinker. My own writing style is very analytic, but I'm concerned that submitting a writing sample on a continental thinker might be a turn off to the analytically-minded programs I'm applying to. Is this a valid concern?

This is a good question, but unfortunately, having not served on grad admissions committees, I'm not very well-placed to know the answer! What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on grad program admissions committees? Also, given that the OP and other similar readers may benefit from other tips about grad program writing samples, please do share any other insights you might have about writing samples that you think prospective students should know!

Taking grad courses outside one's AOS?

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

Second year phd student here: is there any compelling reason for me to take grad courses in areas of philosophy I don't enjoy/am not knowledgeable about/will not specialize in? I finished my program's distribution requirements and am so excited to never have to care about anything at all in (let's say, for example) LEMM again, but I can't help wondering if there's some downside to staying in my comfort zone for the rest of my program (even if my comfort zone is what I enjoy and will specialize in). Assume for the sake of the question that I won't discover a genuine passion for metaphysics somewhere down the line.

This is an excellent question, and I am curious to hear what readers think. Personally, I think it may be advisable to take as many courses like these as one reasonably can. Let me explain why.

Readers for grad school writing samples?

A reader writes in:

I'm currently putting together materials for a run at Ph.D programs. I've heard from countless sources that the writing sample is the most important part of the application. I plan to have my advisor...look over the writing sample, as it originated out of an assignment for her class. But I also think the more eyes my paper sees and the more critical feedback it receives, the better it will be. It can be terribly difficult to zoom out from one's own work to see what needs improvement.

1). is it appropriate to solicit "external reviewers," for lack of a better term--in other words, faculty at other programs that specialize in the topic at hand, and ask them to read through a draft?

2). If this has been done with any success, how did you go about establishing a working relationship with those people in order to make a request like that?

3). If any of you readers of the blog are willing to network and chat about my writing sample [on Nietzsche and his pregnancy metaphors], I'd welcome that connection.

At present, I only have my aforementioned advisor working in the subject area. All other mentors and colleagues that have volunteered to read through my writing sample work in completely different areas than the topic of the paper.

These are excellent questions, and I don't think we've ever discussed them on the Cocoon before.

How do you know when a paper is ready?

On Twitter, Alexandra Gustafson (PhD candidate, Toronto) asks:

How do you know when a paper is ready to be submitted to journals? Is it ever ready, or do you just have to “go for it” at some point?

These are excellent questions, and honestly ones that I've struggled with throughout my career, including post-tenure. What do you all think? How do you know when a paper is ready? And how do you think an early-career scholar such as Alexandra should go about things here?

Tips for UK grad students?

In our new thread soliciting questions from new and returning graduate students, Lauren Tate writes:

I’m about to start a PhD in philosophy in the UK in October and wanted to know what exactly this entails other than writing my thesis. I’ve tried seeking answers to my question on other forums but most people who have replied have been in the sciences so often talk about lab work which I definitely won’t be getting involved. I know philosophy is really just a lot of thinking and writing (and rewriting...and more rewriting), but when I explain that to outsiders of philosophy it seems strange to say that I will spend 3 years (and a lot of money) to *just* write 80,000 words.

This is an excellent question, and as someone who has virtually no experience with the UK system, I'm really interested in hearing readers chime in! An Australian Graduate Student submitted the following reply:

I've just finished an MA in Australia, where degrees have a similar structure as the UK. I had no coursework and teaching was entirely voluntary, so the thesis is all that's required to graduate. But that wouldn't set you up well after graduation if you want a job in academic philosophy. You'd want to juggle your thesis with a bit of teaching and most importantly publishing scholarly work. That is how I approached my MA and what I would do in your position.

This sounds right to me, as far as becoming competitive for the academic job-market is concerned. But I wonder: how exactly does one get good teaching experience in the UK? (I've heard from a few friends that it can be difficult). Also, what are some good tips for learning how to publish as a graduate student in the UK? Given that there is no PhD course-work, I imagine it may be difficult to come up with publishable ideas outside of the dissertation. Are there good reading and working-paper groups to join--that sort of thing? If you're someone with experience in the UK graduate school system, do feel free to share any tips that Lauren might find helpful! 

Grad school question: getting scooped?

In our new thread soliciting questions from new and returning grad students, a reader writes:

I've written a paper for a conference that's due in the next few days. But then someone posts a forthcoming paper to PhilPapers on the exact same topic making the exact same points as my paper. And it is far better than my paper. What do I do? Not enough time to change my paper substantially. Do I submit my paper anyway? Or just scrap it? I'm a PhD student and have not attended a conference before.

This is an excellent question, and a bunch of other readers submitted replies. NH writes:

Having had and overcome the experience of being "scooped" several times, I think that if you appreciate the finer details of both your account and theirs, you'll find differences that are productive to discuss. Being first to a point is important but you can still make a major contribution. Just don't let the feeling that you've been scooped be a mental block that prevents you from working further on the topic.

Prof has similar advice:

Make sure it really is the same. Subtle differences matter. If not, try to tweak it to make it more clear (at least to yourself) how it is different (keeping in mind you can almost always make some changes before presenting). If you really aren't adding anything new, scrap it. This happens.

S-U adds:

If your paper presents a different argument, then send it in to the conference (adding a note in the paper that a different argument has been put forward by someone else). IF it is the same argument, then, move on.

Tammo writes:

I'm aware of one recent case where one author (call them A) made an interesting technical point, and not much later another author -- B -- published a paper that made the same point. B's paper had a footnote saying something like "After finishing work on this paper, it was brought to my attention that A makes the same point in a recent paper." B's paper explored a few ramifications of that point that A's paper didn't, but the "heart" of the paper was the same. I don't think that B's behavior there was unethical, but I did hear a few negative comments about B's paper. (There wasn't any insinuation of plagiarism, but B was rendered as being a bit to keen to publish in some of those comments.) So I guess pursuing publication of that exact point is probably not a good idea -- although I'm less certain about whether to present at the conference or not. That said, I would probably consider (a) thinking about whether you still have some interesting and new thoughts about what to make of that point and (b) getting in touch with the author of the forthcoming paper and have a discussion, given that you have overlapping interests and positions. One other thought: the fact that the forthcoming paper seems "better" than your paper probably has a lot to do with the fact that it's at the end of a process of presenting at a conference and getting feedback, submitting to a journal, and (most likely) being revised after peer review. When you submit to a conference, it is normal that your paper would be in a much more "raw" state -- so I wouldn't take the apparent differences in quality at heart.

And Michel writes: 

Just send it in and see what happens. (This other paper won't be held against you, especially since it's just forthcoming; nobody has read it yet!) To publish it you'll want to acknowledge this new paper and try to make a distinct contribution. But for the conference, don't sweat it.

Thanks to everyone above for their tips and advice! I'm curious to hear what other readers think, but here are a few quick thoughts of my own.

Applying to philosophy PhD programs w/multiple grad degrees?

In our latest "how can we help you?" thread, Claire writes:

I'm another unusual applicant to PhD programs, and I'm hoping for some advice on how to proceed. I have a PhD in History from Cambridge, with several prestigious scholarships. I also have one BA in Sociology (UCSC), another in History (UCR), a masters in medieval history (Cambridge), and another masters in urban and regional planning (Virginia). I also worked for a while in digital humanities and in cancer research (medical abstracting). I gave up on academia because History just didn't make me passionate enough, and I felt I would get backed into a temporal corner. I'm a broader thinker and needed something that makes my sense of wonder come alive. I now know that philosophy is what does that. I might seem like a perennial student, but the truth is, I've always sought out philosophical issues in each degree, and am currently writing a book that touches on philosophical topics in many ways. Writing this book is actually what got me looking into academic philosophy in the first place.

I want to dive into a PhD in philosophy now, and pursue research (and teaching, if I'm lucky) in the field. But how do I proceed with getting enough official philosophy background and letters of recommendation to be admitted? I have never taken a class in philosophy (but a lot of social theory, and a lot of independent reading). I have maxed out all student loan possibilities, so can't do a third BA or MA. What are my chances of being admitted straight to philosophy programs with my existing profile? Since I gave up on academia after my last PhD, I also haven't been in touch with anyone who might be a letter writer. I'm not sure what they'd think of me asking for one at this point. Any advice? Much appreciated.

Good questions! Amanda submitted the following response:

I think you'd be okay if it were just a history Ph.D., but all the other graduate degrees on top of that will probably work against you. People have a tendency toward "judgeness" in these situations (in my experience) and might see you, as you say, as a "professional student."

I would also be cautious about saying things about finding your passion in philosophy. As sad as it is, the field is full of philosophers who felt that way initially and now look back on that old self with a jaded eye roll. No, not everyone, but many are cynical and bitter, having learned that the profession is not what they hoped.

I'd argue that the best way to increase your odds of achieving your goals is to take a handful of philosophy courses (4-6) in the "core" areas, i.e., epistemology, metaphysics, history, ethics. These should be either upper-division undergrad courses or grad courses. I recommend taking them at a school with either an MA or Ph.D. program in philosophy. In-person is best as that would make it easier to get letters, but online courses would be okay. This would achieve both the goal of showing background in philosophy and getting letters of rec from philosophers. It would be best to find a program that allows people to enroll in one-off courses, but auditing could work with the right personal statement and letters of rec.

A possible alternative path would be to sneak your way into a Phil adjunct teaching position and then sell yourself as self-taught. With all your degrees, you will be able to get by with minimal official training. While in general, there is skepticism of self-teaching, a Ph.D. changes things. Create a syllabus and explain that your other academic work created a familiarization with philosophy. A school that really needs instructors might hire you. However, COVID is going to make things far more difficult than before.

Getting a visiting student post while ABD?

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

I have a question about the process of applying for becoming a visiting student in another university especially when you are in the dissertation phase. I am currently in a PhD program of one of the US universities and I am wondering how can I be a visiting student in another university (in the US) for awhile.

This is an excellent query. I seem to recall a grad student or two that I knew having done this, and it seemed to really be a boon to their career, as they were able to draw on the expertise of people outside of their home department, get good outside recommendation letters, network, and so on. However, I don't know much about the process. Although I could be totally wrong about this, I sort of suspect that you (and/or your dissertation supervisor) just need to approach a person or two at the department or two that you would like to visit to see if their department would be willing to have you.

But again, I am really just speculating here. Do any readers have experience with this? It might be great to hear both about the process of becoming a visiting student at the dissertation stage, and the costs and benefits of doing so! 

Alternative paths to academic philosophy jobs?

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

The standard path towards landing an academic job in philosophy involves getting a doctoral degree in philosophy, and upon its completion, either securing a post-doctoral position in a related field or (if one is lucky) securing a fixed-term or tenure-track position within a philosophy department.

Now, I get the sense that there is some apprehension towards offering someone who has already obtained a doctoral degree (in a different subject) a place within the philosophy department to complete another doctoral degree, perhaps for reasons of fairness -- that given the competitive nature, it is only fair that someone who does not have a doctoral degree be offered a chance to obtain that degree than someone who already has a doctoral degree.

However, without a doctorate in philosophy, it appears difficult (much harder than it usually would be for people with a philosophy doctorate) to secure a post-doctoral position in philosophy, especially if the area of their original doctorate is pretty far from their primary(ish) research interests in philosophy. Even if one were to chance upon a rare instance where they do secure a post-doc position, it appears to be an uphill battle to convince a hiring committee that one indeed has sufficient philosophical background to teach philosophy at an undergraduate level (I have a suspicion that many would not consider having a master's degree to be sufficient). It therefore seems that, at best, one no more competitive within the job market after the end of that post-doc tenure even if they were to be lucky enough to land a post-doctoral position in philosophy without a doctoral degree in the subject (again, I suspect that one would, in fact, be less competitive on the job market because of the unconventional academic path).

So, more specifically, I have the following questions:

(i) is there an alternative path towards landing an academic job in philosophy that is just as effective/efficient as the standard path?

(ii) if the standard path is all that is available, what could someone who has already obtained a doctorate in a different subject (and is currently pursuing a master's degree in philosophy) do to make themselves reasonably competitive when applying for their second PhD so that their application is not dismissed on the account that they have already received a doctoral degree?

Interesting questions. I'm not sure that there is an alternative path toward landing an academic job in philosophy. But fortunately, I'm not sure there's any reason to think that PhD program admissions committees in philosophy are likely to be apprehensive toward admitting someone who already has a PhD in another field. Far from it, my guess is that admissions committees may find candidates like this especially interesting--as the person's expertise in another field could well enrich their department. Indeed, what could be better than having a new PhD student who has expertise in (say) physics, or psychology, or biology, political science, sociology, etc.? All of these fields (and many others besides!) have much to offer philosophy, and I imagine it might not only be interesting on a day-to-day basis to have someone like that in the department, but also educational, offering grad students and faculty alike fertile ground for expanding their horizons and knowledge-base.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Doing conference commentaries in grad school?

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

I am an incoming first-year PhD student (thank you everyone for all of the wonderful advice on applications last year!), and my department only offers travel funding for presenting or commenting at a professional conference (i.e., no graduate student conferences). Is investing time in trying to comment on papers worth it? If so, how does one go about doing this? Are early PhD students unlikely to receive these opportunities without publications? Any advice about how this process works is greatly appreciated (especially as some conferences appear to be planning on being in-person starting in the fall).

Good questions! I'm not entirely sure what the answers are, but here are some quick thoughts. It seems to me like it could very much be worth doing conference commentaries while in grad school, particularly if your department offers travel funding. First, you'll get practice reading, thinking about, and responding to professional level work-in-progress. Second, you'll get to attend a lot of other talks, which is an excellent learning opportunity. Finally, you'll get to meet people in the profession! It's important, however, to do a good job with your commentary, so I'd definitely suggest running your commentary by your grad advisor or another faculty member of two. In terms of how to become a conference commentator, I expect the best way may be to simply email the conference organizers and express interest. However, I'm not sure how open conference organizers are early PhD students giving commentaries. What do you all think? Do any of you have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Tips for teaching one's first course?

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

Any advice for a PhD student teaching his first course? What to do, what not to do, things you wish you had known, etc. It's a 200-level course in metaphysics.

Great question! Another reader responded:

Play to your strengths. Do not try to learn a pile of new things the first time. If you know a lot about philosophy of time, or the mind/body problem, focus on those at the cost of other topics. You need to make things easy for yourself. Be humane to your students, and do not try to be the superdo bestest ever teacher. Aim to be an effective teacher. Design assignments that do not over burden you. Think of ways that get the students learning.

Here's what I'd add:

Handling troubles with dissertation supervisors?

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

I am about to go on the job market, and I did not enjoy working with my supervisor. I am therefore determined to avoid having to interact with them or rely on them for the next steps in my career, however I worry that such independence from one's supervisor, if one lacks a strong academic network beyond that of the supervisor, is impossible. I also worry that maybe some of my misgivings aren't about this person and their team in particular, but about certain power structures in academia altogether, and so perhaps I should just pursue a non-academic career. It would be great to hear from people who might have thoughts on any of this!

I suspect that troubles with dissertation supervisors or other dissertation committee members are not uncommon. So it might be good to hear from readers who have been through similar situations on how they handled it. It would also, of course, be good to hear tips from readers more generally. Although I admittedly haven't been through the kind of situation that the OP describes, here are a few quick reactions.

External dissertation committee members?

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

PhD student here. What are reasons for and against having a dissertation committee member who is not part of your department? How do you go about inviting a professor from another department to be on your committee? Should you be working with them first/already, or at least be acquainted with them? What are the odds of their acceptance if you ask them? Are there any drawbacks to asking?

These are great questions. I imagine there are two different types of dissertation committee members who are not a part of your graduate department: committee members from other universities and committee members from a different discipline at your own university (e.g. psychology, political science, etc.). In both cases, I imagine there are two main reasons to want an external committee member like this: (1) to draw on their expertise, and (2) get another recommendation letter for the job-market. I'm not entirely sure what reasons there are against having external committee members, though, nor am I at all sure what the process looks like for seeking one out. Do any readers with experience in these matters have any tips to share?

Tips for an unusual grad applicant?

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

I finished my undergraduate degree in philosophy and a related field four years ago. At that time, I was not interested in pursuing professional philosophy, having been advised to wait and see if a safer, non-academic career might work.

Since then, I have continued to do philosophical research on my own time and have published one paper in a top specialist journal, and am working on an R&R for a top-20 generalist journal (assume for the sake of this post that the R&R makes it to publication as well). In both cases the referees have been enthusiastic and positive about the papers' arguments and contributions. So I assume that if I apply for graduate school, I will have a strong writing sample.

My undergraduate transcripts, however, are generally inconsistent and would be a major concern to an admissions committee. Despite a general upward trend (culminating in all A+'s in my final semester), my grades fall all the way across the spectrum (A+'s, F's, B's, etc), including philosophy and non-philosophy classes. Much of that was due to an untreated mental health condition. I did have good relationships with certain professors and can reliably assume that my letters will be strong but not exceptional.

I think my situation is unique because you would not generally expect someone with poor undergraduate transcripts and no graduate training to publish good papers. I am not saying my papers are outstanding (they aren't), I am just saying that they were deemed publishable and potentially publishable by referees and editors at good journals.

So here is my question: Based on what I've described, would my application be the kind that gets tossed by an R1 because my transcripts are much worse than those of top applicants, or would I be given a fair shot and actual, close consideration given the research I've done? Note that I'll only apply to programs whose faculty strengths match my research interests.

I understand that these 'what if' application questions come off as insecure and validation-seeking. But as you all know, applying is a substantial time and energy commitment, and I would really appreciate any thoughts and advice you might have. Thank you!

Interesting question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I would think that it’s a toss-up. Some committees might not look twice at you. Others will be intrigued. You should explain your upward trajectory, both to your letter writers and in your application. Ask your letter writers if they are comfortable writing a strong letter for you, ask them to be honest. I don’t think there are many applicants with publications, so I would anticipate success *somewhere*. I would apply somewhat widely and also to funded MAs. It’s a fairly unpredictable process. It’s frequently the case that people are rejected from lower ranked programs than they are accepted to. There is no clear hierarchy of candidates based on shared criteria. So ... good luck!

I agree with the general advice here, though I guess I'm a bit more optimistic than thinking it is likely to be just a 'toss-up.' After all, Unusual Applicant reports having published in a top specialist journal and having an R&R at a top-20 generalist journal, all with only an undergraduate degree. Although I've never been on a grad school admissions committee, it seems to me from the outside that these features of their application alone seem likely to me to get their application noticed--and assuming (as seems likely) that the publications are actually good work, the writing sample they submit is good, and their recommendation letters are strong, it seems to me that they should look like a really intriguing applicant. I, at any rate, would be intrigued. I do think they should address their spotty undergraduate record in some way, though I'm not sure about the best way to do it. For example, should they say that they had "now-resolved health issues" as an undergraduate that interfered with their studied? Should they disclose this to their letter-writers, if they don't already know the context behind the Unusual's spotty performance? Or, should they not disclose anything about health struggles, and just say in their application (and to their letter writers?) that they recognize their undergraduate record was spotty (due to early 'personal issues'?) but emphasize their upward trajectory, saying perhaps that as a young person it took them a little bit to mature and get their act together? I have to confess that I have no idea what the best way to address these things may be. 

What do you all think? Will Unusual Applicant be competitive in getting into grad programs? Given their spotty (though upward-trending) undergrad record, would they be best-served pursuing a Masters at the top MA program first? And how might they best address their record and trajectory, both in their applications and in communication with their letter-writers?

How have you kept working during the pandemic?

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

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

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

Tips for incoming grad students?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, anxious first-year writes:

I will be a first-year Ph.D. student at a mid-ranked program in the fall, and I am already beginning to worry about job placement, publishing, etc. Are there any steps folks would recommend taking now in order to start strengthening one's C.V.? Would it be too early to start publishing in one's first year, for example? Or more generally, anything one would have done differently in their early years as a PhD student? Thanks so much.

These are great questions, as I'm sure there are many newly accepted first-years with similar questions. In a follow-up comment, Peter writes:

I was in the same boat as you: got my PhD at a mid-ranked institution, was worried about job-placement from the getgo. I ended up doing very well on the job market after two tries. Here's my advice. It's certainly not *too early* to publish in your first year, but there's virtually n0 chance that you'll be able to, because, to be quite honest, your work probably won't be publishable. The first few years of grad school, I'd recommend just figuring out how *you* do philosophy best, and focus on identifying cool and interesting topics that actually catch your interest. If you focus so obsessively on publishing early, like I did, this'll probably actually stunt your ability to write and develop publishable work -- after all, even though the job market is largely a professionalization game, *interesting* papers are still the ones that are easiest to publish. Also, if your department is anything like mine, you might be starved for networking opportunities outside of your own department. Rather than trying to publish early, I would suggest making sure you're going to conferences early (no grad conferences! They don't contribute anything IMO). This way you can get more practice talking with philosophers who have a different philosophical vibe than you, and this can help greatly in developing interesting research.

I wonder what readers think. Do you have any tips or helpful resources for incoming first-year grad students? For my part, I've heard very good things about Jason Brennan's book, Good Work If You Can Get It: How to Succeed in Academia. I went to grad school with Jason at Arizona, and he basically did everything right, whereas I did most things wrong. So, I think he's probably a good resource here. I'd also suggest reading Daniel Silvermint's Daily Nous post, 'Grad Traps!', and the comments section over there. My general thoughts about succeeding in grad school (viz. success after grad school) are these:

1. Develop as a philosopher and as a teacher: some jobs are at research institutions, others at teaching institutions, and you'll probably want to be as competitive for as many jobs as you can. Also, in terms of teaching, get solo-teaching experience (such as during summers) if you can. Hiring committees at teaching schools care a lot about real teaching experience above and beyond TA-ships.
2. Publish as early as often as you reasonably can, but under the guidance of grad faculty (you want to publish good stuff, not garbage!).
3. Stay involved and develop good relationships with people: not only faculty and grad students in your program, but also people outside of your program.
4. Publish in good journals if you can, but don't fall prey to the common advice 'not to publish at all in bad journals': all of the empirical evidence that I've come across suggests that 'weak publications' help candidates, at least if combined with publications in good journals.
5. Bear in mind the kind of jobs you are the most likely to be competitive for post-graduation given the kind of PhD program that you are in: lower-ranked programs appear to tend to place candidates in teaching schools, high-ranked programs in research institutions. If you're in a lower-ranked program and you try to position yourself primarily for jobs at research institutions (by focusing on publishing rather than teaching), you may find yourself in a very difficult position after graduation: one where you'll struggle to outcompete graduates of top-ranked programs for jobs at research institutions, but also struggle to be competitive for jobs at teaching institutions.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Feel free to share any tips, experiences, or resources you think incoming philosophy grad students might find helpful!

Getting into philosophy with a science PhD?

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

I'm a Ph.D. student in science and about to get my Ph.D. degree this year (so I won't just quit). But I am also interested in some lifetime metaphysical and epistemological questions and want to contribute to them. (It sounds arrogant, but let's firstly assume I have the potential.)

However, my goal is basically impossible without strict philosophical training, which I don't have. As far as I consider, there are two possible ways.

1) I spend another 4-5 years on another graduate program in philosophy;
2) Collaborate with philosophers working on relevant topics and contribute with my scientific skills primarily and get trained.

For the first option, since I don't have any academic background in philosophy, I don't know how hard it is to get a position. And if I do so, I nearly give up my potential scientific career, which I would rather not.

For the second option, I have no idea how to find philosophers that want to work with scientists.

Here, I ask for your consideration of the two possibilities. How difficult are they? How can I manage them? Or any other possibility you could suggest?

And after all, how should I evaluate whether I have the potential to make a contribution?

Good questions! Prof L. submitted the following reply:

Why Low-Income Students Leave Academic Philosophy (Guest post by Rosa Vince & Anna V. Klieber)

By Rosa Vince & Anna V. Klieber (Phd Candidates - University of Sheffield)

In this piece we explain some of the barriers to succeeding in academia for people with less money. This is not a theoretical work; we explain some things that students with more money may overlook, and problems that simply may not occur to staff members and institutions. That said, if you are currently, or have recently been, a postgraduate student with limited financial resources, then much of this will already be familiar.

When speaking of ‘low-income’ students in the following, we mean those who do not have a financial ‘safety net’, and who do not have well-off family members to lend/give them money if they do not independently have enough money to pay their fees, rent, or other bills that might come up. This is in contrast to students who do not need to worry if their rent and bills will be met throughout and immediately after their degree - although talking to most academic philosophers, you might get the impression that students who do need to worry about these things don't exist.

This essay does not cover the advantages of private, public, and grammar schools or the advantages of having parents with a university education, though these issues are all important and intertwined. Further, while here we will first and foremost discuss material financial barriers to access, safety, and success in academia, it is important to note that a person's financial and class positions are not independent of other social categories like race, disability, gender or age. This means that the financial barriers described in the following can be worsened, reinforced, or caused, by existing structures of racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia or ageism in, and outside, academia.

In what follows, we will discuss the following aspects: Time, Activities, Health, Teaching Work and Volunteering, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committees, and summarize with some notes on Emotional Energy. This list isn’t exhaustive, but rather provides a discussion of a few very common financial barriers that block access, safety, and success in academia. 

My Interview on Personal Finance with PhDs

Readers of this blog may be interested in my recent interview with Dr. Emily Roberts as part of her ongoing podcast Personal Finance for PhDs. The financial dimensions of graduate school are rarely discussed here or elsewhere in the philosophy blogosphere, but that doesn't make them unimportant. Quite the opposite in fact!

Anyway, in this interview, I give the raw numbers and gritty details of what it was like to live on a base stipend of $15,000 per year as a graduate student living in Knoxville, TN. Among other topics, we discuss the mindset required to save money on such a meager salary, some fundamental tips for minimizing expenses, and what financial habits persist post-PhD. On the whole, I'm very please with how the interview turned out, and I'd encourage anyone looking for some pointers of the financial aspects of graduate school to give it a watch or listen. It may also be of use to people who want to demonstrate to others that graduate student living does not have to be a case of narrowly surviving from one paycheck to the next.

Funded high-ranked MA or lower-ranked PhD?

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

I am a current PhD applicant waitlisted at several top 20 programs with some offers from lower-ranked programs. I also have gotten a funded offer from a top terminal MA program with excellent PhD placement. Does anyone have any advice about how to decide at which point I am better off doing the MA first and then re-applying in two years? Are there any important questions to ask myself and the lower-ranked programs that might help me make a clear list of "better than MA" schools and "worse than an MA" schools?

Great question! My sense is that the funded MA is probably the better idea, but I think it probably matters what the job placement rate of the lower-ranked PhD program is - as some lower-ranked PhD programs have very strong placement rates whereas others don't. What do you all think? It might be especially good to hear from students who pursued either type of option, what the results of the choice were, and how satisfied they are with the choice they made.

Choosing a US or non-US grad program?

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

I’m a MA student in a European country, studying in a university without any sort of top international recognition regarding the programs available. I did a BA in Philosophy here as well, and I have a fairly good record, some things better than others, but not an excellent one. And I have some research experience, though I’m finding it difficult to write a publishable paper. Also, a couple of scholarships.

By the end of the year, I should apply to a few doctoral programs, both in my country and outside. And I’ve been wondering about what it would mean going to the US. Reading the acceptance rates and scrolling through the profiles of PhD students in some universities makes me think it might be impossible to be accepted in a program that makes the move to another country advantageous. I would have an opportunity here, and I have a wonderful advisor, but there are limitations.

My primary motivation to go is the possibility of teaching in my area of interest, which won't happen where I am. But better pay and the possibility to work with new faces in that area are obviously in my mind as well. Also, the structure of PhD programs in the US is attractive to me, as I feel I haven't as much education as I'd like regarding either my area of interest or my development as a researcher.

There are two distinct, but related, concerns here:
1 – Is moving to a US to be part of a program that has less recognition an advantage if you are in a European program without much recognition as well, but where you might have the possibility of doing research in the long run?
2 – Are PhD students in the US always in the need to move after they end their degree?
3 – As someone with mental health issues, being in a place where there’s at least the possibility of stability is important for my ability to work. Is this a problem for international students in the US, given the lack of insurance that affects so many people there?

I know a ‘top’ program is something a bit vague. I’m considering programs like the ones usually ranked has such.

I apologize if similar questions have been asked before. As I do not have the financial ability to apply to many programs, I feel the need to be sure about at least some things before applying to any program at all. I understand I'm the only one able to answer some questions, but your personal experiences and your insights on this might help me look at some aspects that are currently on the dark for me.

Good questions! Two readers submitted replies. One reader writes:

You write that "it might be impossible to be accepted in a program that makes the move to another country advantageous." All the top phd programs have students from all over the world. I wouldn't worry about this. Regarding some of your other concerns, my personal opinion is that it's not worth going to a program that is not top ranked. Even top programs might not be worth it if getting a job is your concern. (See the recent job market post here to get a sense of what the philosophy job market is like.)

Elisa Freschi then wrote:

I am not sure about why you don't mention the alternatives, but perhaps they are worth considering? For instance, the world is not just made up of Europe and the US (there are attractive philosophy programs also in Canada, Australia, Singapore…). And some of these places have public health coverage, so that you would not need to worry about 3), while at the same time having the needs you mention under 2) (=new faces, new challenges…) covered. You might also consider moving somewhere else within Europe. A final comment, which Marcus or others here may rectify, since I just moved to North America: If you apply to a US job from a low-ranked US program, the committee may assume they know what is your value (low). If you come from Europe (etc.), they will just not know. This can be an advantage.

I disagree with the first reader that it's not worth going to a program that is not top ranked. Back in 2017, the ADPA Report found that some low-ranked and unranked programs have significantly better overall academic job-placement rates than high-ranked program. If I were in the OP's position, I think I would want to enter a program with a good placement rate where I think I would flourish - and given how competitive top-ranked programs are, it might well be that the OP would flourish more at a less competitive place. However, being an American, I'm inclined to think that the OP's second and third issues may be more relevant. First, yes, virtually all PhD students in the US need to move after the PhD - often multiple times for temporary academic jobs. Second, as we all know, the US is not the best place to be for health insurance. Are grad students covered for insurance by their employer? Honestly, grad school was so long ago that I don't remember - and anyway health insurance has changed a lot since I graduated.

Anyway, it might be good to hear from people 'in the know' - that is, from other international grad students who chose to get their PhD in different places (the US, Europe, Asia, etc.). If you were in a similar position as the OP, what choice did you make, and would you recommend it given the OP's situation? Why/why not?

Grappling with interpersonal discouragement?

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

I'd benefit a lot from discussions of graduate students dealing with interpersonally discouraging experiences (e.g. a faculty underestimated them, treated them differently compared to others, being mistaken as someone else, etc). My colleague and I (both women) struggle with feeling discouraged from experiences like those, and I'd be curious if minority philosophers feel this way more often. Do people have coping strategies?

This is a really good and important query, and I am sorry to hear that the OP and her colleague are feeling so discouraged. I grappled with discouragement from some interpersonal experiences early in my career, and frankly I didn't deal with it very well: I isolated myself from others and turned to all kinds of non-academic distractions. The only things that helped me through it were finding a support group (which I found in a supportive dissertation reading group) and working hard to become a better philosopher (which made me feel more competent as my work seemed to improve). But I'm don't know how helpful these experiences are for readers in the OP's situation. 

What do you all think? Have you had interpersonally discouraging experiences in graduate school? If so, have you found any good coping strategies? Any strategies that didn't work (or otherwise backfired)? Following the OP's suggestion, I think it could be good to hear from readers in general, but particularly from minority philosophers.

Questions about what to do when accepted or waitlisted at grad programs

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes (I've renumbered things to make things easier for readers):

As someone who applied to PhD programs this cycle, I'd like to post some questions about PhD applications, as the results are coming out soon (some are already out). Some of these are personal, some are from friends who also applied. In particular, I wonder what one should do as admissions/waitlists come out.

Here are some things that I think everyone should do:

1. If already decided to join program A, or decided not to join program B, while having an offer from B, inform program B asap. This should make the life of everybody easier.
2. Inform one's letter writers about the offers.
3. Explore the program from which one has received an offer.

But there are things I'm not sure about:

i. If one is waitlisted at multiple programs, A, B, and C, should she inform the programs about this? Would this increase or decrease the chance of admission?

ii. If one is accepted at program A and waitlisted at B, while she prefers B:

a. Should she inform B about the offer from A? Would this increase or decrease the chance of admission at B?
b. Should she inform A about the waitlist from B? I guess this can depend on the programs: a top-10 elite program might be unimpressed or even put off by the fact that you're considering an offer from a much lower-ranked program? I'm not sure whether this makes sense.

iii. A more general question: how would programs react when hearing that a student they admitted/waitlisted has been admitted/waitlisted by other programs?

iv. Should one who's been admitted mention the fact that her significant other is waitlisted at the same program?

v. If one only has one offer, is there any room for her to negotiate about the funding, etc.?

I suppose many of the answers would vary from departments to departments, but I'd be very grateful if some general answers can be given. Thanks!!

These are really great questions, and I suspect that many applicants might benefit from hearing answers by those in the know. What do you all think, and why?

Handling a grievance in a grad program?

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

I would be interested in hearing readers' insights about how to approach your department, as a grad student, if you have a grievance against a particular faculty member. Of course this varies a lot place to place and situation to situation - but if it's possible to give a general answer: whom should you go to? How should you pursue it? How should you frame it?

These are really great and important questions. Because I don't have any first-hand experience here, I don't think that I'm very well-positioned to offer tips or advice. However, I will say that I have heard horror stories about departments 'protecting' faculty members, so much so that it may seriously impact the student's well-being, ability to finish the program, and succeed in the profession. This isn't to say that one shouldn't pursue a grievance. If the problem is serious enough (such as sexual misconduct), one may feel duty-bound to do something, so that the faculty member in question cannot continue to victimize others. It is to say, however, that lodging grievances may be very much fraught with peril (laws against retaliation notwithstanding). But again, these are just things I've heard. 

Anyway, I am very curious to hear from readers, especially from current or former grad students who have pursued grievances, as well as from grad program faculty or administrators who have handled them. If a grad student has a grievance, what should they do? Who should they go to, and how?

Funded MA at Texas Tech

The following recently came to my attention via email, and may be of interest to undergraduates:

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, and Pittsburgh. 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 $13,000 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 nformation 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. Daniel Nathan at Daniel.Nathan@ttu.edu, Director of Graduate Admissions, with any questions. 

Please do feel free to post any additional opportunities that undergrad philosophers might find of interest in the comment thread below!

Are PhD programs receiving more applications?

A reader writes in:

I wanted to draw your attention to a Twitter thread by Kevin Zollman at Carnegie Mellon University...

Zollman announced that the philosophy department at CMU has seen a 40%-60% increase in PhD applications this season. A few other philosophers have confirmed a similar increase in their departments. Though it should be pointed out that a few (Rutgers for example) have not seen such an increase.

As a 2021 PhD applicant, I am justifiably anxious about this. I won't be applying to CMU, but I feel confident that we will see similar increases across the board. 

Do you or any of your readers see this happening at other departments? If so, what advice do you have for us graduate students who feel like their already slim chances have just vanished?

I think it would be great to hear from PhD admissions committee members on whether this is happening at their program. Also, if it is, what advice would you give nervous applicants? I guess I'm inclined to say that if this is the case, then applicants who don't get into a program they want to enter might be better off waiting and applying again next year. Then again, next year could be a similar story. What do you all think?

Elitism in graduate program admissions?

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

Inspired by the thread on letters of recommendation, I have a question about elitism and graduate admissions. I recently saw a current PhD student say that institutional prestige (including fame of letter writers) is the most important component of one's application, whether one has a great sample or not.

I am now curious--for those in PhD-granting departments, does it seem like the institutional prestige plays a bigger role simply because of unrecognized/unmanaged ignorance related to elitism, or is it that the adcom members are simply more likely to respect and know the letter writers, thereby giving more weight to their letters? Further, does this matter depending on the ranking and reputation of the institution?

Depending on those answers, I am curious as to how someone coming from a low-ranked or unranked PGR program that is still an R1 university with famous faculty fit into the picture. If they have one or more famous letter writers, does institutional prestige begin to matter much less? A little less? Or is there something else about prestige that will end up penalizing even someone with a famous letter writer from an R1 university (e.g., grade inflation)?

I know Eric Schwitzgebel has posted about this, and my own scouring of current PhD students on department websites leads me to believe that elitism plays a role in admissions to Ivy league programs and PGR top-ranked private schools (e.g., Georgetown). However, when you get below a certain rank you begin to see institutional prestige matter far less or perhaps not at all (e.g., UC Boulder seems to have many PhD students from small/unranked schools).

All of this leads me to hypothesize that even ignoring fame of the letter writers and the skills you get from higher-ranked schools, the simple fact that you went to a highly-ranked school can bolster your application in the eyes of adcom members who consider their programs to be "elite" (aka, upholding the literal definition of elitism), but not as much for programs who consider themselves not-elite, or who have made efforts to mitigate the effects of what Kristie Dotson would call pernicious ignorance.

note: I did not seriously consider the idea that elitism is recognized and endorsed by elite institutions to try and be charitable, but if someone haves reason to believe otherwise let me know

I think it would be good to hear from admissions committee members about this. I will say that I have heard, at least anecdotally, that a few highly ranked programs have taken active steps to combat elitism in grad admissions. However, all other indications are that elitism still plays a large role in philosophy, and indeed, in academia more generally. For example:

• Eric Schwitzgebel found in 2019 that elite philosophy PhD programs mostly admit students from elite undergrad institutions, and that only 11% of students in the elite PhD programs he studied were from institutions not nationally ranked in US News & World Report.
• Helen De Cruz found in 2018 that philosophy PhDs from low-ranked departments rarely secure employment in high-ranked departments.
• This 2015 study found steeply hierarchical inequality in faculty hiring across three disciplines, with just a quarter of all universities accounting for 71 to 86 percent of all tenure-track faculty in the U.S. and Canada. The study also found that "18 elite universities produce half of all computer science professors, 16 schools produce half of all business professors, and eight schools account for half of all history professors."

Whatever the cause, it seems that elitism is a big thing in academia. But still, it might be good to hear from readers, particularly those who have served on grad admissions committees. How would you answer the OP's questions:

1. Does it seem like the institutional prestige plays a bigger role simply because of unrecognized/unmanaged ignorance related to elitism, or is it that the adcom members are simply more likely to respect and know the letter writers, thereby giving more weight to their letters?
2. Does this depend on the rank and reputation of the institution?
3. If [someone coming from a low-ranked or unranked program] has one or more famous letter writers, does institutional prestige begin to matter much less in grad admissions?

How to write good recommendation letters?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a reader ('G') writes:

I am a junior faculty member, and I started to get requests from students (undergraduates) for letters of recommendation for different purposes. I am wondering if people can share some tips, principles, and/or strategies for writing letters. I am especially curious about people's thoughts on the following questions:

1. If a letter only mentions positive things about a student, would it be less credible? If I need to mention some potential concerns, how should I do it? Should I be specific or not?

2. Do you use different strategies for different purposes, such as graduate school, scholarship, etc? I've learned that some people tend to be more positive if a letter is written for a scholarship (some only mention positive things about students). Is this the common practice?

3. How do people write letters for average students (below-average sometimes)? I know that some people just politely decline the request. But if I need to do it, how should I write such a letter?

Great questions! I'm very curious to hear everyone's answers. Here are mine:

On (1): I don't know whether people find a letter less credible if it only mentions positive things. But, for my part, this concern is a reason why I normally do include some discussion of specific areas where I think a student could improve. It has always seemed to me that if I only trumpet an applicant's virtues, then I've done the admissions committee (and applicant) a disservice. No student is perfect, and if my letter pretends they are (by omission), then it seems to me that someone reading it could read the letter very skeptically--particularly if the areas the applicant might need improvement in show up elsewhere in their application (e.g. their writing sample). So, I normally do include some notes in my letters where applicants can improve.  When I do, I normally carefully qualify it something like as follows: "Like all students, X does have a few areas where they could improve. For example... However, I want to emphasize that they are good at X, and an excellent all around candidate for admission to your program..."

On (2): I've only written letters for graduate admissions, so I can't quite comment on this.

On (3): Generally speaking, I won't accept a request to write a recommendation for a student I believe to be below-average. In those cases, I'll usually tactfully suggest that the student seek out someone else. I have written letters for average students, but usually ones who I've seen made substantial strides through hard work. When I write these letters, this is usually what I focus on: the student's upward trajectory. I'll usually also give the applicant some heads up too. For example, when they ask, I might note in my email response, "I'd be happy to write you a letter. However, I do want to note that you've generally received B grades in my courses, so my letter would have to reflect your overall performance." On a few occasions, I think I've had the applicant decide to ask someone else for a letter instead--but for the most part, my experience has been that they're usually still happy to have me write them a letter (usually, I think, because their performance in my classes is fairly representative of how they've done in their other classes, as well). In any case, when I do write letters for such students, I try to go about it tactfully but honestly, writing things like, "My experience was that X was a good but not exemplary student. However, their performance in my courses improved significantly over time, and I believe they would succeed and flourish in your program for the following reasons...".

I have no idea whether other people go about things differently, and whether there are readers who think that I'm going about things wrong on (1) and (3)--though I will note that the students that I've written letters for (including average students) have done well at getting into programs. Anyway, what do you all think? How would you answer G's three questions?

Summer community college teaching?

In our November "how can we help you?" post, Anthony writes:

Question: How does a graduate student find summer teaching opportunities? I would be happy to adjunct this summer at a community college.

Context: I'm currently earning a masters degree in humanities. For it, I'll take a couple philosophy-related courses. I'm actually halfway through a PhD in philosophy at a different institution; I'm officially on a leave of absence from my PhD program to complete this MA. I've completed graduate coursework at my PhD program. But my PhD program only grants masters degrees to those who exit the program early (which seems unjustified to me, but that's a different matter), so I won't have a MA degree until June. My only experience as a primary instructor was at a summer school, but I do have several semesters of TAing under my belt.

Good question, and I have to confess to not knowing the answer. I suspect it's easier to get teaching opportunities at a community college during the normal academic year, as there are presumably more course sections then. I taught at a CC for a couple of semesters during grad school, and if I recall I just applied when I saw an advertisement. But I never did during the summer, so again, I'm not quite sure what the answer to the OP's question is. Do any of you know?

Publishing advice for early-career people: a different perspective

Eric Schwitzgebel (UC Riverside) published a post yesterday entitled, 'How to Publish a Journal Article in Philosophy: Advice for Graduate Students and New Assistant Professors.' While I think the post is very helpful in a variety of ways--particularly in terms of walking grad students through the whole publishing process--I'd like to explore an alternative perspective.

Schwitzgebel begins his post (quite rightly, I think) noting that his advice is directed at graduate students interested in jobs at research institutions (i.e. R1's). He writes:

Should You Try to Publish as a Graduate Student?

Yes, if you are seeking a job where hiring will be determined primarily on research promise, and if you can do so without excessively hindering progress toward your degree.

Speaking to this audience, Schwitzgebel's first major piece of advice is this:

Generally speaking, you'll want your first publication to be on something so narrow that you are among the five top experts in the world on that topic.

He then advocates extending this same strategy to several follow-up papers, which he calls the 'tripod theory of building expertise':

Publish three papers on narrow but related topics. These serve as a tripod establishing your expertise in the broader subarea to which they belong.

I suspect this probably is very good advice for graduate students interested in pursuing R1 jobs (and who are on a legitimate track to this end--see below), and I've seen some people at these kinds of institutions chime in to this effect. But this raises a few further questions:

1. Is it a good publishing strategy for graduate students in general?
2. Is it a good publishing strategy for graduate students not on a path to an R1 position?
3. Is it a good publishing strategy for Assistant Professors?

Tips on transferring grad programs?

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

I'm currently a PhD student in my second year at a department that I enjoy. However, I'm seriously considering transferring because of geographical reasons (I want to get married). How to approach this? I heard that it is very difficult to successfully transfer PhD programs (additionally, all universities in the area I want to move to are higher ranked than my current department), and I also want to avoid awkwardness in my current program. I'm very nervous even about asking for letters of recommendation. Any advice?

Good question! I transferred grad programs many years ago, and didn't find it difficult or awkward--and I ended up transferring into a more highly ranked program. However, my situation was unique: four of my grad program's faculty (all of whom I planned to work with) were hired away by other universities during my second year. Because of this, I didn't hesitate to ask for letters of recommendation, and everyone I asked seemed to understand why I wanted to transfer and were supportive.

Anyway, given how unique my case was, I'm not sure that I have much good advice to offer. I will say that I think transferring out of a grad program you enjoy can be a real risk, as there's no guarantee that you'll enjoy or flourish in the new program like the one you're currently in. But this is only one part of the equation if geography and personal matters such as marriage are at issue, and of course one can do always do one's homework on the programs one is considering. In terms of how to ask for letters, I guess I would just try to ask in a way that conveys that you enjoy the program and it's a hard decision, but that personal reasons (in this case marriage) are one's reasons for moving. Hopefully, grad faculty of good character will understand reasons like these. But these are just off-the-cuff thoughts.

Anyone have tips or relevant experiences they are willing to share? It might be good to hear both from grad students who have tried transferring, as well as from faculty in grad programs on how they think students should go about it.

Tips for choosing a dissertation supervisor?

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

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

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

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

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

Co-advisors for a dissertation?

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

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

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

PhD programs closing applications due to COVID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you all think?

Directed reading courses & alternatives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting a 2nd PhD to stay in philosophy?

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

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

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

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

One reader responded as follows:

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

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

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

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Navigating grad program politics when leaving?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice on preparing for/taking comp exams?

A reader writes in:

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

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

When should one start trying to publish?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apply to Phd programs this year or next?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

Going into debt for an excellent MA program?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

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

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

Statement of purpose tips?

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

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

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

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

Tips from grad admissions committees?

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

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

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

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

Dissertation proposal advice?

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

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

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

Open letter for suspending GRE requirements (Guest-post)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Fight the urge to procrastinate.

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

3. Utilize productivity tools.

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