The Philosophers' Cocoon

Interviewing tips for religious university jobs

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

Could you address some potential strategies for interviewing at religiously affiliated--specifically Catholic--liberal arts colleges? My general sense is that the school is less interested in the applicant's particular beliefs or religious affiliations and more in hearing how the candidate is able to incorporate the university's religious values into teaching, research, and service. This may be right but I can's escape the nagging feeling that there will be some left field question about religion or theology that will throw me off?

Is this a well founded worry?

Another reader submitted the following response:

My experience with Catholic schools was not great. I was long-listed for a number of jobs at such schools, because of my profile. Inevitably they ask a question or questions that are the litmus test. They ask what you know about Catholic philosophy ... I was educated at a place where I knew who Jacques Maritain was ... and other greats in 20th C Catholic philosophy. I think I was too honest. I am not saying these places only hire Catholics, but they generally are looking for one of their own.

This coheres with my own experience applying for jobs at Catholic schools. I recall, even at the application stage, a number of Catholic universities that I applied to requiring materials (e.g. statements speaking to the Catholic mission of the university) that suggested they were probably looking for someone in the faith. However, I also remember applying to a number of other religiously-affiliated universities (particularly non-Catholic schools) that seemed entirely open to candidates irrespective of these kinds of things. What are other people's experiences here? It would be great to hear from job candidates about their experiences, as well as people at religious institutions who can comment on their hiring priorities and practices.

Grappling with burnout (or worse)?

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

I haven't been able to get much work done in the last nine months on my research because of a problem that is new for me, and I wonder how typical it is for others in academics - emotional pain.

I'm an upper year PhD student who has their dissertation mostly complete. If I needed to, I (and my advisor) feel like I can wrap things up in a month. That has been the case for almost a year now. Also, I've been on the job 'market' since last year.

Every word I type about the thoughts I have on my area of research feels like a scab ripped from my mind. I feel relatively fine writing about anything else. Besides what I imagine are the typical anxiety about rejection and imposter syndrome, I'm feeling a lot of grief and sense of loss among other complicated stuff I cant put really well to words. I'm already not great at taking the time to dwell on writing material to polish things up. Now it's more than just an executive functioning/attention problem. Working on my research and material related to it in my job applications has become a sort of feeling management problem. It makes me wonder if I have a toxic relationship with academia, that this is something that will keep getting worse for me and I'm better off cutting ties with the profession, or whether its because of the context I'm in (covid and job searching despair), that I'm failing to see things objectively.

I've dealt with depression before and this feels different. It feels like grief and loss, less of an autonomous mood and more of a reaction to my world. Does this resonate with anyone here? Is this a sign I should take, that I'm 'burnt out' on philosophy? How does one successfully manage the emotional (instead of motivation) side of getting work done?

This post actually resonates with me a great deal, and I hope we can have a helpful and supportive discussion about the important issues it raises. Allow me to say a few brief things, and then invite readers to share their own experiences and any tips or advice they have for someone grappling with these kinds of issues.

Publishing dissertation work before defending?

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

1. Is it advisable to publish dissertation chapters before the final defence?
2. Can one incorporate published articles in one's thesis (say, if you published an article early on in your PhD but it is directly relevant to your thesis)?

The answer to question (1) seems to me to be 'obviously yes', though it may make sense to check with your committee first. After all, suppose they're not entirely happy with the work yet, and think it should be improved prior to publishing it anywhere. In that case, I suppose that publishing something they're not terribly happy with could rub them the wrong way. I'm a bit less sure about (2), but I guess here too my suggestion is: ask your committee! What do readers think?

On reading & engaging with others' work

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

I'm a grad student who is wishing that there was not so much pressure to publish in order to get jobs. I naively thought that grad school might be a time to just read things because they are interesting, and even (gasp!) take time off from writing altogether to focus on deepening one's understanding.

I acknowledge that sometimes reading widely and deeply does benefit one's own writing. At the same time, in my experience, many philosophers do quite well without being particularly well-read. Slightly more cynically, it seems that many philosophers can thrive as long as they read just enough to not look completely ignorant of what's come before.

My question is this: to some extent, is engaging with others' work best thought of as a duty to the profession? Even if there are not particular professional rewards, it seems like we might just owe it to each other and those who've come before to dedicate time to others' work.

I am very sympathetic with this reader's concerns. Back when I was in graduate school (2001-2008), publishing while in a graduate program seemed to be relatively rare. I only knew a few graduate students who published things, and I even recall it being something of a norm (at least in highly ranked programs) to encourage grad students not to publish. The general thought here was that it would be a mistake to 'publish before you're ready', and the point of graduate school--and the dissertation in particular--was to make you ready to publish. In other words, back then graduate school was fairly close to what this readers describes they 'naively thought' graduate school would be like. When did things change, and why?

Good non-anonymized journals?

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

Are there any refereed, non-invite-only journals, where it is possible to submit article-length, non-anonymous pieces written in the first-person, that are respectable ("high-ranking", or whatever)? In other words, are there any open-submission equivalents to Philosophical Perspectives or Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume? I'd like to expand on some previously published work but not expand so much as to write a book. And I don't want to dance around the fact I'm the author of the previously published work.

I'm not aware of any journals like this, and I'm curious as to whether there are any. Does anyone know of any journals like this? In any case, I'm also curious what this reader's interest is here in not dancing around the fact that they are the author of the previous work that they're looking to develop. As someone who also writes articles further developing previous things I've published, I don't find it terribly difficult to write articles in the third person, so as to conform to anonymized review. While I expect that sometimes (perhaps even more often than not) reviewers may suspect I'm the author, this doesn't seem to me much worse than the situation I'd be in if there were a non-anonymized journal to submit to--and I take it one can always change the language to the first-person prior to publication, right? So again, what's the author's interest here? It might be good to hear from them about it if they're willing to share!

Tips for handling teaching/tutoring nerves?

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

I'm currently tutoring for the second time (I tutored last semester, though it was cut very short for obvious reasons). It's a pretty simple introductory ethics course and I'm familiar with the material. However, I still find that I get really nervous before tutoring, both on the day and also, usually, the night before. This is really draining, and I also think the nerves impact my teaching ability. Whilst I know that this is not uncommon, I feel like the topic doesn't get discussed often. Do others feel similarly to me? And should I just expect the nerves to disappear over time - or are there useful strategies for dealing with them?

These are great questions. I've been teaching or TA-ing for close to twenty years now, and I still get nerves prior to every class (and indeed, the night before every day of teaching). It is draining, but I've never quite been able to come up with very good strategies for handling it. I sort of just power through the semester. Are people like me and this reader outliers, or do many other people have similar experiences? And in any case, have any of you discovered useful strategies for handling this well? I'd love to hear some tips myself!

Tips for first-time journal (guest) editors?

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

I am a first-time journal guest editor. I'm wondering if anyone has recommendations for sources on the practices and ethics of editing philosophy journals. In particular, I'm wondering what to do about a paper that has received both 'accept' and 'reject' recommendations. It seems to me be worthy of an 'accept asking changes,' but I don't want to seem disrespectful to the reader that suggested rejection.

One reader submitted the following response:

I guest edited a journal issue. My perspective is this: It is your job, not the referee's, to decide which papers to publish. You alone have that authority, and that responsibility. The referees are there to advise you in your task. But you do not owe them anything other than gratitude for their important, unpaid work. If you have read both reports carefully, plus the paper, and your judgment is that conditional acceptance is appropriate, that is what you should do. I've refereed papers that I thought were great, recommended "acceptance", and the editor rejected them. I've refereed papers that I thought were disasters, recommended "reject", and the editor accepted them. I think the editors made mistakes in these cases, but I don't feel "disrespected" by them.

Although I haven't served as a journal editor, this response seems right to me. But let me add a couple of thoughts.

Philosophy club tips during COVID?

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

I am the faculty advisor for our undergraduate philosophy club this year. Can people share some ideas about events and activities (online or in-person with social distance) during the time of COVID-19?

This is a great question, and I think it could be cool to crowdsource ideas. Any readers have ideas or things they've tried this semester that have worked well (or not so well)? Please do share below!

How can we help you? (October 2020)

Now that it's been a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for another one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Finally, I again have one new(ish) request: because these threads are getting so many comments, many of which provide preemptive responses to people's queries, it is getting very difficult for me to keep track of everything. So, while I know some of you like to respond to other people's comments, I'm going to ask that this thread only contain initial queries, and for everyone else to please wait until I post a new thread to discuss the issue in question. (If I ever miss posting a thread to discuss a query, all you need to do is let me know!)

Choosing a grad program: elite program or area of focus?

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

My question is: is going to a program which is not strong in my research area (e.g. no faculty member in the area) worth it? Do programs want to accept people who don't fit with the[ir] strengths? My letters are all from people in that area. Is that going to be a problem?

Background: I'm a second-year MA student at a university in a non-English speaking country. I'll be applying to PhD programs in English speaking countries. My research field in philosophy is relatively small, so some programs (even the biggest or most elite ones) don't have any faculty in that field. But some great philosophers (young or old) got PhD from universities which have no strength or even no faculty member in the area (mostly from the most elite ones). I know going to a elite university (if possible) will be probably worth it in many ways, even though it has no strength in the area. But how about going to a non-ranked or lower-ranked program without any strength in it? If that's worth it, I can apply to great many programs, and maybe I can choose places where I would like to study. Neighbor areas are of course taken into consideration.

In an unpublished comment, another reader responded:

I think you are thinking about graduate school the wrong way. When you choose a program you are choosing to work with the people who are there, on problems and questions that they are interested in. That is what they will be teaching there courses in. That is where they have expertise and can help you. And that is what you can stand a chance of getting a job in. You would be making a big mistake to go to a problem where you are uninterested in what the faculty there do. I saw this before - a Nietzsche student at a philosophy of science program, for example. The student suffered so much.

I think this is a great question, and while I appreciate the above response, I think it is a bit too quick. Allow me to explain.

Explaining CV oddities in applications?

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

I am a second-year M.A. student of Philosophy at a low ranked university, looking forward to applying for another master's next year in a better university. I passed nine graduate philosophy courses with good grades. My bachelor studies were not in Philosophy and I had just one Philosophy course at bachelor, so I think I need my master's degree (and courses) for a successful application to a philosophy major. I have no personal problem completing my current studies as a master student to get my degree, but there is an educational law in my country that prevents people from entering master studies twice unless the mandatory military service (which lasts two years) is completed. I can withdraw from my current M.A. and apply for another M.A. without any problem with this law. In that case, my current university will give me an official transcript, but no degree. I prefer this withdraw option because it saves two years for me. Are there any problems with the withdrawal from my current master's in applying for another master? I mean does this have a bad effect on the strength of my application, and should I mention this in my application? Thanks for your advice.

This is an interesting query in a couple of respects. First, it raises questions not only about what this particular poster should do given their situation. Second, it raises more general questions about what people should do--both in graduate school applications and in job applications--regarding similar 'oddities' on their CV.

What do you all think? First, what do you think this reader should do? Do you think withdrawing from one MA and applying to another will give them problems? If so, what's the best path forward for them? Should they try to explain their situation in some way in their application? And how, more generally, do you think applicants should handle similar CV oddities? (If you have a CV oddity yourself, feel free to share it and/or how you handled it in the comments section!).

Attitudes toward co-authored papers

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

What are the general attitudes about co-authored papers? For example, is it to one's advantage to co-author with notable philosophers if the opportunity presents itself or are co-authored papers viewed less favorably than papers written solo?

We've covered this issue on a number of occasions before, but since it comes up often and raises interesting issues about the profession, I think it's good to repeatedly return to it. Generally speaking, the overall sentiment expressed before has been that there is a bias in philosophy against co-authored work because, as a third-party, nobody really knows how responsible each author is for its content. The paper itself may be great--but especially if you're an early career person and another much more notable philosopher's name is on it, people may wonder: was it mostly the notable person who is responsible for the paper? Is the less notable person 'riding on their coat-tails? My understanding is that these questions also appear in the sciences, but that there are conventions in the sciences for estimating who is responsible for what (viz. 1st author, 2nd author, 3rd author, and so on). But, in philosophy, my sense is that people generally think: the best indicator of someone's philosophical abilities is their capacity to produce strong solo-authored work.

Journals that publish replies?

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

Some good and respectable journals that I can think of that publish reply papers are Analysis, Thought, and Philosophia. What other journals might be interested in publishing short reply papers to recent publications, especially in the areas of epistemology? Episteme?

Good questions! The best resource I know of here for most things journal-related is this crowdsourced spreadsheet. As you can see, it lists all kinds of details for different journals, including word counts for full-length articles as well as for those journals that accept discussion notes/replies. In terms of epistemology, a few journals seem like plausible candidates, including Logos & Episteme and Erkenntnis. However, if you visit the 'epistemology' page via the tab at the bottom, you'll see that no journals are listed there. I'd encourage this blog's readers to add and update the spreadsheet to help it become an even better resource! 

Anyway, in addition to updating it, please do feel free to note in the comments section below which journals accept replies, including but not limited to epistemology.

How are different types of publications weighted?

Yesterday on social media I came across an interesting question: namely, how different types of publications are weighted, both on the job market and in tenure and promotion. Among other things, it was brought to my attention that different types of publications can be valued more in some countries than others. For example, I learned that in Germany, publications in edited volumes are looked upon very highly, but that in the UK, this may not be true (with exceptions, perhaps, for publications in volumes published by OUP or CUP). Similarly, I heard that public philosophy (i.e. publications in popular press such as Aeon, The New York Times, etc.) can be looked upon highly in the US, but not in other countries. I think it might be great to crowdsource more information about these differences in the comments section below.

I also think it might be good to hear people's thoughts on other particular issues, such as how it looks to a search committee  or tenure and promotion (T&P) committee when most of a candidate's publications are in edited volumes (as opposed to journals). For example, suppose someone has a publication or two in decent but not great journals, but a bunch of publications in edited volumes by top-ranked presses with influential editors. How do people think this looks on the job-market and in T&P? On the one hand, I imagine that it may look good to publish in volumes put together by big name editors for good presses. On the other hand, I've always wondered whether publishing primarily in edited volumes may raise the following concern: namely, that publishing in edited volumes is a more ambiguous measure of research quality than publishing in journals. After all, one of the key things about journal publishing--at least in the present system--is that peer-review is anonymized. In edited volumes, on the other hand, the editors know who you are and (depending on the review process) so too may any reviewers they send your chapter to. Because content for edited volumes isn't selected by a fully (double- or triple-) anonymized process, the worry is that readers (i.e. search committees or T&P committees) won't feel in a good position to know if the work was selected primarily on its merits or as a result of the person having 'good connections.'

For these reasons, I can't help but wonder--at least in terms of job-market success and eventual tenure decisions--whether candidates should focus primarily on journal publishing. Maybe I'm off on this--it's just something I've long wondered about, and figured it might be good to hear from more people about. Anyway, what do you all think, particularly those of you with good experience in these matters? How are different kinds of publications weighted on the job-market and T&P? How do things differ from country to country? And how do things differ with respect to department types (e.g. do R1 institutions weigh certain things more heavily than non-R1's)?

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?

Publishing outside one's AOS/AOC and the market

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

I am a grad student who has been fortunate enough to publish a few papers. But my publication record is peculiar: while I have one paper in an AOS in a top generalist journal, my other two papers are in areas I don't even list as an AOC. (One is in a specialist journal; the other is in a decent generalist journal.)

These latter two papers were the culminations of side projects. I am hesitant to list the relevant areas even as AOC's because I sincerely consider myself incompetent to, without very serious preparation, teach advanced undergraduate-level survey courses on them. Basically, in both areas, I found a niche question and completely ignored any literature that did not directly address it. I have no other background in these areas. Moreover, I do not expect to continue research in these areas. My current research lies within my AOS's.

I am curious how hiring committees would perceive such a publication record. In my own case, I do have at least a couple years before I go on the job market. So, if I am lucky, I might be able to get another publication or two squarely within my AOS's. But whether or not that happens, how would hiring committees view an applicant with several publications in areas that they do not list as either an AOC or AOS?

This query raises a few good questions:

1. What is enough background to list something as an AOC?
2. How do search committees think about candidates who publish outside of their AOS & AOC?

I'll be honest about #1: it's never been quite clear to me what is sufficient to claim something as an AOC. As this reader notes, the standard rule of thumb is whether you would be able to teach an advanced undergraduate course. However, as someone who has hired four times at a liberal arts university, this rule of thumb actually seems wrong to me. We normally have people only teach upper-division undergraduate courses in their AOS, and treat AOCs more like areas that a person would be well-prepared to teach lower-division courses. And so, in that regard, we're looking for things like 'enough graduate coursework' or teaching experience in the area to make us think that the candidate has a fairly good basic understanding of the area.

In terms of question 2, my guess here is that search committees think very differently here at R1 institutions as opposed to liberal arts universities. At R1's, my sense is that search-committees are primarily look for someone who is outstanding in their AOS--someone who is likely to 'make a name for themselves' and become a leading figure in their main research area. So, to this extent, my bet is that unless your publications outside of your AOS/AOC are in leading journals and you have a good track record publishing in top journals in your AOS, they may work against you, making you look like you lack focus. However, for liberal arts universities, my sense is that the opposite may be true: that publications outside of your AOS/AOC may make you look like a more attractive candidate--namely, as someone with broad research interests with the ability (at least in principle) to teach a wider variety of courses. 

But these are just my guesses. Anyone in the know care to weigh in on either or both questions?

Protocols for attending conferences?

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

I'm finding myself confused about what the protocols surrounding going to conferences are. Who can attend conferences? Under what circumstances should you submit to a conference? Should you ever write an abstract to submit and then write the paper later? Are there different types of conferences?

Great questions! I think it could be good to crowdsource answers to these and other potential questions about conferences. For example, is it okay to submit a paper to a conference if you're unsure whether you'll be able to attend if accepted? Here, it's worth noting many of us work under significant uncertainty about funding. At some universities, you can only apply for conference funding after you receive an acceptance notice--which means that you may be able to afford that conference that costs $1,000+ to attend, but then again you may not. I imagine some would say that you should only apply to conferences you are confident you can attend. But in that case people in the above situation would be pressed to apply to few (if any) conferences, which would be a real problem (conferences are invaluable in all kinds of ways).

Anyway, here's what I propose: readers should feel free to answer the OP's questions and propose and discuss questions of their own in the comments section below. Here are a few of my quick answers:

1. Who can attend conferences?: This depends on the conference. Some conferences are open to the public, and some are for attendees only (e.g. paper presenters, session chairs, and commentators). So, if there's any doubt, I think the thing to do here is to look at the conference webpage and/or ask the organizers. In any case, anyone can submit a paper to a conference, and oftentimes conferences put out calls for commentators. 
2. Under what circumstances can one submit to a conference?: Generally speaking, anytime you have a paper or abstract that satisfies the application requirements. In my years presenting at conferences, I've seen everyone from advanced undergraduates to MA students, PhD students, and independent scholars present at professional conferences. Personally, rare cases aside, I'm not sure that I would advice advanced undergraduates to present at professional conferences, as I've seen a few cases where the presenter seemed clearly overwhelmed--but then again, everything is a learning experience and I'm generally not one to dissuade people from taking a few chances here and there that can be good (if challenging) learning experiences.
3. Should you ever submit an abstract and write the paper later?: Absolutely, as long as you have reasonable confidence that you can successfully complete the paper. I've done this many times. Sometimes, if the abstract doesn't get accepted, I never write the paper. But, in cases where I have gotten acceptance, I've never had trouble writing something up. And indeed, I've found that doing this can be a real boon to one's research. My second book, for example, basically came about this way: I submitted an abstract to an empirical ethics conference in Beirut, it was accepted, I presented the paper, got a good audience reaction, and turned it into a book manuscript. I personally love applying for abstract-submission conferences for this reason: they can often lead to new ideas one might have never developed otherwise!
4. Are there different types of conferences?: Yes, there are many different types:
   1. Generalist conferences: like APA meetings, where specialists of all different types present.
   2. Specialist conferences: where all the papers are in a given area (ethics, metaphysics, etc.).
   3. Themed conferences: which are even narrower, focusing on a specific issue in a specialized area.
   4. Workshops: which typically have more of a roundtable format, where some group of (say) 5-10 scholars present their work to each other (and any observers who drop in) in the same room over the course of the conference. 
   5. Pre-read conferences: where papers are sent out to attendees ahead of time (which is often the case at workshops).
   6. Undergraduate and Graduate conferences: which are just what they sound like!

Anyway, these are just a few of my own quick answers. Feel free to provide answers of you own. And again, if you have questions of your own about conferences to add to the OP's, please feel free to present and discuss them them in the comments section below!

Backup plans for grad school applicants?

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

UPenn, Rice, Columbia, and UChicago have all suspended admissions for incoming PhD students, and at this point it seems inevitable that several more will follow suit, and the ones that do accept new students will more often than not be reducing admissions.

I am a current undergrad who is applying to both PhD and funded MA programs, but I am concerned that even some MA programs might lose their funding/accept fewer students. I think many of us applicants need to start thinking of "backup backup" plans in case we don't get into any MA programs, or for those MA students who may be shut out this cycle.

Presuming we plan on applying again in the future to PhD programs, what would people recommend we do if we don't get into an MA? Spend a year auditing courses and doing more independent research? Try and get a job that is somewhat relevant to our AOI and get some life experience? Get a (funded) MA in another subject relevant to our AOI?

Psychologically, having this "backup backup" could potentially be a comfort to those who are experiencing high levels of anxiety right now (I know it will help me at least), so any advice is greatly appreciated!

These are really good questions. I have some first- and second-hand experience with similar situations. After my BA, I took a year off to work in the mental health field and study for the GRE. While it was good life experience and probably improved my GRE scores, I don't think it did much to help me get into a good grad program. Instead, I think I probably would have been better off doing what my spouse did. My spouse, who received her PhD in another field (I-O Psychology), had relatively little background in the field, but when we moved to Tampa, it turned out that a nearby university, the University of South Florida, had a top-5 PhD program in the area. So, what she did for a couple of years was work in a restaurant and take graduate courses there as a non-degree-seeking student while studying for the GRE. This proved invaluable. She not only vastly improved her background and training; she also got to know some top scholars in the field, got recommendation letters from them, and developed a strong reputation in the program itself. While this took a couple of years, it turned out to be a wonderful self-investment: she ended up getting into a variety of highly ranked programs, ultimately enrolling in and completing their program. I don't know for sure whether the same sort of thing works in philosophy, but I suspect it does. Indeed, I have a friend who is currently doing something similar, and it seems to be working well for them so far. Obviously, side-jobs (such as working in a restaurant like my spouse did) are difficult to get right now--but it seems to me that if you can get one or otherwise have the resources to do something like the above, it's probably a good strategy.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you with some experience in these matters? 

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?

Types of journals and the job market

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

I'm an upper-year PhD student whose looking to go on the job market in a year or two. My question: in deciding where to publish papers, how should I balance general prestige with area focus? My default view has always been to just publish in the best general journals possible. I guess my more specific question then is whether there is any special value in, for instance, publishing in a less prestigious ethics-focused journal as opposed to a general journal that might be more 'prestigious.' My thought has always been that people looking at a CV want the most prestigious journal possible, but I hear from some that there might be a value in going for an ethics-focused journal, at least at times.

I'm curious to hear from people in the know here. I would have thought that as far as R1 jobs are concerned, as long as you're publishing in top journals, you're good to go. I mean, is it really going to bother someone that you haven't published in an ethics journal if you've published in, say, Phil Review, Nous, and PPR? That just seems weird to me. And when it comes to non-R1/SLAC jobs, my sense is that venue doesn't tend to matter much in general. As long as you're publishing consistently in decent journals and your work is interesting, you're a good candidate. 

Am I missing something? Anyone in the know care to weigh in?

Handling a 'two-body problem' when applying to grad school?

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

I'll be applying to PhD programs this year, and my significant other will be applying as well. We're currently at different institutions, but have similar backgrounds (same undergrad program) and similar philosophical interests. I wonder whether there's any effective way to promote the chance of doing grad school together?

We're planning to apply to programs that are geographically close (those in NYC, UCLA/USC, etc.) I guess there's no harm in doing this.

We're also considering whether to apply to the same programs or actually avoid applying to the same programs, as I'm not sure whether this would enhance or harm the chances. On the one hand, this is the only chance of going to the very same program. On the other hand, it seems likely that admission committees would avoid admitting multiple students with similar AOS and similar backgrounds.

Also, I wonder whether it would be wise to mention the two-body problem in the SOP. I'm inclined not to, as I'm not sure how it would look like to the committee - perhaps it would seem unprofessional, and maybe they'll see us as a whole package, which might seriously undermine the chance of admission. But might some departments have preferences in "couple hiring"?

Alternatively, it might be helpful to inform the department of the two-body problem after one of us receives an offer (if that happens). I guess this could enhance the chance of admitting the other, especially if that person is on the waitlist - but I'm not sure whether this is true, and whether it would be appropriate.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Wow, this is a real tough one. I'm inclined to think that the best one can do here is for both applicants to simply apply to programs in similar areas, and to focus on applying to programs in geographical areas where there are a lot of programs clustered around each other (e.g. NY, New England, Southern California, etc.). Anyone have any tips to share here? 

Flagging your career stage/situation in job apps?

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

I wonder how TT assistant professor folks can flag that they are in their first or second year when applying for TT positions? The worry is that folks on search committees may unwittingly favor assistant professors who are further along the tenure track because these folks will often have more publications and generally a more robust CV.

Two readers replied:

Your CV will do it, so long as you list employment and dates. - Submitted by TT

JuniorTT, it should come across clearly on your CV. That is, your employment history should make explicit when you got your PhD, when you started your job, etc., from which search committees shouldn't have to work too hard to figure out how far along on the tenure track you are. I also don't think there's anything wrong with a cover letter saying: "I'm in my second year of a TT position at X, but I'm interested in your job because Y..." - Submitted by Daniel

Let me add a couple of quick remarks here that I think job applicants in general might find helpful, and then add a question to follow up on Daniel's reply.

Tips for transitioning into ethics consulting?

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, three different readers wrote in asking for tips on how to transition into ethics consulting jobs:

I was wondering if anyone has suggestions on how to transition to an ethics consultant role (e.g. business ethics, but not only), starting from expertise in ethics (but not normative ethics) (PhD), some competence in law and formal methods, but no background in business or business ethics, and some years of postdoctoral work (books, teaching, etc.). EU focus, but obviously open to any perspective. - Posted by: FF 

I want to second FF's request: I'd love a little insight on how to transition to an ethics consultant role with a philosophy PhD, AOS ethics. - Posted by: Seconded

I want to second-second FF’s request, but in a slightly different context: would it be possible to transition into an ethics consultant role with a PhD but a non-ethics AOS? - Posted by: Thirded 

These are really great questions, and I hope we can get some good answers to them from readers! I don't know very much here myself, but here are a few thoughts and questions...

Writing successful grant applications?

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

How to write a successful grant application? I am soon to defend my PhD and I have many publications both in good general journals and top special journals so publishing is not an issue. However, where I am located it is normal to apply for a grant application as a PostDoc - to get any funding for your work. But how on earth one writes a successful application? For me, the problem seems to be that if I have an idea for a paper, I can easily write a publishable article on the topic. All I have to do is to look for articles in the journals and write my own ideas in the same way. But I have never seen a grant application that received funding, so I have no idea how they look. Is it possible to see successful grant applications somewhere? And another related point. How do you come up with ideas that need years working? When I have an idea, I write a short clever article in a few days and publish it in a journal that is fast. How to come up with 'big questions' or themes that need to be worked for many years? Do people just take the small issues and somehow make them look like big when they apply for example a grant for three years?

It seems for me that the grants go for people who know how to write applications and who can justify others that some (minor) issue needs years of pondering when in reality an efficient scholar could write an article or two on the same topic quite fast. Is it easier to get a grant for writing a book than articles? Or do I even have to explain in the application whether I am going to publish my research in a book or in articles? If I am saying I want to write a book, does it help if I manage to get a book contract before receiving funding for it? It seems yes, but on the other hand, if publishers want to see the whole manuscript before giving a contract, then the funder might think that the work is already done if one has the contract and thus maybe they do not give any money because no-one gives you money if the work is already done.

Lots of good questions here. I don't have much experience applying for grants, so I'm really not the best person to ask for advice here. But I have recently applied for one grant (currently under review), and have experience coming up with 'big questions' (two books and a third book idea for the grant application), so I can say a bit about that.

Listing pro-life publications on a CV?

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

Suppose you have 3 publications. 2 in one area, 1 in another area. But suppose that the 1 publication identifies you as being pro-life. Is it better to keep this publication on your CV, outing you as being pro-life, or is it better to leave it off, thereby looking less accomplished and depriving yourself of an area of specialization?

My concern here is that this position (pro-life) is not only unpopular, but appears to be frowned upon in lots of philosophy circles. For example, Elizabeth Harman recently said on the blog of the APA (!) that she considers most opposition to abortion *sexist*. So, if she knows someone is pro-life, this makes it pretty likely that that person's application will be thrown out. (Would you hire a sexist?) It seems that Harman's views aren't idiosyncratic. So, which strategy is more advantageous?

Interesting questions, and I'm not sure what the answers are. I tend to think that when you're on the j0b market, you should be honest, rolling with your actual accomplishments and who you really are. Sure, some people may not want to hire someone who's pro-life. But surely there are some people at some places (e.g. Christian universities) who do. Would you really want to work somewhere where people would discriminate against you, or where you feel like you need to hide your views? Suppose you do get hired. Sooner or later, people there are likely to find out about your pro-life views and work. What then? Wouldn't it be better for you to get a job at a university where people do value what you do? I understand the job market is awful and it's natural to want any job rather than no job at all. But I've also known people get jobs at universities they are miserable at and trying (mostly in vain) to leave. Better, I think, to get the right job to begin with.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Tips for coming up with paper ideas?

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

I'm a PhD student and I guess it is time for me to produce and publish some papers but I'm still struggling to find paper ideas, even for the term papers! How do you come up with new ideas for paper? Do you have any heuristic for that?

For example, I have seen in a post here that Neil Mehta uses some heuristics: replacement, extension, unification etc. Do you have any suggestion so as to find new paper ideas? Do you think such heuristics really work?

Also, I guess people will suggest to write a lot and say that you will come up with ideas while writing. What do you write when you do not know what to write? Do you start by writing summeries of what you have read or by writing analyses of the well-known positions or arguments in the literature?

These are great questions, and I'm very curious to hear readers' answers! I had similar problems early in my career, both during grad school and my first few years post-PhD. Since then, I've found a few strategies that seem to help.

How do you decide when to review for journals?

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

I have been post phd for a few years now. At first, I thought it good to get some referee work under my belt. Now, I am getting a request to review at least once a month if not more. Today, I got two requests 15 minutes apart. My question is, how do people approach the decision whether to accept or reject a request to review? What are the considerations people take into account (besides fit to review)?

Great questions, and I'm very curious to hear what people think! As mentioned in the new thread, to make things more manageable on my end, I've asked readers not to respond in the comments section there--and so there are several comments that I have not approved. However, although I did not post them, I will still try to quote them anyway in new posts when relevant. So, on that note, Bryce responded:

A colleague once gave me this advice about reviewing: review as many papers per year as you submit. So maybe 1-3? The more you review, the more you will be asked for review. Just say no.

This is a rule of thumb that I have commonly heard too, and it seems to me a good one. As professionals, we should all do our part to contribute to what are, effectively, 'public goods' in the discipline. If you submit a lot of papers for others to review, then you should review a lot of papers. If, on the other hand, you submit few papers, then feel free to review more rarely. What does seem clearly wrong to me is to submit lots of papers and rarely review when asked. That's just free-riding. But let me add a few further thoughts.

How can we help you? (September 2020)

Now that it's been a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for another one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! Finally, I have one new request: because these threads are getting so many comments, many of which provide preemptive responses to people's queries, it is getting very difficult for me to keep track of everything. So, while I know some of you like to respond to other people's comments, I'm going to ask that this thread only contain initial queries, and for everyone else to please wait until I post a new thread to discuss the issue in question. (If I ever miss posting a thread to discuss a query, all you need to do is let me know!)

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?

Thoughts on short books?

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

What do people think about SpringerBriefs or Palgrave Pivot? It feels a bit of dirty back-scratching to me: the author gets to call an extended article a book, and the publisher gets to charge book price for it. But happy to change my first impression!

Another reader then responded:

I know at least one SpringBrief that is a thoughtful and well regarded book (and it is not my own ;)). So I think they do serve a purpose. In fact, I think a number of the major publishers are getting into producing smaller books (under 60,000 words). When I published with an academic press, I was explicitly told that the manuscript should be 90,000 words (the idea was it should not be shorter than 90,000). I think the academy is shifting a bit.

Here's my response: I think it is a good thing that publishers are increasingly publishing shorter book series like these. Let me explain why.

Questions about journal refereeing

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

I'm wondering how to deal with the following as a journal referee:

1) The manuscript, which discusses a recent paper, just flat-out misses an argument that that paper makes for a particular premise P. It is clear that they missed it because in the manuscript, the author writes, "It isn't clear what the argument for P is." In fact the author of paper being discussed does argue for premise P. I know not only because I am the author, but *more importantly* because I pulled up the paper to make sure I argued for it. I want to flag this to the referee without making it obvious that I am the author being discussed. How can I do this?

2) The manuscript deserves an R&R. But its tone is perhaps overly polemical, even hostile at times. I would say this even if the paper that the manuscript discusses were not myself. For instance, the manuscript contains asides like, "...the paper, characteristically, does not contain real-world examples of [the philosophical phenomenon]". As a referee, how can I flag that these hostile-sounding asides are unnecessary? Again, without revealing that I am the author of the paper being discussed.

Another reader gave what I take to be good answers to both questions:

1) just cite the relevant passage and refer to yourself in the third person. They might guess it’s you, but they won’t have enough evidence for that to be a great guess (even though it’s true), and your responsibility is to avoid revealing your identity, not to avoid your identity being guessed at all costs.

2) the quoted passage makes it clear that the author strongly disprefers your methodology, but it doesn’t come across as hostile to my ear. (As a reader, I find that these sorts of asides can be helpful, as they make it clear what kind of philosopher I’m reading.) Of course, if it *isn’t* characteristic of your writing (or of the literature? out of context I’m a bit unclear on the charge) that it does not contain real-world examples, then that’s an error you can point out.

Indeed, the passage the referee refers to doesn't seem to me problematically hostile. It could well be that the author the paper is criticizing (the reviewer!) doesn't provide any real-world examples, and this could well be a problem with the reviewer's work. That being said, I do think there are two things here that a reviewer could potentially take legitimate issue with. First, suppose it's the case that real-world examples are irrelevant to the issue at hand. In that case, I think it could be fine for a reviewer to point this out and say that the aside is unwarranted. Second, suppose it's the case that in their work, the reviewer has provided real-world examples and the aside in question misleads readers into thinking they haven't. In that case, once again I think it would be fine as a reviewer to point this out. Still, I think it's important to be judicious here. I don't think it's a reviewer's job to defend their own work in a review. Correcting egregious misrepresentations is fine, as is criticizing errors that affect whether the paper should be published. But suppose the aside in question here is merely an aside, having no real bearing on the paper's main argument, and that the reviewer being criticized really didn't provide any real-world examples in their work. In that case, I think the thing to do is probably to let it go.

In any case, this brings us to a final issue the follow-up commenter raised above:

Here’s a related question of my own. I get that folks think that journal article tone needs to be policed. Even if that’s true, is it the referee’s place to do the policing? Shouldn’t the reviewer focus on scholarly merits? The editor, who represents the journal and its style, can police tone if they like.

For my part, I'm inclined to think that unless a journal gives clear directions on how referees should evaluate papers (which some journals do via worksheet questionnaires), it should be up to the individual referee how they evaluate a given paper. This, I think, is why it is called peer-review. I mean, I personally think the primary focus should be on the quality of the scholarship and arguments. However, we all have different views about what a good paper should look like, and some of our peers can think that presentation and tone can be important. For example, during my time as a graduate student I was often upbraided by some of my mentors for writing with too aggressive of a tone. In retrospect, I'm very thankful for it. Generally speaking (though I do think there can be warranted exceptions), I'm inclined to think that we owe each other 'scholarly respect' (or whatever you want to call it). Fortunately, when I review papers for journals, it nearly always seems to me that failures in this regard converge with scholarly failures--that, for example, haughty dismissals of an author tend to misrepresent them in ways that very much warrant correction on purely scholarly grounds.

But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

Publishing preprints after journal acceptance?

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

A journal recently accepted a manuscript of mine. That is, it is forthcoming in journal x. Is it bad form to post a version of the paper on my professional website before the journal publishes the manuscript?

A reader then replied:

Mercado I think it is bad form. Read the contract you signed with the publisher, and then honor it.

This strikes me as a strange reply. It is of course vital to respect the terms of a publishing contract. However, my sense is that most (though not all) journals allow preprints to be posted on an author's website and/or repository upon acceptance.

Getting an academic job with an MA?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks: "Is it possible for one to have an academic job (eg. lecturer) with only an MA? How does one go about finding such jobs?" As a reader commented on to follow up, there are basically three ways to get an academic job with only an MA:

1. Part-time adjunct positions often only require an MA, but are low-paying without full-time benefits.
2. Some full-time lecturer positions at universities may only require an MA, but appear to be quite rare in philosophy.
3. Many permanent community college jobs appear to only require an MA.

I suspect that of these three options, the first is the most common (but least attractive of the three), and that if one wants full-time employment with an MA, the third option is probably one's best shot. But I don't know for sure. Anyone with experience on this care to weigh in? 

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.

COVID/online teaching: are you assigning less?

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

I am preparing Fall 2020 syllabi for mid-to-upper-level courses.

Synchronous-online instructors, how much reading material are you all assigning?

How much are folks assigning relative to what they would have assigned in a non-COVID-in-person scenario?

Good questions. I'm currently scheduled to teach a hybrid format: in-person in the classroom while livestreaming to other students via Zoom. However, for obvious reasons, I've designed my courses to be able to transition to online-only delivery easily. In brief, I've assigned the same amount of reading for my classes as usual. But what I have done is reduce the number and type of graded assignments students have to complete. The rationale for this is simple: anyone could get sick, both me and my students. Given that my lectures (which will be posted online) help students to understand course readings, it didn't seem to make sense to me to dramatically change the readings I've assigned. Graded assignments, however, can take real time to complete and if someone is out of commission for an extended period of time, then missing graded assignments could be a big burden on everyone involved. I'm not sure this is the right strategy--as, like many people, I'm designing courses like this for the first time--but it seemed to me the best way to go.

What about all of you? Are you assigning the same amount of reading material relative to non-COVID/in-person teaching? Have you reduced the number or type of graded (or even ungraded) assignments you're planning? Etc.

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?

Teaching extra courses for financial reasons?

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

I am a junior faculty member. Faculty salaries at my university are lower than the national average, but I am offered opportunities to teach extra courses, especially during the breaks. That's a big help for me financially (I have a family to support) but it's also a serious time commitment. I have a 4/4 load and can rarely have research done during the semesters.

I am curious how people decide whether to teach extra courses for financial reasons. I know this depends on each person's particular situation. And in theory, one should teach extra courses only if it would not significantly affect one's research. But I still feel hard to decide in practice. I am curious what others do and why you do it. Thanks!

This is a great query, and I am very curious to hear how people respond. Although I understand some people have families and may need extra money in the short term, in general--that is, extreme financial need aside--I'm inclined to think that it is probably better for junior faculty in permanent positions not to teach extra courses during breaks. In any case, even though I needed the money earlier in my career, I decided very early on to not teach additional courses. Let me briefly explain why.

Norms for answering emails?

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

I'd like to push the topic of norms for correspondence. My question is simple: Under what circumstances (if at all) is it acceptable not to reply to an email. I don't mean only requests to comments, but also various invitations to conferences, to contribute to an edited book, to give a lecture etc.

My view is that it is impolite not to answer such an email, even a weird one. It takes less than one minute to write "Sorry, I can't do that."

Good query. I've often been quite surprised here. For example, I've heard stories of philosophers who committed to contribute to an edited volume deciding later on to never respond to emails--essentially 'ghosting' the editor they had an agreement with. This seems to me profoundly unprofessional. Similarly, I've even heard that some journals routinely do this: ignoring repeated emails from authors to check in on the status of manuscripts after, say, 8 months of review. I find it astonishing that there are journals that do this kind of stuff. I don't understand why authors don't protest them by refusing to submit work.

I was always taught that basic norms of professionalism dictate responding to emails within 24 hours during the work week, so that's what I generally try to do (I do not normally respond on weekends). But there are some kinds of emails that I may not respond to at all, or only after some delay. For example, I constantly receive unsolicited requests to 'guest post' on the Cocoon by non-philosophers looking to see this or that product. I don't respond to these. And, of course, like many philosophers (or so I've heard) I sometimes receive emails from non-philosophers who claim to have solved every philosophical problem ever, asking me if I'd care to read their 400-page book. Generally speaking, I usually respond kindly to these kinds of queries, politely declining. But aside from these kinds of things, I try to get back to everyone who contacts me fairly promptly. 

But this is just what I think and do. What do you all think? What norms should one follow for correspondence? Under which circumstances is it acceptable to not reply to an email?

Putting Zoom talks to online groups on CVs?

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

People are forming all kinds of zoom groups. Suppose it’s wildly unlikely that you would have been brought out to a campus setting for some event but a group of people invited you to speak or present something to their department zoom group or these people are reading something of yours and they invite you join in that week. This doesn’t feel CV worthy to me but I also can’t see why not exactly... it’s a lot like a department or research group inviting you to their campus for a colloquium in a way... just no plane ticket. I’m tempted to add a “Covid/online activity” section to my cv. Any thoughts?

I haven't been a part of any of these groups, but I've heard a bit about them. People increasingly seem to be getting invited to provide guest-talks to other people's classes (including graduate seminars), as well as to reading groups of various sorts--some housed primarily within a department and others including scholars from other universities (particularly universities in the surrounding region). In response to this query, another reader ('Appearances') wrote:

You can put what you want on your cv. But the lower grade the stuff is that you list, the lower you are pitching yourself. I advised someone to take their computer skills off their cv...and then they got a permanent position. They were pitching themselves in a way that made them look like ...

This seems right to me. Appearances matter, and it seems to me that the more you include stuff like this, the more 'desperate' you may look. In addition to being quite a bit of a lottery, the academic job-market has always seemed to me a lot like dating: you want to look confident and accomplished rather than insecure and 'making up accomplishments' to pad your CV. While it may be tempting to think of being invited to present to one of these online groups as a genuine accomplishment, the real question here is how it is going to look. As 'Appearances' noted, they don't think it looks very good, and I suspect they are not alone. Might there be counterexamples? Suppose that some Famous Philosopher invites you to give a guest lecture to their grad seminar. Could that look good? I guess it could--but in that case, instead of creating a Covid/online activity' section, I'm inclined to think it may make more sense to just change the 'Invited Talks' section of your CV to something like 'Invited Talks and Guest Lectures', or some such. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Deciding when you have a publishable idea?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader who is about to start a PhD program writes:

[H]ow and when is one ready to write something publishable? Or to put it otherwise, how do you decide whether an idea should be pursued for a publishable work? after how many papers or books? Should one read "everything under the sun" before start writing for publication? Or for example, if I have an idea of paper after reading ten papers, should I start writing or wait for a comprehensive literature review?

I'm very curious to hear about how other people answer these questions, and suspect there is a lot of variation in how people work. But let me share my own approach.

Strange 'part-time' jobs this year?

A reader writes in:

I am on the market this year, and noticed quite a few “part time” jobs, e.g. “3 year, 80% time post” and “Assistant professor (50% +).” I am unfamiliar with such practices, so would like to know a) what is it like to be in such positions (I know experiences should differ from person to person), b) do people work de facto full time in these jobs, and c) will the part time nature make working visa applications more difficult.

Interesting query. I think I've seen a few jobs like this in the past, but suspect they may be more common this year for an obvious reason: universities looking to save money due to the pandemic. Does anyone have the inside scoop on these kinds of positions? I cannot help but have the suspicion that people in these positions may be expected to work de facto full-time job, in which case jobs like these could be a really underhanded way for universities to underpay the person hired. But maybe I'm wrong about this. In any case, what are these jobs like? Do they have any implications for visa applications?

Reading strategies for new subject matter?

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

I'm about to start my PhD [and]...I have recently changed my area of interest and wish to write my thesis on something completely new to me. At this point, what are your reading strategies on a new subject matter? How do you make your reading list? How do you decide what to read and what not? For example, should one start with 20th-century biggies first? Or can one start directly with the seminal papers or books in the last decades? Relatedly, how do you read a philosophical work? Do you try to understand every single sentence and idea? Do you sketch the arguments in detail for every paper? or do you read closely only after you have developed your paper ideas? etc.

Good questions! One reader replied:

[L]ots of variation here, depending on areas and the kind of projects you work on. If it is a new area, try to survey the central works. I wouldn't try to understand every single sentence and idea in most works. At first you want to read around and get a sense of the field. I'd also consult faculty members in the area you're interested in to find out what works they think are the most important. This can save you a lot of time.

I do read closely sometimes before I have a paper idea (if I'm interested enough in the book/paper) - reading carefully can lead to objections which can lead to papers. But once I have a paper idea I read very selectively - e.g., only the parts of books that are relevant to my particular paper. After working out a draft, I will then do a more careful literature search to see what's out there. I definitely wouldn't advise reading "everything under the sun" - even for your dissertation - unless you work in an area with very little literature.

Another reader replied:

Some philosophers like to get a general idea of what the author is getting at while others like to read the work like they’re trying to understand a complex mathematical problem and so every word is important. There are costs and benefits to both methods.

In other words, some philosophers value accuracy more than precision. And some value both equally. Accuracy is a given since truthfulness or correctness is required in inquiry. Precision is often regarded as an option most of the time in the realm of philosophical theory. I aim for both when reading and writing philosophy.

Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to arrive at the accuracy and precision of interpretation and understanding of the text depending on the author.

For example, Kant’s prose is mentally torturous and complicated and so it has led to a lot of varied and contradicting interpretations of his work....

Both of these readers make good points. I don't think there's a single best way to enter the literature for a new subject matter. My sense is that it depends a lot on one's purpose. For example, suppose you have some particular idea (say, about the nature of free will). In that case, the thing to probably do is to start with Google and Philpapers searches--and sometimes, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or even Wikipedia entries--to see what, if anything, has been written on that. Start there, with some recent or historical works that seem to be the closest to your own idea, and then go from there. Typically, of course, published papers you read will discuss and cite other relevant papers. So then go read those. This, in my experience, tends to be a pretty good method--at least, again, if your interest in the new subject matter is motivated by a particular idea.

Synchronous vs. Asynchronous: which is better?

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

For nearly the entire summer, I had planned on administering my fall courses (all online) asychronously. This seemed to be the most recommended option, and the asynchronous system I ended up utilizing when COVID hit ended up working out okay.

But now we're facing a new school year, with new students many of whom are going to be freshmen! I've gotten the sense, from students who have sent me emails, that many of them are looking forward to potentially synchronous online classes. This has made me seriously reconsider my plan to do an asynchronous course.

To sum it up: my classes are going to be all first-year students. I worry that an entirely asynchronous course would be unsatisfying and for many of them would deprive them of what they feel is the beginning of their college experience. Does the fact that we are entering a new semester, several months into the pandemic and the new online learning paradigm, make it any more reasonable than before to try synchronous online teaching?

I decided to skip forward to this query because it seems rather time-sensitive. At my university, we've been instructed that at least 50% of our material needs to be synchronous and involve 'face-time' with students (in-person and/or over Zoom). I don't know the full reasoning behind this, but my sense is that it may have to do with students expecting synchronous instruction, and the sense that some robust amount of synchronous instruction is conducive to student-to-student and student-to-faculty engagement. I also want to do synchronous teaching because I think it's probably better for me and my students to expect each other to be present and engaged with the course material only during the meeting hours of the course (rather than the kind of 'round the clock' availability that asynchronous learning seems conducive to).

But really, I don't know. Although we could end up moving all online, I'm scheduled to teach my courses in a hybrid online/in-classroom format--so again, I really have to do a good amount of synchronous teaching. And, like most of us, this is really my 'first time doing this', as it were, so I really don't know what tends to work best. Anyone have any insight that may help this reader decide what to do, especially for a freshman class?

Norms for initiating correspondence?

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

I'd love to hear people's views about the norms for initiating correspondence with other philosophers. It's a big aspect of the sociology of our profession. Yet I've never seen it discussed, and I have a sense that people have conflicting views about when it's appropriate.

Here is one special case I'd love feedback about. A prominent figure in my subfield once encouraged me (and other early career folks) to feel free to reach out and email polished drafts of my work to philosophers I am writing about in my research, and to do so prior to submitting this work to journals. Sometimes nothing will come of it (and that's fine), but the recipient might well enjoy reading and guiding new work related to their research. The reasons given were that doing so would (1) help early career people to develop relationships and, I think more importantly, (2) likely improve the quality of our drafts. I have heard from some grad students at elite programs that something like this is standard advice.

I have tried this, and sometimes received pushback from the other end. One senior philosopher whom I reach out to in this way told me they wished I hadn't done so, since now they would be unable to "blindly" referee my paper in the event that they are asked to do so. I see the force of this response.

So: I'd appreciate help figuring out the relevant norms. When is initiating correspondence like this a good idea? How should we balance peer-reviewing considerations against the benefits of open correspondence?

I think these are great questions! One reader responded:

As long as you're not sending your paper to lots of folks, I don't think there is anything wrong with sending your work to someone you discuss - but as you note, there can be a lot of variation in how or whether people respond.

I think it is especially likely to be a good strategy when the work you discuss isn't that of a super-prominent faculty member - most philosophers would be delighted to provide feedback to someone who actually discusses their work.

My own experience is that initiating correspondence tends to go best if you have some previous interaction with a person, such as meeting and talking with them at a conference. I also with agree with the above response that trying to initiate correspondence tends to work better if the person you're trying to initiate conversation with isn't super prominent (as my sense is that prominent people get so many unsolicited emails that they can get pretty perturbed by it). Finally, however else you do it, my sense is that tact matters a lot--though, of course, specifying exactly what is tactful here is difficult.

Anyway, I don't have much advice to offer beyond this--but I expect there are probably some readers out there who do. So, then: when do you think initiating correspondence is a good idea? How should one balance peer-review considerations against it? And what norms are there or tips do you have that might be helpful to share?  

How can we help you? (August 2020)

Now that it's been a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for another one.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• Life and work in the COVID-19 era
• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help!

Publishing fiction and the job-market?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, an Author writes:

This might be a silly question but here goes. What would you think of a philosopher publishing fiction in addition to publishing philosophy? If their work has philosophical themes - if a character was a philosophy professor, or if characters explicitly discussed philosophers' work - would you think that was evidence of un-seriousness or lack of dedication to really doing philosophy? Would you assume the work was autobiographical? Would peers or mentors or hiring committees care? I studied creative writing in college and have been working on fiction projects in my spare time on and off since then and there's one I want to publish. But if there's even a little chance it would hurt my prospects in philosophy, forget it...

I don't think this is a silly question at all. On the contrary, I think it is a great set of questions, ones that draw attention to aspects of the profession and job-market that graduate students and job-candidates should be aware of and think about. Allow me to explain.

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.

Listing one's dissertation committee on the CV?

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

Should junior TT faculty, who are trying to do things such as get another TT job or secure a book contract with a good academic press, list their dissertation committee members on their CV?

Karen Kelsky advises against it because by her lights it makes one seem much more like a junior scholar or maybe even a graduate student.

But, on the other hand, both search committees and academic press suffer from prestige bias. So, one might think that if one's dissertation committee is very famous, one should include them on one's CV.

Interesting question! I would have thought the obvious answer here is, "Yes", for basically the prestige-related reasons (if you have particularly well-known committee members listed on the first page, that could catch someone's eye). But Kelsky's reasoning sort of makes sense as well, and I've heard similar things from others in the profession (i.e. you want to 'look like an equal' rather than someone who sees themselves still as a 'junior' scholar).

Any readers in the know have any thoughts on this?

Ageism on the academic job-market?

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

I am an older graduate student (circa 40) who, in the coming years, expects to go on the academic job market. In your experience, is it true that older candidates are often looked at less favorably than younger candidates? Is there some sense that, with a younger candidate, it is more likely that "her best work is ahead of her"? To the extent that this age bias is prevalent, are there ways for older candidates to mitigate its impact? More specifically, are there particular worries about older candidates that they might be able to address in their application materials?

These are important questions. We had a discussion about ageism and grad program admissions a while back. However, to my recollection we've never had a discussion about ageism and the job-market. On the one hand, I'm tempted to say--on the basis of our grad program discussion and my own experience on search committees--that I don't think ageism (particularly against someone in their 40s) is likely to be a big issue. On the other hand, ageism in job-markets in general is (sadly) well-established. Further, it would not surprise me much if age discrimination is highly implicit, with those who engage in it not able to reliably introspect their own motives. 

Anyway, I'm curious what readers think, both about the existence of ageism in academic job-markets and about what applicants might do to mitigate its potential impact. Anyone have any experience or insights here?

Tips for suggesting referees for a book?

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

Do you have any advice or do readers have any advice about how to select referees or readers for a book manuscript when initially submitting it for peer review? Should everyone I suggest be an expert in the particular thinker that the book is about?

I'll be curious to hear what readers think. I've published two books, and when I put my book proposals together (which normally ask for a short list of suggested reviewers), I don't think I gave this very much thought. To the best of my recollection, I just suggested referees who (A) specialize in the book's areas, and who (B) I thought would probably be receptive to the book's project given their research interests. The only thing I guess I would advise is to not suggest your friends. I think it's fine if you suggest a person who you've met at a conference here or there who has been receptive to your work, but suggesting someone simply because they're your friend (and so, potentially inclined to give a good review for personal reasons) seems unethical to me.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?