The Philosophers' Cocoon

How can we help you? (Jan-Feb 2021)

Now that it's been close to a couple of months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new 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! Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!

Handling a grievance in a grad program?

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

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

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

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

Over-submitting to conferences?

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

I'm a graduate student from a third world country with only very little experience in conferencing. With COVID still going nowhere, most (if not all) upcoming student conferences are moved online and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to submit to *all* of them--which is obviously something I wouldn't do in the past--and then choose between conferences if need be. Also, do you think that there is a maximum number of conferences for the same paper to be presented at so that I don't come across as making a big deal out of just one piece of work?

Great questions, and I'm curious to hear readers' answers. I saw a thread on a similar issue on Twitter the other day, and the general consensus seemed to be that it is fine to apply to as many conferences as one likes--the idea being that submitting for a conference is not in itself a commitment to attend. I wouldn't be surprised if some readers think otherwise, holding that one should only apply to conferences on the presupposition that one will attend if accepted. But, for my part, this seems overly restrictive. Many of us (at least in normal times) can't know whether we will be able to attend before submitting, in part because our universities only consider travel funding requests after one is invited. Anyway, I'm curious what readers think.

In terms of the question of whether there's a maximum number of conferences worth presenting one's work at, I don't think there is any limit in principle. But I do think there are some practical reasons to only present a given work several times at most, at least if one is an early career person. First, the more places you present a paper, the more likely it is that potential journal reviewers will know who you are. This could of course be a boon to you if you are at a prestigious program (since there may be biases toward people at such programs), but it could well backfire if you are at lesser-know, less prestigious program. Second, I suspect that the more times you presents a piece of work, there will be diminishing returns: you'll get bored presenting the paper, the same kinds of commentator and Q&A comments, etc. You don't need to get the same feedback over and over again to know which parts of the paper journal reviewers are likely to balk at--so, at some point, usually after a handful of conferences, you'll probably have enough feedback to go on to send the paper out to a journal instead.

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Transitioning into administration without tenure?

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

I am a tenure-track faculty at mid-sized R2 that is aspiring to be an R1. I have become increasingly disinterested in research and increasingly interested in teaching and service/administration. As such, I no longer desire to go up for tenure. Since I do enjoy teaching and service/administration, I would like to stay employed at the university, if possible (moving geographically is not an option given my familial circumstances). Are faculty who do not go up for tenure ever allowed to move to a lecturer line and/or admin job at the same institution? If so, who makes this decision? How is it negotiated? Some have advised I just do what needs to be done for tenure and then focus on teaching and service after, but I’d rather just start working now on the projects I’m actually interested and not try to pull off some bait and switch in my department. Any insight would be appreciated!

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:

Here is some advice from someone who did make a partial move into admin. DO NOT not go up for tenure. Get tenure. Just do what you have to. Then, really get involved in administrative things around campus. It will be a great service to your department and to our profession. We need philosophers involved in admin at universities. Then our voice is at the table (the adult table). But it is imperative that you do it as a tenured faculty. There is my advice.

This seems broadly right to me. While I think it may be possible to get a well-paid, full-time administrative job at a university without tenure (such as running a Center for Teaching & Learning, Wellness Center, etc.), my sense is that it is highly unusual and that many universities require upper administrators (e.g. deans, etc.) to have tenure. So, I think the safe thing to do is to get tenure (if possible), and then transition into administration. But then again, these are just my impressions, and they may be incorrect or idiosyncratic. What do you all think, particularly those of you with experience in these matters? Also, if you do have experience, how would you answer the OP's questions about the process of transitioning into admin?

Is lack of affiliation a problem on the market?

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

I'm curious if anyone has thoughts about how important it is to have university affiliation (either as part of a graduate program or as a VAP, postdoc, etc) when you are on the job market.

Given that so many of us will be unemployed next year, and for a lot of us it's not practical/possible to stay in our PhD programs for another year, what should we do? If we can find a way to support ourselves (through non-academic work) without moving for the sake of a short-term position with a very high teaching load, that would free up a considerable amount of time and energy to make progress on research and hopefully be a more competitive candidate for the next round of applications. But if it would look terrible on a job application to have no current university affiliation, then it might just be a priority for those of us who want to apply again next year to do our best to get *something*.

What do others think?

This is a good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it is undeniable that having an academic affiliation on the job market is a +. Consider this. There are 200 applicants for a job. 150 have an academic affiliation, and 50 do not. Isn't it likely that for every one of the 50 without who has three publications, and good teaching evaluations, etc. there are 3 in the pool of 150 who have one. So other things being equal, you will be setting yourself at a disadvantage.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think this is a bit strong. Yes, a search committee member may notice absence of current institutional affiliation. And yes, all things being equal, it could be a negative. But are search committee members so narrow-minded that they wouldn't bear the candidate's entire record in mind when evaluating this? I mean, suppose the candidate is otherwise excellent: they have good publications, a good teaching record, etc. I have to imagine that most search committee members would still seriously consider the person. We all know how bad the market is, and surely this would figure into most of our minds. 

So no, I don't think it would 'look terrible' to lack an academic affiliation for a year, and indeed, I seem to recall a few job-candidates who were out of academia for a year or two end up with good academic jobs--in large part, it seems, because they still published in good venues. The real issue, I expect, is how long one lacks an academic affiliation. A year seems fine to me. But beyond that, I expect it could begin to count as much more of a negative.

But these are really only some off-hand thoughts, and could be entirely idiosyncratic to me. What do the rest of you think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Advice on giving good Zoom talks?

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

Wondering if anyone has advice on giving Zoom talks (in my case it's an invited talk rather than a job talk, if that matters). I usually use powerpoint, so the obvious thing would be to share my screen with my slides up on the screen. Alternatively, I could email around (or post a link to) a handout, and talk through that.

Any other suggestions/advice?

Great question! Another reader submitted the following response:

From my experience, you should use powerpoint. Do not present from a handout. If you want to give them an aid, send the paper in advance. I did this recently. It was for an audience whose first language is not English. They really appreciated, and the questions in the Q&A were, as a result, quite sophisticated. Consequently, it was a far better experience than I expected.

I don't know. Until yesterday, I might have agreed with this. But yesterday, I sat in on an Eastern APA session where the author used a handout, which they shared via Zoom's chat function. I thought it went just fine! I opened the handout on one side of my screen while watching the speaker on the other--and I thought it worked just about as well for the speaker as using a PowerPoint. I was able to follow everything well via the handout, and the talk itself was engaging.

In any case, if the OP does use PowerPoint, I would advise not to simply share the presentation via Zoom. My experience here is that if one simply shares a PowerPoint, the slides take up the whole screen (as is standard in PowerPoint's 'present' function), and the speaker is in a little box in the corner, then the presentation can seem less engaging. In my author-meets-critics session at the Eastern APA last week, I did something different that I thought worked well. I saved my PowerPoint slides as a PDF, opened the PDF in one window, selected the 'read mode' function (which make them take up the whole PDF window), and then did 'share screen' via Zoom, placing my PDF/slides on the left-hand side of the screen with my Zoom camera feed taking up the right-hand side of my screen. The advantage here is that the audience can view a large enough version of the PowerPoint to read and see the speaker in a large window at the same time--thus approximating the experience one would have viewing a philosophy talk in person, at least as far as is possible via Zoom.

But these are just my reactions/tips. What are yours?

Applying in future years to jobs one didn't get?

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

My questions concern applying for jobs in departments that one has in previous years been short-listed but ultimately rejected from. Is this something one should acknowledge in one's cover letter? Should one hedge by keeping the same materials like a writing sample (since they worked last time and they might not be remembered) or do something new (to show you've developed or something)? Anything else worth knowing? Thanks everyone

Interesting questions. My reaction here is pretty unequivocal: I don't think it is worth mentioning or doing anything special with one's application materials. Let me explain.

Teaching Portfolio's vs. "Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness"

Just before the end of the year, I got an email from a former colleague of mine who is doing her first run on the job market. She asked if I had any input on the difference between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness." The latter phrase is commonly used on job ads these days as a required component of one's application, but it is often ambiguous as to what exactly should be included. Here's what I told her in my response:

When I was last on the job market, my teaching portfolio contained (1) my statement of teaching philosophy, (2) a brief summary of my student evaluations from the last several years, (3) two full sets of student evaluations from recent courses taught, (4) two full sample syllabi, and (5) two brief course proposals (with reading lists) for courses I was ready to teach but had never actually taught. When I was asked for evidence of teaching effectiveness, I usually included fewer materials -- the teaching statement, summary of evaluations, a single set of student evaluations, one sample syllabus, and sometimes one course proposal. If I could, I tailored these documents to the job ad. If I were expected to teach a course like Contemporary Moral Problems, for instance, then I'd be sure to include evaluations from that course, and if I were expected to teach a philosophy of technology course, then I'd slip in my course proposal for that class.

 

In my experience, asking for an entire teaching portfolio has become relatively rare. In my last job search, less than 15% of the jobs I applied for requested it. Requests for either "evidence of teaching effectiveness" or a specific list of teaching-related items appears to be the norm now. I suspect that this is because there are so many job applicants now that most committee members don't want to sift through a portfolio of 25-30 pages and have assumed that evidence of teaching effectiveness should be more focused and concise than a full portfolio. The institutions that requested full portfolios were, as you might expect, teaching focused schools, and I suspect that the portfolio was one of the weightiest parts of those application.

 

This, however, is only my impression of the difference, and I could be mistaken. Does anyone else have a take on the distinction between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness" who would like to weigh in?

Journal format(ting) requirements?

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

Some journals (e.g Philosophical Studies) state on their websites that submissions should be in Word (doc/docx files). Others (e.g. Synthese) explicitly say "Word or pdf". Do the former journals really not accept pdf submissions?

I've always been a bit puzzled by these kinds of requirements myself, and think it might be good to hear from some readers with an inside view on things (i.e. journal editors). Why do journals have these kinds of requirements? Do you automatically reject a paper that doesn't conform to them? And what about formatting requirements (such as requiring endnotes rather than footnotes)? Do you automatically reject papers that don't conform to those?

Submitting a different version of a paper?

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

Around a year ago a paper of mine was desk rejected by a few of the top 20 philosophy journals. Since then I have completely revised the paper, to the degree that only the topic (broadly construed) remains the same and some expository parts remain the same. The paper now has a completely different title, a completely different argumentative structure, and a completely different conclusion than the reject version.

Since I still believe that some of the journals that desk rejected the old version are a good fit for this paper, my question is, whether it's fine if I resend the new version to them?

This is a good question, and one that I faced earlier in my career. I think the answer is 'no.' Even if the paper is 'completely revised', my sense is that the journal is likely to consider it a newer version of the original paper that was desk-rejected. Although I suppose it's possible that you might get away with it, I suspect an editor is probably likely to realize that it's a paper that was already submitted. They might not only see the old one in their system when they log in (if they briefly review your previous submissions); they might also read the paper to see if it's worth sending out to reviewers and recall the earlier version--and I imagine this could really irritate them, particularly if you changed the title (which they might find intentionally deceptive).

To be clear, I'm not sure about any of this. However, the longer I've gone in my career, the more it's seemed to me that it's not worth taking risks like this. If a journal rejected an earlier version of my paper, I won't consider that journal an option for it. There are other good journals, after all. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Best practices for research support at SLACs?

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

I would be very grateful to get some hive-mind wisdom on the topic of research policy at SLACs. I'm at a small, mission-driven university that is doing its best to take research seriously. We often "punch above our weight," as it were, but we don't have much in the way of clear policy that might offer needed (in my view) structural incentives for faculty research.

I'm wondering about "best practices" when it comes to such structural incentives, e.g., policies on course and/or administrative release for grant-holders, grant applicants, course buyouts, non-grant-holding researchers, sabbatical policies, etc. I'd be especially grateful for ideas from those at SLACs, but definitely all ideas welcome.

Great questions! I'm curious to hear from readers who work at SLACs both on what their university's policies are like, as well as what people think 'best practices' are. I think my university does some nice things to support research for full-time faculty. Although I may be forgetting some things (I don't know whether grant-holders can get course releases), I do know that we have the following:

1. Annual merit raises: for full-time faculty, which depend on teaching, research, and service performance, though one can choose to have research weighted up to 40% in one's annual score.
2. Internal grants: which are competitive, but which any full-time faculty can apply for annually.
3. Post pre-tenure review course releases: a one-time, one course offload that tenure-track faculty get after successfully passing their 3rd-year pre-tenure review.
4. Sabbaticals: which tenured faculty can apply for after 6 years, either for one semester at full pay or for one year at half-pay.
5. Travel funding: which one must apply for prior to every conference, but can enable one to travel to from between 1-3 conferences per year.

If you work at a SLAC, what are your university's research-related policies and incentives? And what do you think 'best practices' are?

Elitism in graduate program admissions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staying competitive in philosophy in a non-philosophy postdoc?

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

Question on doing interdisciplinary work. I've done empirically inspired philosophical work before, but am now taking on a postdoc in a non-philosophy project. This leads me to wondering how to ensure that I remain a competitive candidate within Philosophy. I assume I need to make sure I also publish my own, solo, philosophical work -- but I can't realistically do as much of it as someone doing a philosophy postdoc. Are there ways to help make the non-philosophical research help and not hinder future hires? Also, will recommendation letters from my non-philosopher supervisors in that postdoc count for anything? A further concern is that this is a research only position, which means it doesn't enable expanding my meager teaching portfolio. Should I try to adjunct a class or two on the side to make up for that?

These are interesting questions. This appears to me to be a serious issue for postdocs in Europe. In the United States, postdocs aren't hired to complete a particular project. But from what I can tell, in at least some places in Europe, that's exactly what postdocs are: one is hired (it seems) into a position funded by a particular grant or whatever, and your activities in the postdoc are supposed to be on the funded project, whatever it is. Assuming this is right, it seems to me to place postdocs in a terrible position in multiple respects. First, the postdoc may have to more or less give up on their own research program in favor of the grant-funded project. And second, as we see in the OP, the project may be largely empirical or not even in philosophy.

What should postdocs in this kind of position do? I think the OP is right that they should try to continue publishing solo philosophy work on the side. But aside from that, I'm not sure. I don't know how useful recommendation letters from non-philosophers will be for applying for jobs in philosophy. And given that postdocs like the one the OP described don't have teaching, the OP is in a triple-bind: they need to somehow spend most of their time working on their postdoc project, while also publishing solo work in philosophy and (ideally) getting some teaching experience. All things being equal, I think seeking out adjunct work would be a good idea--but, as we see here, all things aren't equal. I don't know how someone in their position can realistically do all of the above. So unfortunately, I have to confess that I don't know what to say here. It seems to me that postdoc practices like these place recent PhDs in an extremely difficult position, one that I don't have any clear views on how to best navigate (in large part because I've never been in the situation myself).

Do any readers out there have any better answers? Have any of you been in a similar position? If so, what would you suggest the OP do? If not, what do you think the OP should do, looking at it from an outside perspective?

Tech tips for interviews?

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

I have a second query that I thought of while reading the replies, in particular some that mention lighting and headphones. I was under the impression that headphones look a little unprofessional but on reflection that seems silly. Perhaps we could have a dedicated thread on what equipment is good for zoom interviews and other tips about lighting, angles, etc?

One reader ('Newly TT') made a couple of suggestions in our thread on how to dress for Zoom interviews:

[I]nvest in a good webcam and microphone. I actually think it makes a big difference, since you come out in HD and with good sound quality instead of a pixelated mess with tinny audio. I bought a webcam and mic set for all of my Skype interviews last year, before COVID made Zoom a thing. It happened that I could repurpose the same camera and mic for online teaching nowadays, but I think that it's worth it regardless! It's like a $100 investment and if it makes a difference, it pays off big-time.

These are good suggestions, I think, but I also think it could be good to discuss Jack's original query in more detail. Indeed, I think it could be good to hear both from candidates about what has worked well (and not so well) for them, as well as from search committee members. So, here are a few questions directed toward each group:

For job candidates: which tech tips do you have for other job-candidates? Which kind of tech have you used that seems to be important and work well for you? On the flip side, what have you tried that hasn't worked so well? Do you use headphones? Artificial lighting? A professional mic? Wired (as opposed to wireless) internet access?

For search committee members: what have you seen that seems to work well or not so well for job-candidates? What sorts of things have you noticed that come across well or not so well? For example, do you think big headphones look weird or less-than-professional, or do you not care at all? Indeed, aside from being able to see and hear a candidate decently, do you think all of this talk about tech (e.g. lighting, etc.) is overblown?

For both groups: don't feel any need to be constrained by the questions suggested above. Feel free to share whatever thoughts you have on the general issue of tech in interviews!

Are philosophers serious? Should they be?

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

Do philosophers typically think philosophy is real? As in: do you honestly believe the philosophical positions you hold, or believe that the field you work in is pursuing real things?

I've been in graduate school for five years, and always struggled with this question. I always assumed people knew philosophy was an intellectual flight of fancy and picked philosophical positions arbitrarily. I also have always assumed that philosophical issues are fantasy. But the people in my program seem to think that the positions they hold are actually right. Am I the outlier? Do other people have similar inclinations?

I think these are really good questions. Before I weigh in and open things up for discussion, here are three response comments that readers submitted:

PhD student: nope, you're not an outlier. Your fellow grad students need to grow up. Some people never do. - by Overseas Tenured

I would not have dedicated over a decade of my life, and many 60+ hr work weeks, to philosophy, if I thought "philosophy was an intellectual flight of fancy" or if I was "pick[ing] philosophical positions arbitrarily". There are, of course, some topics researched in philosophy that I might characterize as "intellectual flights of fancy", but I avoid those and work on what I take to be serious, important issues. I also try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and assume there's something in those others topics that is important that I'm missing. As far as I know, all of my friends take either their own work, or at least much of what they teach, reasonably seriously. Some may take it more seriously than others, and I know everyone at some point struggles with feeling like their work is actually worthless, but I don't know anyone who openly takes such an extreme and sweeping view of philosophy --- e.g., seeing their own work as a mere kind of game detached from reality or anything important, and also seeing basically all of philosophy that same way. Here are some questions addressed in philosophy: How do we have a just society? Is a specific policy X just and fair? Do animals feel pain and should we eat them? When is it appropriate to believe something based on the evidence? What makes something "fake news"? These (and variations of them) are all questions studied by philosophers. I would have thought they are all clearly important and asking about objective features of reality. - by Mike

Kieran Setiya's podcast "Five Questions" asks most (or all?) of the people he interviews whether they believe the philosophical positions they hold. So you can check out that podcast for various answers to that question. - by Daniel Weltman

My own position here is somewhere in the middle. On the one hand, I wouldn't do philosophy if I didn't think the questions we address are real, and if I didn't think there is something to the views that I defend. On the other hand, I very much appreciate skeptical concerns about traditional philosophical methods. As Jason Brennan argues in his 2010 article, 'Scepticism about philosophy', "Widespread disagreement shows that pursuing philosophy is not a reliable method of discovering true answers to philosophical questions. More likely than not, pursuing philosophy leads to false belief." I advance similar concerns here about traditional methods in moral philosophy. My own preferred answer to this kind of skeptical challenge is that philosophy should use better methods, drawing on science and the methods of the sciences, vis-a-vis natural philosophy. Which is why I think rising interest in metaphilosophy and experimental philosophy is especially valuable. Finally, as many have noted, I think it is impossible to avoid taking philosophical stances on things--for example, on what morality or justice are. We have to simply do our best, though again I think we should use better methods rather than worse ones. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Do you side with PhD Student and Overseas Tenured in thinking of philosophy as little more than flight of fancy, or do you think philosophy is serious business? And, do you believe the views you defend? If so, how do you grapple with skepticism about philosophy's methods?

How to dress for Zoom interviews?

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

How should candidates dress for zoom interviews? I’m a man but I imagine other genders have this question too. Should I wear a suit and tie? On the one had that feels somehow a little silly but on the other hand i feel that it is better to be overdressed than underdressed. What if I have multiple interviews for the same uni over different days—should I change my outfit? Any other presentational tips I [might] not be aware of?

Good questions! My sense is that expectations and norms for dress tend to be more relaxed for Zoom, so I don't think a suit and tie is necessary for a first-round interview (or advisable for that matter, as you may look like you're interviewing for a corporate job). Indeed, my general sense is that people are probably not going to spend much time thinking about how you're dressed for a first-round interview on Zoom--provided you don't wear a t-shirt or something. 'Campus visits' via Zoom may be a bit of a different story, however, as you'll be meeting with administrators (e.g. the Dean, Provost, etc.). So, I would probably be sure to dress fairly formal for them, and probably also be sure to wear different things on different days. But I don't know for sure. What do you all think? It might be good to hear from search committee members! 

Must a writing sample fit the job?

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

I have a sort of specific version of the question: How important is it that one's writing sample(s) fit the job specification? I applied for a TT position advertised as "field X with specialisation in subfield Y". I work in X and have strong interests in Y but haven't written much in it and the writing sample I submitted was only loosely connected to it. I received an email from the department asking for a second writing sample, and I'm wondering whether I should submit a better paper in field X that has almost nothing to do with sub-field Y, or else submit an inferior paper that has a little more to do with subfield Y. Thank you everyone.

This is an interesting question. I'm inclined to think that in general (though not always), it's probably vital for a writing sample to fit the job. I would also not be surprised at all if in Marian's case the request for a second writing sample is motivated specifically by the committee wanting to see if she really does serious (and good) work in the area, as requesting a second writing sample is a bit odd. The primary case in which it seems to me that 'fitting the job' might not be a huge priority is for R1 jobs, where a department might just want to hire the best researcher they can simpliciter. But these are just my thoughts, and Peter submitted an alternative perspective: 

@Marian: I don't have any experience being on search committees. But my knee jerk reaction is to always try to submit your best piece of writing. If it's not on subfield Y, then you can always talk up your connections to subfield Y if you make it to a round when they ask you about it. But if it's *bad* and it's on subfield Y, then it seems like you're passing up the best way to even make it to that next round.

These are good points. I tend to think it's best to roll with your best work, and agree that if one's work in Y really isn't very good, then it's probably not going to help one's case to submit it. But this just draws attention, I think, to the sense in which Marian is in between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Although again this is just speculation, it seems plausible to me that the reason the SC asked for a second sample from her is precisely because her first one wasn't squarely in Y, and they want to see what her work on Y is like. Then again, Marian can't know either way, at least not without asking. So, I dunno. Maybe the thing to do here is to actually ask? Marian could always email the search chair, asking something like, 'Is the committee looking for a paper specifically on Y, or is it fine if I submit on X?' But would this be a good idea, or a bad idea? I don't know! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What do you all think, particularly those of you who have been in a similar position or served on a search committee?

Should external letters be weighed more heavily?

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

I have a question about external letters of reference as part of one's application materials. Or maybe it's a comment.

I know the reasons why they're valued: this person is not personally invested in your success in the same way that your supervisor is, and hence they can (allegedly) speak more objectively to your work. Now I've been told, and have read people saying, that the external letter is the most important letter for a lot of places. This seems pretty unfair. For starters, it can be hard to get an external reader. You either need your supervisor to already be connected with them, or to meet them at a conference (which you likely had to get into), or some other way. Then of course you have to have the "right" external reader, i.e. someone from a top notch place doing top notch work. But how often do such people wind up in the circles of students not attending the Northeast East elite or the California elite programs? Pretty rarely, I'd guess.

I think what I am doing here is asking job committee members to rethink their bias towards the external letter. There's a lot of value to getting an external voice on one's committee, I think. And students should keep doing so. But it seems to me that, as hiring committee member, weighing that letter more heavily than the others is plainly unfair. I suppose this is part of the larger conversation I've seen floating on philosophy social media lately of whether or not letters of reference should be flat out abolished.

To make sure I get some kind of question in here, I am asking for a justification of the practice of weighing external letters heavier, which does seem to be rather prevalent (for the record, I've tried to secure one myself, because of what people tell me about their importance).

I'm actually very sympathetic with these concerns. As readers may recall, I'm not a fan of recommendation letters in general. The empirical evidence on them suggests they have little predictive value regarding future academic or work performance. This is for many reasons, not the least of which are selection bias:

Selection of writers is biased; usually, we don’t ask people who hate us to write letters for us.  Writers themselves are then biased; many won’t agree to write recommendation letters if the only letter they could write would be a weak one. Among those that do write letters, the personality of the letter-writer may play a more major role in the content than the ability level of the recommendee.

How often do interviews make a difference?

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

How often do first-round TT job candidates move up in the ranking as a result of their Zoom/Skype interview such that they make it to the second-round-on-campus visit?

Here I assume that SC members have a rough sense of who is favored for the job or at least who they would like to invite for a campus visit.

Great question! My experience, having served on four search committees, is as follows. First, the vast majority of interview performances are broadly indistinguishable from each other. Most interviewees perform pretty well, and so much of the time don't make a difference in terms of who to invite to campus. I'd say that out of every 10 interviews, 8 are pretty good, 1 is awful, and 1 is tremendous. Second, the primary times interviews cause significant changes in how a search committee thinks are (A) when someone at the top of the list heading into the interview gives a terrible interview, and (B) someone seriously in the running gives a tremendous interview. Terrible interviews really can knock someone out of a 'top position' (i.e. someone the committee expected to want to hire) and lead that person not to be invited to campus. Conversely, tremendous interviews can make a real difference in terms of getting an on-campus visit. However, tremendous interviews are pretty rare, and whether they result in an on-campus will still depend on how the committee judges the rest of the dossier. If someone is toward the 'bottom' of the committee's list (due e.g. to not having publications, etc.), then even a tremendous interview might not make a difference--as members of the committee might be skeptical of the value of interviews, and place more emphasis on tangible accomplishments and how well candidates fit the institution and the department's needs. The most likely case where a tremendous interview is going to make a difference, I think, is when a candidate is in the 'middle of pack' (as it were) prior to the interview.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

How can we help you? (December 2020)

Now that it's been over a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new 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! Important note: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it (as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post!).

Addressing ability to attract outside funding?

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

Writing applications now, [currently a] post doc, second year on the market [applying for TT jobs]. I think I finally have a handle on how to address what hiring committees are looking for with one big exception: evidence of ability to attract funding. I see this frequently in Europeans jobs (yea I’m including the UK in that). Not only am I confused what exactly they are looking for and why, but I simply don’t have anything that can be squished until it kind of looks like evidence for external funding when you squint. It’s just not something that ever came up for me (or anyone in my cohort), I didn’t even know it was a thing until I started seeing it on job ads to be honest. My ideal is a European job so I would really appreciate any advice how to address this.

This is a great query. When I was on the market, I was very interested in European jobs. However, I had no idea how to address this kind of issue, as external funding isn't something that grad students early-career philosophers in the United States are generally expected or encouraged to obtain. Is this something that can be overcome, or is a lack of a track record of obtaining external funding basically a disqualifier for obtaining a job in European countries where this sort of thing is expected? If not, what is the best thing for a candidate like Mary to do in her application materials?  

Looking at job-candidate websites?

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

I have two questions about the role of personal websites in the job application process.

1. What are some reasons search committee members might visit an applicant's webpage?
I have a hidden, password-protected page on my website that contains all my application materials and a few additional ones. I put the address and password in my cover letters. Now that most of my applications are in, I see that people from regions I applied in are visiting my webpage, but they are not using this page. Instead, they are just browsing the website in general. Most frequently, they spend a minute or less on my homepage and research page. Sometimes it's less than 30 seconds and just my homepage. But I'm not sure what information they are looking for in these pages, since all of it is predictably contained in my dossier. The only thing I can think of is that the website gives a vibe of who the candidate is, or maybe they just want to see a photo?

2. In what stage of the process do search committees look at the candidates' websites?
For example, is it when they go through the batch to make the initial cut? It is when they decide on the long list? I'm sure there's a lot of variation, but I wonder if there are some commonalities. I'm curious because of a pattern I see on my website. Sometimes there is a burst of visitors from a certain place for a few days and then they stop vising my website. Could this be interpreted as some vague indication that there was a discussion of my dossier? If I don't hear from that department in the following weeks and they have stopped visiting my website, should I take it as some sort of signal that my dossier is no longer considered? On the one hand, intuitively, it does seem to me like a sign that they lost interest. On the other hand, this happened to me with several departments and I haven't seen reports that any of them invited people for interviews or any updates about their searches.

Another reader submitting the following reply:

I think you are overthinking this way too much. This is the sort of worrying that leads to serious anxiety around the job market. Your job is to submit an application. Then leave it to the committee to do their work. Some people will look at your webpage and some won't. The one case I remember most vividly is a very unaccomplished colleague trolling around looking for dirt on an application ... and finding it! So just keep the content professional.

In one sense (as I explain below), I think the OP probably is overthinking things. But as the follow-up comment notes, one reason search committee members may visit a candidate's website is to simply see how professional and 'put together' a candidate is. So, I think it is important to reflect a bit on why search committee member might visit candidate websites.

Updating search committees?

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

Suppose that an R1 institution schedules a first-round Zoom interview with a job applicant. And suppose that between the moment the interview was scheduled and the interview itself, this applicant receives a request to contribute to a special issue of a specialty journal and an invitation to contribute to an edited volume on some topic relevant to their AOS.

Should this applicant inform the search committee of these developments? Or do these developments not rise to the level of newsworthy?

And in a case like this, what developments are newsworthy such that an applicant should inform search committee members?

Good questions! I'm inclined to think that it's just fine to inform a committee of new accomplishments, such as a new forthcoming (i.e. accepted) publication. However, I'm not sue that mere invitations to contribute to a special issue or edited volume rise to that level. What do all you think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees? Which kinds of developments are newsworthy enough to inform search committees about?

Listing articles under review?

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

Does anyone have strong feelings about listing "under review" manuscripts in a separate section of the CV? (That is, below the actual publications, of course.)

On the one hand, it seems smart to let everyone know that one has a pile of research that could be accepted for publication any day now. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether anyone will be impressed by the fact that one submits a lot for publication consideration, much of which might not ever be published anyway.

Another reader submitted the following response:

I would say it is not smart, and it does not seem smart. Too often people who do list things under review are deceptive - after all, you can list anything and any journals, and there is no effective way to confirm any of this information. Consequently, it does not belong on a c.v. - translation: course of life. All you end up doing is making more work for search committees because they have to work through what the person is really claiming, and this takes time if you are looking at 85 c.v.s

I entirely agree with this response. As a past search committee member, it rub me the wrong way when I see articles listed as under review on a CV. When I'm hiring, I'm looking for hard accomplishments--specifically, the kinds of accomplishments that are likely to get the candidate tenured or promoted at my institution. Listing articles under review, even many of them, just isn't good evidence of that: a publishing record is. Now, I know sometimes search committees--particularly search committees at research institutions (or so I've heard)--look to hire on the basis of a candidate's 'promise'. But here too, it doesn't seem to me like having a bunch of articles under review is good evidence of that. If I were interested in some nebulous notion of promise, I would instead want to focus on the candidate's research statement, writing sample, and recommendation letters. So again, I just don't see the purpose of listing articles under review.

But these are just my thoughts. As we all know from past discussions on this blog, search committee members can differ wildly on how they think about things and evaluate candidates. So I wonder what other search committee members think. Any other search committee members willing to weigh in on this?

The post-interview waiting game

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

Going on two weeks post first round interview; committee said they'd be in touch by early November.

I have heard nothing even after reaching out once to try and get an update.

Is this unusual or are the circumstances and idiosyncrasies of particular searches and committees just too different to say anything meaningful?

Good question. I think there are all kinds of possible explanations here. The most obvious is that given that we're just around 30% through the month, it's still technically early November--so the OP could hear any day. A second, related possibility is simply that the committee has had trouble finding time to meet to make a decision on who to move forward with. A third possibility is that the committee has met but is having trouble deciding between one or more candidates. A fourth possibility is that they have decided and sent their recommendations on who to invite to campus to the college dean, but the dean is being slow with things. You get the picture by now. It could be just about anything.

This is just one of many reasons why I think, as some other readers have noted, the best thing to do in general is to try your best to put things out of your mind and not get your hopes up. Either you'll get a campus invite or you won't. There's nothing you can do about it post-interview. I know, it's maddening--but in my experience the best thing to do is to simply move on in your own mind and if you get a campus invite, you get a very happy surprise.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Prepping articles for submission: what's your process?

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

How many weeks does it take professional philosophers to write a paper ready for submission? Is it better to write an outline before drafting? I think as I read. So I write random paragraphs after reading to see if something will materialize. Is that inefficient?

This is a great query, and I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts. How long does it take for you to draft up something that you think is ready to submit to a journal? And what's your overall process look like? I guess I'll start things off!

How long do search committees take?

(Comments open now!)

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

I have a question related to applying for jobs this year. It's my first time on the market. I've read a lot of articles and blog posts about the unspoken rules of academic searches and their timelines, one of them being: you often don't get informed about having been rejected until much, much later. I find myself wondering: How much time, on average, does it take the search committee to come up with a list of first-round interviewees after the job posting deadline? I'm asking about TT jobs especially. In other words, when can I reasonably assume that I'm no longer in the running? I've read here and there that it's about 2-6 weeks, but that guess wasn't specific to our field. (And could this timeline be altered during the pandemic?)

One search committee member submitted the following response:

This is in response to job-seeker. 2-6 weeks strikes me as quite fast. I'm on a search committee this year, and we're not intending to contact shortlisted applicants until 7-8 weeks after the deadline. It takes a long time to read applications! Perhaps it makes a difference that we'll go straight to (zoom) talks, rather than doing first-round (zoom) interviews.

I think these two comments are a bit telling. On the one hand, on the search committees that I've served on, we've tried to move fast, meeting just a week or two after the application deadline. However, as the above search committee member notes, they move quite a bit more slowly: 7-8 weeks is close to two months after the application deadline. When I was a job-candidate, I got a first-round interview for a job over two months after the deadline. So, sadly, I think the answer to the OP is: you never really know. Search committees can make decisions quickly, or they can take their time. The best thing to do in order to know whether interview decisions have been made, I think, is for candidates who have received them to report them on our job-market reporting thread (which has been oddly quiet so far this season).

Working on abstract topics in turbulent times

In our November "how can we help you?" thread, two readers wrote in with similar queries:

If you haven't discussed this already, how to focus on abstract philosophical work that has no practical connection to the world whatsoever with so much happening politically and socially around the world? - Posted by: Tom | 11/03/2020 at 11:06 AM

I have a question similar to that of Tom. I am working in the philosophy of language, but sometimes I lose the excitement about my area since it has no direct impact on the world. I doubt that, differently from moral and political philosophy, my research will help someone to clarify better their thoughts or a way to live. I have started to feel in this way particularly since the beginning of the pandemic. Thanks! - Posted by: Alessio | 11/03/2020 at 11:56 AM

I wonder how many other readers have found themselves in a similar situation and how they responded. Here are three obvious possibilities:

1. Look for ways to relate your abstract work to real-life problems
2. Work on more practical/applied topics on the side
3. Shift your area of focus altogether

To take one example of a philosopher who has done some combination of these things, consider Jason Stanley, who began his career focusing on abstract topics in philosophy of language and epistemology but has transitioned into more political topics, such as the nature of propaganda and fascism. I also think there are philosophical choices one can make in abstract areas of inquiry that can make one's work more practically relevant. For example, one of the things that has long frustrated me about a lot of work in metaethics is that dominant strands in the field aim to detach metaethics from empirical matters (such as the science of moral cognition, motivation, and social psychology). I've argued that this is not only epistemically problematic, but that an empirically-informed approach to metaethics (and by extension normative ethics) has a lot of practical import that traditional metaethics lacks, such as a better understanding of how to motivate people to act on their moral reasons, what sound moral education should look like across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, and how governments and other organizations (including businesses) should be structured to generate better compliance with our moral obligations. To put it simply, I suspect there are often choices one can make--even in very abstract fields--that can make those fields more relevant to matters of practical everyday interest.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Have any readers out there grappled with these issues?  

How long should job-market materials be?

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

I am writing in response to the thread that got going earlier on diversity statements and their length. One respondent mentioned that all of their materials were just one page, and I'd like to hear from others if this is true of them as well, and also from perhaps hiring committee members that this is what they prefer. I'm especially interested in the proper length of a research statement.

In my own case, my diversity and teaching statements are one page. However, my research statement is longer. I've had friends who have been hired share their research statements with me, and they were very long, like, five pages singled-spaced long. Now I know someone can say, "Well, that whole thing isn't going to get read." But I guess my response is, so? It's all there if they want to read it. My statement is fairly long, but I also have a little roadmap that tells them what area of my research I discuss in each section. So if they want to jump around, they can do that. Is that bad? Would that annoy you if you were a hiring committee member?

One more thought here (I know this is already long-winded): Wouldn't it be the case that shorter research statements speak in broad brush strokes? And isn't that not great? I'm imagining a short statement that just spends three or four sentences describing each project, or just says things like, "My next project explores the rationality of anger; I argue X." The end. I guess my issue with this tricky document is figuring out how to say enough for the reader to see your ideas are not half-baked, but not so much that it starts to read like a scholarly article.

Help?

Great questions! I'll be very curious to hear what other readers who have served on search committees think. However, here are a few quick thoughts of my own.

How can we help you? (November 2020)

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

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!

Query on diversity statements

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

How long should a diversity statement be for R1 jobs and postdocs? Many of these job ads ask for one, but none of them specify length.

Good question. I understand that some universities have detailed rubrics for diversity statements, in which case I'm guessing the answer is: the statement should be as concise as possible while aiming to satisfy as many things in the rubric as possible (given the applicant's background). Do all universities that require diversity statements have similar rubrics? If so, it might be good to hear about how similar or different they are to the one outlined above. It might also be good to hear from search committee members on how long effective diversity statements tend to be, and as a general rule what is too short or too long. Finally, it could be good to hear from search committee members on some "do's" but also some "don'ts" (i.e. things that candidates sometimes write in diversity statements that don't come off very well). Anyone with experience and insight willing and able to weigh in?

The 'any questions for us?' question

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

I'm curious if folks who have been on hiring committees can shed some light on the oft-used concluding question at interviews: "Do you have any questions for us?"

My understanding is that this is, in one sense, a genuine ask: does the candidate have any questions we haven't addressed? But, clearly, it is also a signaling opportunity: what sorts of things does the candidate care about, and what can we glean about them as a colleague, teacher, and philosopher from these questions?

There are obviously terrible answers: "How much is the pay?" "Can I wear jorts to work?" "Are the students there really as bad as I've heard?"

But it's much less clear to me what constitutes a *good* question to ask here. I've heard of folks asking about developing courses, research funding, and extra-curriculars, but these seem overdone now (since we've all been taught from the same playbook, so to speak).

Maybe those who have served on committees could offer some more specific advice/commentary on this. Are there any answers to this question that have really struck you as *good*? What sorts of things make you cringe? What are you tired of hearing? What sorts of things make a candidate stand out here?

Great questions! Any search committee members willing to weigh in? I'll just share three brief thoughts: (1) In my experience, good questions show that you have done your homework on the institution and actually thought in some depth about ways that you might contribute; (2) As a general rule, I think questions about the philosophy club tend to be cringeworthy (as it can seem to betray a kind of laziness in terms of learning anything more substantial about the institution before the interview). Beyond this, I'm not sure though. I think it would be great to hear from other search committee members!

Teaching statements & COVID?

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

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

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

Tips on transferring grad programs?

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

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

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

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

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

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?