The Philosophers' Cocoon

Ageism on the academic job-market?

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

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

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

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

Tips for suggesting referees for a book?

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

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

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

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Extra effort for teaching remotely in the fall?

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

I have a question about preparing for teaching remotely in the fall: how much (extra) effort should I put into it?

I chose to run the classes asynchronously in the spring when we had to move everything online. I decide to run them synchronously in the fall. I feel that asynchronous online classes are not fair to students many of whom are expected to come back on campus (at least for now for my university) and to pay full or almost full tuition.

While I am learning about some really nice tools that help run classes synchronously, I have some worries and am wondering how much time and effort I should put into it. First, it seems to me that what we are facing is a pretty unique situation, and I am not sure whether we will encounter similar situations in the future (hopefully not!). And I am inclined to teach "real" online classes asynchronously to give students flexibilities. So, I am not sure if I will get another chance to teach remotely and synchronously in the future. Second, while I put a lot of time in it, I am not sure students will appreciate it. I read some articles and it seems that many students are disappointed about remote learning. Yes, I can probably design a really nice class and impress students, but is it really worth the time and effort?

I'll be very curious to hear what people think here, but for my own part I'm inclined to think it's best to keep things simple and as close as possible to how I teach in a face-to-face format. Let me explain why.

Different online/journal publication dates?

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

This is probably not super important, but on your CV, how should you list an article when the online publication date is very distant from the print publication date? For multiple papers of mine these two dates are in different years.

I'm thinking of just writing down (2020 print / 2019 online) where I would normally write the date?

I agree, it's probably not super important, but to be honest this has always confused the heck out of me too! It's confusing not only when it comes to listing things on your CV, but also when it comes to citing other people's work. For example, suppose Smith's paper in journal X was published "online first" in 2020, but then is assigned to a journal issue in 2021. Presumably, once it is published in the 2021 journal issue, everyone should cite it as Smith (2021). But, given that it was originally published online in 2020, should one cite it as Smith (2020) until then? Or should it still be cited as forthcoming?

Like the reader, I realize these questions are probably pretty small beans--but still, it would be great if we could clear them up!

Cutting papers down to journal word-limits?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, Incoming PhD writes:

I'm preparing my first article for submission and I'm struggling to cut my paper down to the word limit at journals I'm interested in submitting to. Part of this, admittedly, is lack of experience: there are undoubtedly components to my article that a more experienced author would intuitive know to cut. And some of the excess word count results from unnecessary long sentences, extraneous citations, etc. That's obviously stuff I need to cut. But I also feel like there's a point where I, as an author, should just say that I'm done and move on to the next thing.

When should one throw in the towel, admit they probably won't get their article down to the maximum word count, and just submit to journals whose word counts they reach (even if those journals are less good fits/less likely to accept)?

This is a really great question. Allow me to share some quick thoughts, and then open things up for discussion.

Diverse intro texts on 'what is philosophy?'

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, JR writes in:

I have a teaching question and request for recommendations from readers: I regularly teach the introductory philosophy course at my institution, which is required as part of the core curriculum for all undergraduates and is generally taken fall or spring semester of the students' first year. Given that this is typically their first exposure to philosophy, I have found it helpful to begin the course with a unit on "What is Philosophy?". For this unit, I have had great success using Midgley's "Philosophical Plumbing" essay, and Russell's "The Value of Philosophy" (chapter from Problems of Philosophy), but I'm looking for some different texts of this sort, ideally from more diverse voices and perspectives: short, discussion-generating takes on what philosophy is or why it is important that take a stronger stand than the usual bland introductions from textbooks, but also do not presuppose much background or use a lot of technical terms

Great question! Although it's not very short, the paper that immediately comes to my mind is Kristie Dotson's, "How is this paper philosophy?". Do any readers have any suggestions?

Motivation for teaching and the market?

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

[A]m I the only one who isn't motivated by teaching? I try hard at it and treat it seriously, but there isn't really anything about teaching that I actively like or that motivates me to be in grad school or academia. (I don't dislike it either, it's kind of just a job.) I learned that I'm probably more of an exception in this regard, or else I'm one of the few willing to say that teaching doesn't motivate me. How should job applicants spin their relationship to teaching? Does it matter if we aren't passionate about it?

I too am curious to hear people's answers. By all accounts, being motivated by teaching matters very little for getting a job at a research institution. However, what about getting a job at a teaching institution? Here, it seems to clearly important to look as though one is passionate about teaching, and to be motivated enough to appear to be very good at it. However, as we all know from everyday life and Book II of The Republic, it's one thing to appear to be motivated by something, and another thing to actually be motivated by it!

So, then, how do readers actually feel about teaching--particularly those of you who have gotten jobs (and tenure?) at teaching-focused institutions? Are you actually motivated by or passionate about teaching? Or, is teaching 'just a job' for you that you've tried to be good enough at to get a job and tenure?

Stay in grad school or go on the market?

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

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

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

Can good publications offset grad program rank?

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

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

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

Questions about suggesting reviewers

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, two readers asked questions about journals asking authors to suggest reviewers:

I work in philosophy of science, but recently I have started to submit papers in another subfield of philosophy. These are all journals with a good reputation. However, to my surprise, it seems that a pattern is being established: editors ask me to provide suggestions for possible reviewers. This never happened to me in philosophy of science. What's the best practice here? Naturally, I'd propose people I know (assuming they have not read the paper and they do not know I'm working on that specific topic), because I know that those people will take their job seriously. However, even if those people do not know that I'm writing that specific paper, they may recognize who I am. But this, I say, happens even in blind peer-reviewed, especially in highly specialized fields such as philosophy of science. Am I terribly wrong? - Posted by: Don't really know what to do

I have a question related to that of Don't really know what to do. Should a philosophy journal ask the author of a submission to suggest possible reviewers? What are the rationales for and again this? -Posted by: jack 

Another reader answered:

This is a common practice in science journals, to ask for (i) possible referees, and (ii) sometimes a list of people who you do not want to review your paper. In science it is common place to have only single blind - so the reviewer sees who the author or authors are. I publish regularly in an empirical field (call it scientific), and the key journal will not send your paper out for review unless you have your name on it.

However, while this may be a common practice in science, I wonder how readers feel about it, and whether anyone has tips for 'best practices.'

Having an advisor who is a non-specialist?

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

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

Another reader then responded:

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

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

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

How can we help you? (July 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!

Having students write teaching letters?

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

I know of someone who asked one of their former undergraduate students to write them a letter of recommendation that focused on teaching. They'd use this letter rather than a teaching letter from a faculty member.

When I learned about this, it made a lot of sense. Often faculty really have no clue about your teaching and aren't terribly motivated to learn about it beyond being told about it during a 10 minute meeting. Students, by contrast, are well positioned to speak about your teaching. Using a letter like this might also appeal to places that value the outlook of undergraduates (e.g. places where undergraduates are involved in the hiring process).

All of that said, it is somewhat odd, though perhaps it is more common than I think.

Do people do this? Do people think it's a good idea?

Interesting questions! Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Professionalization tips for grad students?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips for supervising TAs?

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

I will be the primary instructor for a class with graduate student TAs for the first time this fall. The TAs will be responsible for grading but there will be no recitation sections. I was wondering if readers could share tips about working with TAs -- how often do you meet? Do you try to calibrate grading standards? How? Should TA supervision be seen as an opportunity to teach grad students about pedagogy as well? Any advice for a first timer would be much appreciated!

It's been a long time since I've supervised TA's, so I'm probably not the best person to ask for advice--but, for what it is worth, I remember a pretty wide variance for how grad faculty approached this. On the one hand, some did very little like anon says here:

I did almost nothing re supervise the TA. I let them grade by their own standards, and had them come talk to the class about how they would grade. But maybe that's just me!

Others, however, were pretty overbearing, requiring TA's to meet to compare samples of graded work for every major assignment (exams, term-papers, etc.). I'm not sure what the right balance is. Anyone out there with experience here have any tips or insights to share?

Norms on self-plagiarism?

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

I have two papers with some overlapping portions of text. What happened was that a section of one paper (A) ballooned as I was revising it, and turned into its own paper (B), but it shares some text with paper A. In other words, part 1 of paper A is a condensed, summarized version of paper B, which shares some text. Paper A is currently under review.

What are the norms here? Should I rewrite all portions that they share? Is it bad form to have shared text? It feels totally pointless to go through and rewrite the shared portions, just for the sake of different language, but I also don't want to do anything that's not above board. Thoughts?

Good question. I generally try to rewrite things just to play it safe, as you never know if you'll come across a stickler reviewer, editor, or journal reader who might have a problem with it. Fortunately, when it comes to material you know well, my experience is that this tends not to be very time consuming. But I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks! 

How to choose which journal to submit to?

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

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

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

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

Co-author solicitation thread

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

Any philosopher here interested in co-authoring papers in political philosophy? Could we have a fixed thread in which people interested in this kind of opportunity could 'advertise' their work in progress or projects?

Co-author responded:

I would discourage people from just collaborating with scholars they have not had contact with before. Co-authoring is a very intimate relationship. Even though I have published with people I have never met in person, I established a relationship of sorts - building trust with them - before we embarked on a collaborative project.

I'm not sure why 'co-author' thinks the fact that co-authoring involves a relationship of trust is a reason not to run a thread like this. The way I see it, there are already too many barriers to co-authoring in philosophy: principally, the barrier that not that many people seem to do it, but also the barrier that a lot of people may not be in a very good position to develop the kinds of pre-existing relationships that 'co-author' alludes to here. For example, people who work in very small, non-prestigious departments may have difficulties networking or finding co-authors. So, I see no clear reason not to run a thread of the sort Charles requested. It may not work work very well (who knows!), but no one will ever know if we don't try. Personally, I've sometimes had paper ideas that I thought might be good ones, which I thought a co-author might be able to help with, but which I gave up on because I didn't know anyone who I thought might be good to approach as a co-author. This sort of thing seems to me unfortunate, and probably a situation that others face. So, I say, why not give a thread like the one Charles asked for a go? It might give people an opportunity to seek out and create the kinds of productive relationships 'co-author' mentioned.

In any case, I hereby open this thread for individuals interested in co-authoring to put feelers out. Please feel free to broadly describe your area of focus or the kind of philosophical issue you're working on, and whatever information about yourself you think may be helpful. I would caution commenters against being too open with what you're working on, as you never know whether there may be bad actors out there looking to poach others' ideas. However, if you're just vague enough, perhaps a thread like this may be helpful!

Ways to improve online conferences?

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

In many ways conferences moving online is a great thing for increasing accessibility to junior academics who otherwise might not have been able to afford conference travel. But there are some pitfalls to the new medium that I think we should flag for more senior academics and it may be worth discussing strategies to help mitigate such concerns. In particular, I'm thinking about how Zoom meetings make it much harder to approach speakers and more senior academics during breaks. Some conferences I have attended specifically encourage participants to keep discussions going during the breaks, but this is a recipe for academics who already know one another well to form an 'in group' breakout room that might prove doubly hard for relatively unknown academics to break into. When these groups form in an in-person setting, it is easy enough to hover around and find an opportune moment to join the discussion. In a virtual setting, however, there is an additional epistemic barrier, since one may not even be aware that such discussions are taking place. One concrete step virtual conferences could take is to leave Zoom meeting rooms open after talks and encourage those who wish to continue the discussion not to break out into new Zoom rooms. Simply continuing over email is also relatively exclusionary. Minimally it is worth bringing the concern up so that more senior academics can be aware of the way in which virtual settings can rob junior academics, particularly those of us less likely to ask questions in a large Zoom meeting, of a valuable means of low-stakes participation.

I like this suggestion a lot. It's not only online conferences that can be exclusionary in these kinds of ways. In-person conferences can be similarly exclusive, as in-groups can continue the conversation after talks in ways that others might be interested in but feel excluded from. It's not clear what can be done about the in-person case--aside from encouraging people to include others. But in the online case, this reader's suggestion seems helpful: conference organizers can simply remind people to keep discussions during break going in the original Zoom meeting rather than breakout groups.

I wonder what other things might be done to improve online conferences. I haven't been a part of one that uses Zoom myself, but imagine others have. What works well? What doesn't? 

Teaching summer classes to high schoolers

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

I will be teaching a summer course to a group of talented high schoolers in a few weeks. My impression from the department and the university is that I am *supposed* to teach the course as if my students were college-attending. But I am not really sure if that is feasible, pedagogically and practically speaking. (Worth noting that given the ongoing Covid-19 situation, the course will be delivered online.) I was wondering what other philosophers’ experience is like when it comes to teaching pre-college students, and if any tips or suggestions could be offered.

Prioritizing: dissertation or publishing?

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

I have seen some discussion online (Reddit) recently discussing the trade-off between focusing on a strong PhD thesis and focusing on publishing papers. The posters agreed that focusing on publishing papers and putting the thesis second (either by having it be a collection of papers or just putting significantly less effort into it and only aiming for a pass) is better in almost all disciplines, though a number of philosophers claimed that it was strictly inferior to do that in philosophy (citing reasons of book potential, hidden gem applicants, etc). I would love to hear input from someone with experience in hiring comment on this trade-off. Thanks!

Obviously, the ideal thing is to publish and have a great dissertation. But, if you have to make one or the other your higher priority, which one should you choose? I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.

How can we help you? (June 2020)

Now that it's been a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread--and now that we've continuing a vastly new personal and professional reality with COVID-19, the Floyd protests, etc.--I thought it might be a good 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.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help!

Textbooks and teaching dossiers?

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

I have a question about how to approach sample syllabus development when heading onto the job market. Obviously, in this day and age, it’s important to have all aspects your teaching dossier / other materials stand out. Take, for example, a sample syllabus for an introductory course (whether intro to philosophy or intro to some sub-discipline). One way to make your syllabus stand out might be to include readings that are non-standard and hence eye-catching. Maybe this means including readings on non-standard topics, or maybe it involves ensuring the inclusion of authors whose work is overlooked in many syllabi for similar courses. Whatever exactly is involved here, it seems like the important thing to do is to ensure that the readings you select all express your pedagogicTeal commitments in a way that will be clear to a search committee.

However, now say that you discover an excellent textbook. Using this textbook in lieu of a bunch of papers might make it look, to a search committee member, like you were lazy and didn’t want to curate your own list of readings. In fact, however, you might have several good pedagogical reasons for using this textbook. It may even be that you selected this textbook at the last minute, only after having spent painstaking hours developing your own list of readings. In such a situation, do you go with the carefully curated list, or do you go with the textbook? The textbook itself may include a carefully curated list, but it might still look lazy to use (you didn’t curate the list yourself, after all).

The reason this sort of thing strikes me as a worry is that I can’t think of places in your dossier where it would be appropriate to justify your use of the textbook. Do you say in a cover letter that, while you recognize that the use of a textbook may look lazy, you have reasons X Y and Z for using it? Do you say this on the sample syllabus itself? This puts you on the defensive, and could raise more suspicion than it assuages.

I figure that the textbook case is an instance of a more general worry: if you think you are making a pedagogically sound choice that might look worse to a search committee than some alternative, what do you do? How far should I go out of my way to look original, rather than simply doing what I think is right?

Interesting query. This is a tough one, I think. On the one hand, I'm not sure how closely many search committee members look at choices of texts. I mean, I think people who look closely at a teaching file may want to see whether the course is up to date and on the leading edge of things, such as covering diverse topics and authors. But, for all that, I'm not sure how much time search committees spend thinking about the particular book(s) one chooses for a course. On the other hand, my own experience is that a fair number of philosophers do think, at least in principle, that good philosophy pedagogy requires having students primarily read original sources. The obvious thing to do here, it seems to me--since the reader implied that their textbook does have a carefully curated list of readings--is to actually list those readings (authors & titles) in the course schedule. That seems to me the safe thing to do, while retaining one's pedagogical integrity. In any case, I do think it's important to present yourself as the teacher you are, as putting together a teaching dossier that doesn't reflect your actual approach to teaching is deceptive.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Should we teach life lessons?

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

What are our duties as professors? We clearly have duties to teach the material well and to be decent human beings and all that entails. But I'm also wondering if we have duties, or at least the freedom, to teach moral/life lessons to students. I'm curious what you all think.

I have in mind the following kind of case, which is very common in my position. A non-philosophy student needs my upper-level class to graduate at the end of the semester. But they simply don't do the work. I send them personal emails, spread out over months, about how they're at risk of failing. They don't respond, or they do respond but don't do the work at the rate or level required to pass. Time passes and final grades are due. Suddenly they're asking for any chance to pass. I tell them that I have been warning them about the situation for months now. Do I have a duty to teach them a moral/life lesson here? I tend to think I do. This doesn't necessarily mean I fail them, though I sometimes do that. Other times I make them do twice as much work after the semester is over and give them a grade after it's completed.

My thought process is this: many of these students seem to think they're entitled to something they put no effort into, or that there's never a point when they won't be given another chance, or it's rational to do as little as possible and bet on the mercy of others. So in giving a lot of extra work, or failing them, I aim to do my part to disabuse them of these notions (and the extra work option still lets them graduate, thus neither delaying their careers nor costing them more tuition money).

For anyone who responds, please set aside circumstances related to COVID, depression, family stresses, etc. For one, this kind of situation isn't unique to COVID. Second, I not only grant those in special circumstances exceptions, but I also to try and suss out who is in special circumstances to begin with (e.g., by reaching out, contacting their advisor, etc.). Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the students I'm talking about are not these kinds of students.

This is a great query, and I'm very curious to hear what others think. I'll save my own remarks for the comments section below, as I'd really like to hear what others have to say before weighing in!

European candidates without student evaluations

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

Reading one of the recent posts, I came across something I have wondered quite often. 'Teaching evaluations' seem to be quite a standard thing in the US and I have seen them as a requirement on postdoc offerings as well, but at least from my experience, they aren't really a thing here in Europe. We do have evaluations but often they are not really anything that is shared. Any ideas on what to do if I don't have any teaching evaluations and my university won't supply them for whatever reason, but I have taught or tutored courses?

Another reader replied:

If you cannot get teaching evaluations, have a senior colleague write a teaching letter. Ideally, they have seen you teach. When I taught in North America, and was on the market, I routinely asked senior colleagues to sit in on a lecture. They then review your teaching materials, and write a letter based on that.

This seems to me a good suggestion. However, I am curious whether there's anything else the original commenter can do. Although teaching observation letters are helpful, and I've known search committee members who seem pretty skeptical of the value of student evaluations, my experience is that people at teaching-focused institutions can care a good deal about evaluations--or at least having some general idea of what your students think of your performance.

Is there any way for European candidates to get a hold of their evaluations, even if they are not normally shared? (As a side note, why are evaluations collected at all if they're not shared with the faculty member?). Alternatively, how about conducting one's own informal evaluations? Early in my career, I did some of these mid-semester to see how my students thought things were going--and I've heard of other people doing similar things. Could people in the original commenter's position carry out their own end-of-semester evaluations and then report them as such in their job-materials?

I'm just throwing ideas out there. What does everyone think?

Query: moving academic jobs during COVID

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

My friend is an academic but not a philosopher. He works in the social sciences. He is finishing up his fourth year as an assistant professor at a large state/regional university. His tenure odds look very promising. However, he applied to a few jobs this year because, (1) he wants to live closer to family, and,(2) he would rather work at a slac, his dream job is an elite slac.

Well, this year of all years, he was offered an interview, and then a job, at a research leaning slac that is a very good school, but not necessarily an elite slac. (it has an acceptance rate of about 30% .) This job is offering a 3/3 load and his current load is 4/4. The pay is about the same.

The "problem" he is having (I know, I know, cry him a river) is that with COVID, he is very hesitant to leave because, (1) for various reasons, his current school and department are in an unusually strong financial position, i.e., there are factors about his school and department that allowed them to manage the COVID crisis better than most. While he doesn't have any reason to believe that this other school is in financial trouble, they lack the special features of security that his current department has. He also is somewhat scared of even negotiating with his current department, insofar as they might (he imagines) be insulted that he isn't grateful for his job at a time like this, and he worries that maybe the administration will look happily upon any opportunity to get rid of a tenure track line. Lastly, he is not sure what his position will be re tenure at the other department. He is tempted to ask for a reduced tenure clock or even a tenured position, but supposing, say, they only give him two years off the tenure clock, what should he do? He is pretty sure that he would decline if they gave him no time toward tenure.

Any advice? He fears that if he takes the job, he will be throwing away too much security at a time where nothing is more valuable than security. On the other hand, if he declines, he risks throwing away a job that is pretty close to, and might be a great stepping stone toward, his dream job.

There has already been a fair amount of discussion in that thread, with a couple of commenters suggesting that it's a personal decision and that Amanda's friend should "ask a more senior person in his own department...who he trusts...for advice." However, I have to say that I'm much less sanguine. I've already seen at least one case in my social media feed of a  university that told their faculty 'everything's going to be okay', only to dramatically shift policy immediately after the end of the semester, furloughing faculty and staff, etc. Personally, I'd want to have a clear picture of the relative financial health of the two institutions before making any decision--and I would be very hesitant to leave a place I had good reason to believe to be financially stable over a place I had questions about.

In any case, before accepting a position, I would definitely want an answer to the 'tenure-clock' question, and make sure I get the answer down in writing in an official offer letter.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Reviewing book manuscripts

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

I'd be interested to know how people approach [book] manuscript reviewing. While publishers (in my experience) offer $100-200 to review a manuscript, the time commitment can be anywhere from ~5 hours to several days depending on the level of involvement of the reviewer. How long do people spend reviewing a manuscript (does this depend on the remuneration offered?) and what kinds of comments do they give (or what kinds of comments are expected and helpful)? I'd like to get a better picture of what is appropriate, as I have a good sense of how to review articles but not manuscripts.

An author responded:

You are not being paid to review a book manuscript. You are being given an honorarium, a small token of their appreciation. Keep in mind, if the press does not publish the manuscript, the whole process has cost them a lot. They have others to pay, etc.

The original commenter then responded:

Given that, what kinds of feedback do you think it's best to receive and give? I imagine line edits are too extreme, but that authors/publishers expect something more than a summation of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. I could be wrong on this assumption though, so any help would be appreciated.

As someone who has both reviewed a number of book manuscripts and been the recipient of reviews, here's my own answer: I think the question of what kind of feedback it's best to receive and give depends primarily on the manuscript itself. Here's what I do:

1. I give the manuscript a quick read-through.
2. If it does not seem to me promising enough to warrant a contract, then I will quickly explain why (presses usually give reviewers forms with a series of questions to answer).
3. If it does seem to me promising enough to warrant a contract, then I will again quickly explain why, but then give the manuscript a close read, adding any feedback that I think would substantially improve the manuscript (including pointing out any serious mistakes).

When it comes to type-3 cases (where I think a contract is warranted), how much time I put in and the kind of feedback I provide depends on (A) how much time I have, and (B) how good of shape the manuscript is in. If the manuscript is in really good shape, then I may not feel the need to give detailed feedback (beyond any things that clearly stick out to me as things that need addressing). On the other hand, if manuscript is promising but really needs substantial work, I'll explain in fair detail why--much as I would in reviewing a journal article. 

As a quick autobiographical note, my reviews for journal articles are normally between 1-3 pages long, my reviews of book manuscripts normally similar in length, and the reviews I have received for book manuscripts I submitted generally similar in length as well. So, this seems to me about what to shoot for: something like the length and detail of a standard journal article review. Alas, I would say this can take anywhere from several hours to a few days, depending on the case. So unfortunately, my advice here doesn't really go beyond where the original commenter started.

Self-referencing and anonymized review

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

There's about six published analyses of concept X, one of them by me. I want to write a paper saying something like the following: "Everyone agrees that Y is a case of X. But all these conceptual analyses except mine fail to capture that fact. So mine's the best."

(There's more to the paper than this, but this is the part that raises some problems for me).

My question is, what would it look like to remove identifying references from such a paper? Should I cite my paper on the concept of X, but call it [Removed for anonymous review], or should I refer to myself in the third person?

The former is what I feel pulled to do, since that's what I normally do. But I guess why I'm confused is that in all my other cases of self-citation, the citation was pretty offhand and I said so little about the paper that it would be very difficult to know which paper I was actually talking about. But that won't be the case here, and there would be pages and pages of, "As [Redacted] has argued...", "[Redacted]'s view would predict that ...", and so on.

This is a great query. As a lot of my own research builds on previous things I've published, this is an issue that I struggled with for a long while, and I found out the hard way the best way to go about it. In brief, the general consensus on this seems to be: don't use '[Redacted]'; instead, cite yourself in the third-person. I say this is the general consensus for two reasons: 

1. I've been a part of several social media threads where this was the dominant answer.
2. I was called out by referees, and seemingly had papers rejected, for using the '[redacted]' approach.

Why do people oppose the latter approach? Two pretty good reasons were given: (A) the '[redacted]' approach openly signals that the author of the paper has already published, conveying to a reviewer that they may already be a recognized figure in the field, and (B) it can be pretty easy to determine who the author is likely to be, especially if (as is the case in the OP) the author is the sole person who defended a particular account, or otherwise one of few authors who has. Both (A) and (B) seem problematic, as they can induce reviewer biases that anonymized review is designed to preclude or mitigate. In contrast, citing yourself in the third-person leaves it a mystery whether you are the person who defended the view in question. Sure, the reviewer might wonder whether you are them--but there's no way for them to really know, whereas '[redacted]' is a clear signal that indeed you are the person who published the previous work.

Anyway, this is my take. What do you all think, particularly those of you who serve as journal reviewers or editors?

What to do after finishing grad coursework?

(update: comments now open - sorry!)

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

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

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

How can we help you? (May 2020)

Now that it's been over a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread--and now that we've continuing a vastly new personal and professional reality with COVID-19--I thought it might be a good time for another 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.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help!

Now that it's been over a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread--and now that we've continuing a vastly new personal and professional reality with COVID-19--I thought it might be a good time for another 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.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help!

Tips for a prospective student during COVID-19?

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

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

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

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

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

What to do if you're plagiarized?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Elisa (editor's note: not our own Elisa!) writes:

Hello and thanks for the great work you have been doing so far! I was wondering if you would consider dedicating a post or thread to plagiarism in academia. I would be interested in hearing from people whose work has been plagiarized in some way or another by their advisors, colleagues, or students. Sometimes plagiarism is very difficult to detect (people can steal your working arguments, ideas, and project plans not simply your unpublished drafts) but it hurts deeply. As an early career scholar I have seen my project being taken and used by a more senior colleague I was collaborating with. I presented my project in multiple occasions, so my drafts were very well-known, and I only published a paper that drew on some parts of the project I presented. It's difficult to broach the subject with the colleague who was so interested in my project to the point of appropriating my own ideas and arguments (even the bibliography!). I would appreciate some help and advice by people who have been in a similar situation, if possible. Thank you!

Another reader ('me') responded:

Elisa
I do not think this is the place to resolve such issues. You need to talk to someone on a research ethics board at the institution or institutions where you work. Begin with a consultation. Then they may advise you to raise a complaint formally, but within the institution's framework.

I certainly don't think the Cocoon is the place to make plagiarism accusations, or to 'resolve' them. But I do think the general issue is worth discussing, for several reasons. First, my sense--from things I've heard people say online and in person--is that this sort of problem, while perhaps not common, is not exactly uncommon either. Second, my sense is that for early-career people in particular, things just aren't as simple as 'me' suggests (i.e. talking with a research ethics board at your institution). Why? The problem, of course, has to do with actual and perceived power differentials. As some of the sexual misconduct scandals in philosophy illustrated years ago, institutions and individuals in them can be all too willing to protect eminent figures, even going so far as to retaliate against accusers. Imagine, then, being a grad student faced with an unethical advisor stealing your ideas. What are you going to do: lodge a formal accusation against your advisor? Perhaps. However, I assume that many of us might be so afraid of what that might mean for our career or reputation in our department and beyond that we might be too afraid to say anything to anyone about it, let alone lodge a formal accusation.

Potentially deceptive CVs/publication lists

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

I've noticed that people sometimes omit to indicate that a publication was a discussion note/reply, on their CVs. This strikes me as at least slightly deceptive. Do readers share this impression? Impressive though an discussion piece in Mind or Ethics is, the designation 'original article' (along with a difference in reviewing policies) suggests that we recognize there to be a meaningful difference in weight between ('original') articles and discussion pieces/replies. One can of course find out whether some listed publication was a discussion piece, but one worry is that, when CVs are compared at a distance, philosophers being transparent (in designating a reply as such) may be disadvantaging themselves via their transparency. (Of course, when CVs are compared at a closer distance, the fact that a reply is not indicated as such might count as a strike against the 'non-transparent' philosophers.) Anyway, I'd be interested to hear whether others share my reaction, and think that the norm ought to be to list replies/discussion notes as such, at least when their titles don't make this fact obvious.

I share these impressions. In fact, I've seen even more deceptive cases, such as where people list book reviews under 'publications' without making it clear that they are reviews. I hope there aren't many candidates who do either sort of thing, but in any case my experience is that even if it's done unintentionally, it does come off as deceptive. Given how competitive the market is, one of the last things you want to do is to give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you are trying to pull a fast one on the committee. As a rule, be as perspicuous as you can on your CV. My CV lists "journal publications", and my two replies are clearly marked as such. I then have different categories for book chapters, book reviews, etc.

What does everyone else think? It might be good to hear from other people who have served on search committees here.

Time between PhD and getting paid?

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

I'll soon get my PhD and some of my senior coworkers have not found a postdoc yet, although they graduated quite a while ago. This raised the question, how long does it usually take between handing in your dissertation or getting your degree, and actually getting your first paycheck as a postdoc?

I realize that this depends on a lot of factors, but a rough average or some experiences would be great so as to not have an unrealistic idea.

Good question. I don't know the answer. I would have thought you first get paid two weeks after your contractual start-date, whatever that is (which at my uni is June 1, the beginning of our fiscal year). However, the more that I think about, I think I've heard that some universities don't actually start paying faculty until substantially later (in some cases, August). Am I misremembering? It might be good to hear from people who started new jobs in the past year. How long did it take you to first get paid?

How can we help you? (March/April 2020)

Now that it's been nearly a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread--and now that we've entered a vastly new personal and professional reality with COVID-19--I thought it might be a good time for another 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.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help. 

Now that it's been nearly a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread--and now that we've entered a vastly new personal and professional reality with COVID-19--I thought it might be a good time for another 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.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help. 

Putting declined fellowships on job-market CV?

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

I was offered several temporary jobs, but for personal reasons I have decided to stay in my current institutions. Two of these were very good fellowships. Is it ok to put on my CV that I have declined them? This is just to show that I'm competitive.

This was followed by two polar opposite responses. 'M' wrote:

I think it is NOT good to list fellowships declined. It may lead people to think you have bad judgment, especially if you stayed at a place that looks objectively worse than where the fellowships are.

However, Amanda then wrote:

If they are prestigious fellowships, I would put them on. I think the benefits would outweighs the risks. You could put on the CV (declined due to exceptional personal circumstances.) Anyone who assumed you had bad judgment rather than a special situation is, well, not charitable.

Can anyone who has served on a search committee weigh in with their thoughts? Who do you side with: M or Amanda?

Letting candidates know about poor materials?

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

I was on a search committee this year and I read a lot of cover letters.
One not successful applications [sic] stood out to me.

This applicant in many ways was strong: they had a strong post doc, a pretty good publication record and good letters. Their area of specialization was not what we were looking for, so it was why they were eliminated.

But if they did have our AOS, they might have been eliminated anyway because of their cover letter.

The cover letter consisted of, first, the author listing their publications and providing links to them. The applicant did not explain what the publications were about, or say anything about teaching, nor said anything about being a fit for us. They said very little about their future research plans other than a vague proclamation about a book. And then they had a self-deprecating paragraph about their publication record, where they said something along the lines of" I have a poor publication record so don't hire me if you want someone with a great record, instead, hire me if you want a researcher who will be great in the future."

For what was an otherwise a strong application, this cover letter could be very damaging. First, expecting a search committee to read your publications when we have 200 plus applications,( instead of giving us an overview of what you do and why it fits the job description,) comes off as arrogant and out of touch. But also, we are just busy and many SC members won't bother. We already have a list of publications on your CV. Second, the line about a poor publication record (when you have a decent one) does not make you look good. And vague proclamations about future productivity are even worse.

I felt bad for this applicant, as no one apparently has pointed this out to them. I wanted to write them or a mentor and give some kind advice, but because of privacy rules I couldn't. I've heard stories about professors writing to letter writers and saying that their letter is inapt. But does anyone know if there is any legal way to let someone know about something like this? I am mainly asking out of curiosity, as I would have to look up all details of my own school's policies before I could risk it, and I don't think it is worth risking my job. But I'm just wondering if finding major problems in applications is something that happens, and if persons ever inform others about aspects that might be killing a hopeful person's chances.

This is a very good question, one I suspect more than a few search-committee members have wondered about. I also think it draws attention to an important issue for job-candidates to think about as well. As someone who has served on four search-committees, I too have read cover letters and other materials that came across very poorly--either out of touch with the nature of job being applied for or seemingly arrogant, or both. Whenever I've read these kinds of materials, I couldn't help but wonder whether the candidate ever received outside feedback on their materials before applying (a real must, I think). Sadly, one year I even met a first-time job-candidate at a conference in September, where I learned the applicant had received no job-market mentoring in their PhD program, didn't have their research or teaching portfolios drafted, or have any real idea of what these things involved--despite job-market ads already appearing on philjobs for at least a month! That case is one of the inspirations behind our Job-Market Boot Camp, though I still think nothing is quite as helpful as good personal mentoring.

In any case, does anyone have any insightful answers to empathy's question?

Teaching demo activity tips?

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

I had to do a campus interview with a teaching presentation. I've worked hard in my teaching to structurally make it possible to have a very good, dynamic, discussion based classes, but of course you can't do that for teaching demonstrations. It's clear that teaching the reading then pushing for discussion questions doesn't work because these students are strangers and you've already lost them. Anyway, I have two more teaching demonstrations in the next few weeks, does anybody have any good ideas of how to start a demonstration with activity, rather than end it?

Good query, and I hope we can give the reader some helpful tips. However, before I open things up for discussion, I want to say something about the reader's claim that, "It's clear that teaching the reading then pushing for discussion questions doesn't work because these students are strangers and you've already lost them." I found this a bit of a strange comment, as it's how I teach and did my teaching demos--and I was told on more than one occasion that my teaching demos went quite well. One possibility is that it's not so much the order you do things in (lecture then activity vs. activity then lecture) but rather how you do them. I'd be very curious, for example, to hear how this reader conducts discussion activities. Do they just lecture and then ask students for discussion questions? Alternatively, do they just lecture and then have an activity later where they tell students, "Turn to a partner..."? If either of these things is what they do, then it's not too surprising to me that they've "lost" students during the teaching demo. My own experience is that good activities that get students involved may need to be quite a bit more structured than that and involve, say, groups of 4 or 5. Also, how many activities does the reader do? Do they just do one at the tail end of the lecture, or do they have multiple activities (say, 2 or 3) interspersed in the lecture? Again, my sense is that the latter is probably a better way to go, as it promises to get the students involved early and often.

In any case, because I don't know the answers to the above questions, it may be helpful if the reader says a bit more in the comments section below about how they currently do things. In the meantime, do readers have any good answers to the reader's actual question: does anybody have any good ideas of how to start a teaching demonstration with activity, rather than end it?

Psychological effects of job-market discussions?

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

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but this blog has made me irrationally fearful of backlash from people after it'll become public news that I got the job that I got. I've got some **very** good publications, numerous teaching awards, been awarded prestigious international and domestic research fellowships, excellent teaching experience at prestigious places... But the atmosphere in, e.g., the job market discussion thread and in the blog in general here is so toxic that I feel like I'll get flamed for not deserving my job. People saying things like "Skype interviews are worse than garbage," or "Anyone with less than 600 publications doesn't deserve a job" (hyperbole) -- do you know the effect this has on other people? Sigh. Just venting.

I have to confess that I found this comment very surprising. As moderator of our job-market discussion thread, my own impression is that the discussion has been in line with this blog's safe and supportive mission. Do other readers share this reader's concern?

How to handle strange journal rejections?

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

I'm relatively new to peer-reviewed publishing. I recently received a desk rejection from Journal X. They said that my scholarship did not meet their scholarly standards because I did not cite people of color who work on my paper topic Y. They then proceeded to list a number of very famous authors that I could/should have cited. (The email did not suggest that I should have cited *all* of these authors, nor did it suggest what number of authors would have met their standards.)

I'm not sure how to take this desk rejection because my paper did cite people of color. My paper even cited people of color on their list of people I should cite (I also cited poc not on their list). Additionally, not all the people on their list wrote specifically on my paper topic Y (but do work in the subfield more broadly).

I know that editors are overburdened in many cases, so I cannot tell if this is just an oversight. (Although I should add that one of their listed authors was the very first bibliographic entry in my paper, so I can't even explain it away as a brief skim where authors of color were buried in a very long bibliography.)

I'm curious to hear how others with more experience might explain this rejection, because as it stands it strikes me as somewhat sloppy decision-making, and it makes me want to send my work elsewhere in the future.

Amanda then followed up:

If I were you, I'd write back in a very friendly and polite way, and tell them what you told us. If they rejected you for not citing people you cited, then clearly it is a mistake on their part. I am not one to usually recommend challenging editors, but I think when editors made a factual mistake and when the fact that they did so can be easily demonstrated, then this is a rare case that justifies contending the decision.

I've heard that in rare cases, it can make sense to write to editors in the way Amanda suggests. Indeed, I've heard that it sometimes works, getting the editors to reconsider their verdict. At the same time, I've also heard anecdotally that editors receive these kinds of emails constantly, often from people who simply disagree with reviewer reports. Given how inconsistent the peer review process generally is (I am always reminded of just how many influential papers are rejected), my own attitude toward these cases as an author is that it's simply not worth my time to worry about it. I'll just suck it up and send the paper to a new journal. There are also some journals that I now simply avoid due to cases like this: journals that take forever to render a verdict where there appear to be no expectations for halfway professional reports from referees, and where editors simply defer to blatantly unprofessional and/or incompetent reports (I am no longer to wait 8 months for a two-sentence referee report that gives no reasoned justification for its recommendation - sorry!).

In short, while it may make sense to write to the editors on this occasion, my general recommendation to this reader (since they are new to the publishing game) is much more cynical: by and large, you'll just have to get used to sloppy referee reports. None of this is to deny that there are good referees out there (I've had my fair share) or good editors who ignore unprofessional reports (which I also have some positive experience with). It is simply to say that the peer-review process can be wildly inconsistent and, at least in my experience, this is generally something one just has to put up with as an author. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Spousal hires for new PhDs?

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

I’m a PhD student in a long-term relationship with another PhD student. While the job market is difficult enough as it is, my two-body problem makes thinking about the job market much more complicated and uncertain. I’m aware that spousal hires happen, but I’m wondering how often, if ever, are institutions willing to do spousal hires where both hires are recent PhD graduates?

Good question. Another reader responded:

For spousal hires you need to consider if your work is complementary. Time from PhD isn’t the main issue (though associate profs are often harder to move than assistant). Most programs will not need two people working in Aristotle, for instance. And heaven help you if you work in “non-western” fields where despite significant differences in time, subject, texts, etc., (think to Parfit and Kant), you and your spouse’s work will be treated as “redundant.”

Some sobering data: I and my partner have yet to solve our problem after five years, excellent publications, and pedigrees from top schools. This is with fly outs every year. I know others going on a decade. It will get harder, not easier.

Anyone have any experience or insights here?

Ambivalently going on the market?

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

I am an advanced graduate student, on track to graduate next year. I'm really ambivalent on whether I want to go on the academic job market. On the one hand, I do enjoy (most aspects) of teaching. I like researching and learning new things, but not so much when I feel pressured to come up with an original thing to say about it. I think I could be happy at a teaching-focused school. Luckily, the university I'm at which I'm getting my PhD prepares its graduates very well for teaching jobs. For what it's worth, I'm in an AOS that has (relatively) high demand.

On the other hand, I am very aware of the many stresses put on faculty members that go above and beyond the considerable stresses I feel as a grad student. I'm not sure I will be happy constantly dealing with all the stress. I haven't had a great track record of separating work from the rest of my life and I'm not sure I can trust myself to do much better when the workload and stakes are higher.

I have a young family. I am not willing to spend many years on the market moving them from short-term appointment to short-term appointment, and we are not willing to move just anywhere for a job. So the incredibly slim chances of me landing a TT job are even more minuscule.

Should I even bother going on the market? Or should I save myself the stress and anxiety of applying? When do I need to make a decision and let my committee know so they don't have to write LORs?

How to move mid-career?

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

So here's something I've been wondering: How do people work their way up from a job at one place to another midcareer or later? I'm thinking about associate or above hires. It seems to me this might be more possible than say publishing your way into a job that wouldn't normally give someone from your program a look right out of grad school. I think this since I've known several people who did just this; that is going from a job in teaching school to an R2 and sometimes even onto an R1 even with very non-Leiterrific pedigrees. Is it really possible? Or have I just made too much of a few people who've done it? If it is possible how do people do it? Just publish a lot and hope someone notices them or is there something more proactive one can do? I'm not unhappy in my current job, which is teaching focused, and don't plan on going anywhere in the next few years but I'm also not sure I want to spend the next 30 years in this job so I was just wondering what the long term possibilities. (And of course in this day and age maybe no one should even count on having the same job for 30 years, but I suppose that's a grim thought.)

Anyone have any insight, say from personal experience? Here's one thing I've heard through the grapevine: it's helpful if , in addition to accomplishing stuff (publishing, etc.), you know people who like you and your work. This should probably be commonsense, given the statistics that something like 85% of all jobs are obtained through networking. Still, I think it may bear repeating, as there seems to be some tendency (suggested perhaps by S's question whether one should "just publish a lot...?") to believe that academic job-markets are bare meritocracies. Sure, I think there is a real meritocratic element--but it also seems to me that, as in most parts of human life, it doesn't hurt to know people. But what do I know? It might be good to hear from people who have 'worked their way up' mid-career what shape their path took!

How can we help you? (Feb-March 2020)

Now that it's been nearly two months since our last "how can we help you?" thread, I thought it might be a good time for another 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:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help! 

Tips for SLAC Skype interviews?

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

I would sincerely appreciate any advice on skype interviews for SLAC's. I have two coming up. I have a general sense of how to prepare but any tips on specific questions to prepare for would be much appreciated and any other general advice.

Any SLAC search committee members and/or SLAC interviewees care to weigh in?

The ethics of letter writing

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

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

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

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

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

What do you all think?

Elements of a good professional website?

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

I wanted to ask for any advice on how to design a personal academic website. I will soon have my first publication out and thought it would be a good idea to have a web page for people to find out who I am. However, I am not sure what makes for a 'good' academic webpage. For example, should one have one's photograph featured prominently on the front page, as some philosophers do? Is the 'Papers' page simply a list of all publications, or is it helpful to e.g. include abstracts and context, to group papers together in subjects, etc.? Is it good to include personal details about e.g. hobbies, or does this detract from the main goal? I am not aware of any discussions on this topic, and would appreciate any advice people have, or indeed examples of 'good' academic webpages.

Really good questions! What does everyone think? I think it would good to hear what people think in response to the reader's various questions, as well as for readers to link in the comment section below to webpages they think think are particularly good! Here are a few brief thoughts of my own.

Recycling dissertation text in articles

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

What are the ethical norms surrounding recycling text from PhD theses into journal articles? I've heard many say that it is a good idea to write your thesis in such a way that you can convert it to publications, but at the same time, isn't self-plagiarism an offense? Or is the deciding factor whether or not you're at the sort of an institution that publishes dissertations (e.g., in an online repository)? Even if recycling text from a PhD thesis is considered acceptable, can journals reject a paper on grounds that it's not novel because it's too similar to the PhD thesis?

Full disclosure, in my case I'm working on a dissertation by publication. However there's material in my introduction that I would be eager to reuse. I'm at an institution that publishes all dissertations online.

Interesting questions I haven't thought about before. In brief, my sense is that there is nothing wrong or unusual about recycling text from dissertation chapters in published articles. First, I don't think it counts as self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism involves recycling previously published work without citing it. Generally speaking, though, when people publish (usually revised) dissertation chapters as articles, they usually indicate this somewhere--typically in the acknowledgments section (viz. "This article is a revised version of the first chapter of my PhD dissertation. I thank..."). Further, dissertations are only nominally published. Yes, they are technically "published" by your university, but they are also academic work completed in fulfillment of a degree--and generally speaking, the only way to disseminate your dissertation research more broadly is through publishing it in some further venues (e.g. as journal articles or a book). Second, I don't think journals have any problem publishing stuff from dissertations, as it's pretty much expected that people publish stuff from their dissertation. The only thing I think is probably worth being aware here is that dissertation chapters probably usually need a substantial amount of revision before being publishable--due primarily to differences in stylistic expectations (dissertations usually contain a great deal more background exposition that journal articles, where the focus is usually--almost entirely--on the author's positive argument).

But perhaps I am missing something. Any readers disagree or have any other insight?

Re-reviewing unrevised papers?

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

I was asked by a tippy-top journal about a year ago to review a paper on a topic that is squarely in my wheelhouse. I'm one of a pretty small number of people extremely well suited (research-area wise, at least) to review the paper. Because it's a tippy-top journal with an extremely low accept rate, I spent a LOT of time on the review. I try to be very conscientious about reviews generally, but this was especially careful. My review was about 10pp. Note: I'm tenured at a research institution. I returned the review promptly.

There were some very big mistakes--it was a good idea, but had some very serious problems. I offered a lot of comments about how to avoid the problems, some key pieces to cite, and suggested that with those improvements it was a publishable piece (if not at that tippiest toppiest journal). THe journal shared the EIC decision and the other reviewer's comments. The other reviewer's concerns overlapped with mine.

Now I have received a request to review the paper again from another (excellent, if not quite as rarefied) journal. The paper was attached in the request, and it has not changed. Like, none of the very important problems I pointed out have been addressed at all. None of the other reviewer's excellent comments were addressed. My guess is that the paper went straight back out to at least one (possibly two) other excellent journals without addressing the comments (on which I, and at least one other scholar--maybe one of you!--spent a great deal of time), was rejected again, and is now coming back to me.

So, I'm a bit irked by that. This person is clogging up the review process. I know that lots of advice around here is to turn around articles quickly, not spend too much time meeting reviewers' idiosynchratic criticisms, etc. But this strikes me as a case of serious free-loading, and it makes me reluctant to review papers (or to review them conscientiously).

I guess this post is mostly a rant--sorry about that. But I do need advice. How do I respond?

a. I could simply decline to review with no reason given. No doubt I'm biased in that I thought my own comments were good.

b. I could decline but warn the EIC that this appears to be a person just shotgunning their paper out there, and asking others to review is a burden that won't result in a modified paper.

c. I could neither accept nor decline and share my prior review with the EIC.

d. else?

There were already a few replies to this comment in the read, but I'd like to hear what more people think, as I suspect this happens a lot. Ref replied:

Just tell the Editor that will not review the paper because you reviewed the paper for another journal, and it has not changed, despite the many comments you provided.

anon then added:

I understand your frustration. But I've been on the other side of a similar situation, so here's my own take on what went down in my case:

(1) I got rejected from Journal X, with a lot of comments and the assertion that even if I revised the paper, it would be publishable but not in as elite a place as Journal X.

(2) I read the comments and made the judgment call that they weren't necessary revisions.

(3) I submitted the paper to equally prestigious Journal Y.

(4) I received an R&R from Journal Y, with very, very different comments. (i.e., attending to the previous comments would have done nothing to help me with the objections I received from Journal Y.)

(5) I made those revisions and published the paper.

Obviously, what matters is how truly necessary the comments are - maybe you're right, and the author really should have revised their paper. But this is something that epistemic peers disagree about quite a lot.

As for what you should do in your case: if you're now willing to give this author an R&R, maybe you can work things out with them in the back and forth where you get to see the revision letter, i.e., the author's reasoning concerning your comments.

Finally, Amanda wrote:

If I have a situation like that I do not accept or decline, but I write the editor and say, "I have already reviewed this paper for another journal." And then I add one comment about what I thought about the paper. If I thought it was a bad paper and it hadn't changed, I would say, "My review was not favorable."

I kind of think it's fair to give the paper to a new reviewer, given all the disagreements in philosophy among equally smart and equally qualified persons. I also wouldn't hold it too much against the author for not changing anything. Maybe they were told by others they trust that the paper is fine as it is, maybe they are coming up for tenure and didn't have time to make the changes and decided to hedge their bets. I just don't think it's the referees job to judge the decision not to make changes. It is the referees job to judge the paper.

I'm on the same page with these readers. Here's one thing that I have heard of happening before (indeed, I suspect it has happened to me before). You draft up a paper, let's say it's 8,000 words - the maximum word count for one tippy-top journal, Mind (see here). The paper got a good response at conferences, but the first journal you send it to, reviewers find 'problems' and so you revise the paper to 10K words to address those concerns. That lands you at the word-count limit for a bunch of other journals. So, you send it to some of those journals, and the reviewers find more problems. So, you revise and now the paper is 12K words. You see where this is going, right? The more reviewers who read a given paper, the more problems they are likely to find--and you'll keep revising the paper upward, have fewer journals you can send the paper to...and the new reviewers at new journals may be likely to find new problems they think you need to address!

I recently heard someone (I think it was Mike Huemer) suggest this is less a problem with authors than it is with how some (many?) reviewers regard their task as reviewers. Many reviewers seem to think that if a paper has 'problems', then they should ask for revisions or reject the paper outright. But, Huemer suggested (and I agree), this isn't how reviewers should regard their job. Every paper, even many of the most influential ones in the discipline, have problems. The question shouldn't be whether a paper has problems, but whether it is worth thinking about and exposing a journal's readers to. Now, of course, if as a reviewer you find a paper totally uninteresting or its argument clearly bad, then sure, recommend rejection. But I don't think we should be rejecting every paper that has problems, or require every problem to be addressed in revisions. Problems are not in and of themselves reasons to reject papers. They may very well be interesting problems for the subsequent literature to find and address (e.g. in response papers, etc.). 

More generally, I am inclined to think that we, as reviewers, should err on the side of epistemic humility. There are just too many documented cases of reviewers being "sure" a given paper has serious problems...and those very papers either literally going on to win the Nobel Prize (!) or otherwise going on to become classics in their field. If you think a paper is bad, feel free to say so in a review. But, if you get asked to review the paper again, do everyone a favor and just decline: give another reviewer an opportunity to review the paper. If the paper is as bad as you think it is, then another reviewer will almost certainly find the same issues you found and reject the paper again. I understand cases like this may seem like they 'clog the system', but honestly I think this is just the price we pay for a bad publishing system.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Recommendation letter conundrum

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

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

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

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

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

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