The Philosophers' Cocoon

Job apps: how confidential are they?

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

I have a TT position and a department near my own is hiring. I am a good fit for the position and plan on applying. But I'm a bit worried that my current department will find out if I apply. Are SCs generally good about keeping things confidential in these cases? Or do you know of exceptions? What should I include in my cover letter, other than a request for confidentiality? I won't say anything negative about anyone or anything, but I'd wondering if I need to actually say something that I wouldn't say if I were applying from across the country.

I would sure hope that job applications are treated confidentially! Still, the world often isn't how we hope it to be. What's the reality here? Does anyone have any experience relevant to worried's concerns?

Research standards for tenure

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, curious asks: "How many articles are usually required for getting tenure (at R1s, SLACs, etc.)? Does the journal's impact factor matter?" I'm glad someone asked this, as my sense is that a lot of people may be unaware of just how much variation there can be in tenure and promotions standards and processes.

In response to curious's query, anonymous writes:

curious: there is too much variation in the answer to your question for there to be a meaningful answer; and also, at almost nowhere is a certain magical number of publications either necessary or sufficient for tenure.

I think this is exactly right. Job-marketeers need to be aware that tenure and promotion standards can vary wildly by institution. For example, I know someone who received tenure at a very teaching-oriented SLAC with a single publication. Why? Presumably, because their institution primarily focuses on undergraduate teaching. Obviously, that wouldn't fly at an R1, nor I think would it fly at many other SLACs. At my liberal arts university, for example, the expectations generally seem to be substantially higher than that. The people I've seen tenured here generally "publish consistently" in peer-reviewed journals. Also, although citations are mentioned in our criteria for tenure and promotion, nowhere in our handbook's criteria for tenure or promotion are journal-rankings or journal impact-factors mentioned. 

My sense is that tenure standards can vary just as much at R1's. I've heard that at some R1's, tenure standards are fairly clear: that the expectation is something like one publication in a highly-ranked journal per year (so, something like 6 highly-ranked publications when coming up for tenure). However, I've heard that other R1's basically make tenure decisions on the basis of whether someone has become a Big Name in their field--such that if a candidate has published in top journals but no one recognizes or engages their work, they could still be denied tenure.

Finally, it is vital to recognize that tenure and promotion processes can vary a great deal by institution. In response to curious's initial query, Anon prof wrote:

curious:
Your tenure file will be evaluated by people in your subfield, typically, who will write letters for you. The letters will (likely) take into account the publication venue as well as the importance of your work for the subfield and its quality. If you are genuinely unsure, talk to people who might be called upon to write letters for you and ask them how they would rate your work relative to the position that you hold. Or, look at the publication records of people who recently got tenure at various institutions.

My sense is that this is how a lot of people think tenure and promotion works everywhere. However, as I noted in follow-up comment, it isn't. At some universities (including my own), your tenure file is not evaluated by outside people in your subfield. Instead, the process is carried out "in house." Here again, candidates should be aware of these differences, and ideally find out what the T&P process and standards are like at institutions before they accept an offer!

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear from people at various institutions: what are your university's tenure and promotion process and (research) standards like?

Anonymizing when self-citing

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

I am working on a paper that relies in a couple of paragraph on an argument from a previous paper, already published. I was wondering how best to do this in a way that complies with blind-review. Some possibilities I am considering:

a. Cite myself as though it were another person.

b. Give a footnote and write '[deleted for blind review]' where the reference would go. (However, I have been told before, when doing this, that it is not sufficiently compliant with blind-review. Wish that my views were that famous!)

c. Appeal to some other argument in the literature that raises a similar concern, and give that prominence instead of my view. Then change this if the article gets accepted. (This could be used in combination of a or b).

This is a great query. I struggled with this very issue for a long time because I didn't know what the norms are. After seeing this discussed on social media, my sense is that the dominant norm is (a): citing yourself in the third-person, as though you are not the author. I am skeptical about whether this actually tends to work in terms of successfully anonymizing a piece--as my sense is that referees can probably still infer it's probably you a good proportion of the time (which I suspect may advantage prestigious, well-known authors and disadvantage lesser-known, less prestigious authors)--but still, my sense is that (a) is the norm.

What to list as peer-reviewed?

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

What publications count as "peer reviewed"?

Until recently, I had assumed that all and only papers submitted to a journal/volume and were (a) reviewed by a scholar, (b) whose identity the author didn't know, and (c) had a genuine possibility of being rejected at that stage were peer reviewed and eligible to be labeled as such on one's CV. It could also be double- or triple-blinded, but that wasn't necessary to peer-review.

However, a colleague's CV labels as peer-reviewed the following:
- invited papers to edited books, where someone read the paper and requested revisions.
- invited entries into books where the editor read the individual entries and the entire volume was sent out for review.
- the introduction to a volume they edited, which was sent out to a reviewer (and blinded), but where the volume was already under contract.

Is there a norm here? I was surprised, and now think I'm under-crediting my publications.

'Anon human' then added:

I’m very interested in the answer to early careerist’s question! Those all strike me as bad cases, but I think there are some cases that are particularly hard to figure out. (E.g.: if you were invited to submit a paper to a journal, it was peer reviewed by anonymous people, but the standard is to accept 98 percent of invited submissions, should someone list that as peer reviewed? Etc.

I'm curious what the norms here are as well. Unlike 'Anon human', it's not obvious to me that all of the cases early careerist listed are "bad cases." Invited papers to edited books could well be rejected if the reviewer(s) or editor(s) think they are not worthy of publication, so these cases seem to me legit cases of peer review (albeit not anonymized peer-review). Nevertheless, in my own case, I tend to play it safe in what I list on my CV. I only explicitly list my journal publications as peer-reviewed, as I don't want to run the risk of rubbing anyone the wrong way for listing other things that way. Since I take it everyone knows that invited book chapters are subject to review (but not the same kind as journal articles), I just leave it up to the person reading my CV to infer what they will about those cases.

In any case, I am curious about the norms here. What does everyone think? What kinds of publications are legitimate to list as peer-reviewed? Which ones are not? 

Tips on conference logistics?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Mark Z. writes:

I was wondering if you can run a post describing how to run a conference. I want to hold a conference and I am at a new college (just got a TT job) and I know nothing of expenses, financing, logistics, lodging, room reservations, invitations, keynote speakers, timing, reasonable accommodations, etc. Is there anyone out there with good experience doing this that can share? I realize that some of this is college and location specific, but there must be some general best practices. I am also considering piggy-backing off another conference. That sounds easier, are there serious drawbacks?
Any advice would be appreciated.

Although we recently had a helpful guest-post by Alex Grzankowski on how to organize good conferences (in terms of how many talks there should be per day, when they should start and end, etc.), Alex's post didn't address some of Mark Z.'s central concerns: namely, the nitty-gritty logistical details of putting a conference together (viz. expenses, financing, lodging, etc.). Given how difficult it can be to put together a good conference (like many people, I've been to some really well-organized ones, as well as some logistical disasters), I think it might indeed be good to have a thread on this! Anyone have any tips on these matters?

Getting rec-letters many years post-PhD

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

An earlier post discussed explaining why one is going on the market from a tenure-track (or tenured) position, but I'm wondering specifically about application materials and letters: if one has been out of grad school for 5-10 years, and hasn't kept in particularly close contact with advisors, who should one ask for letters of recommendation? In general, how does one go about putting together application materials when applying from a more advanced career stage? (I'm realizing everything I know about going on the job market, I learned as a grad student or post-doc!)

Bm then replied:

When are on the market looking for a new tenured job at another place, you should get letters from senior researchers who know your work. Ideally, at that stage, there are such people who you have been in contact with because they like what you have done. If there are none, your chances of moving are close to nil, unless you are pitching yourself as someone with administrative skills - for example, willing to chair a department who cannot find a chair among themselves. But then you must have chairing experience.

Fair enough. Notice, though, that Bm doesn't mention how Al might end in contact with senior people who like their work. Do senior people just email you out of the blue saying, "I love your work"? Presumably not, for the most part. I take it that in order for someone like Al to end up in contact with senior people who look favorably on their work, there are probably things Al needs to do: be active at conferences and the like, trade work with other people for mutual feedback, and so on. But is there more that Al could or should be doing? I guess I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask for advice here, as I don't fancy myself much of a "networker". Does anyone have any helpful practical advice for Al?

What kind of teaching experience is best?

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

I’m currently a grad student and I'm relatively free to choose the topics about which I want to (solo-)teach. Would it be better to start developing my teaching portfolio around introductory courses (Introduction to Philosophy, Introduction to Philosophy of Science, Ethics, and so on)? Or rather with more specialized ones (Philosophy of Economics, Philosophy of Mathematics, etc.)? Should I focus on fields and topics related to my dissertation?

Craig replied:

My impression is that the broader courses would be a better choice. People will assume you can teach your research (or, at least, in my experience, they make that assumption). Accordingly, your courses are a chance for you to show breadth, valuable especially for smaller, teaching-focused departments.

I think Craig is absolutely right...

How can we help you? (September 2019)

Now that it's the beginning of the month, I'd like to run another monthly "how can we help you?" 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! 

Applying for political science jobs

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Political Philosopher asks:

I am a political philosopher with a PhD in philosophy considering applying to some political theory jobs (in polisci departments). Does anyone have any experience with this? Are both sorts of departments looking for different things, or can I basically use the same materials for both political philosophy and political theory jobs?

Great questions. I applied to some political science jobs during my time on the market, without any luck. I wonder if there are any readers out there who have had any luck with them, and who are now working in political science departments. What differences should candidates be aware of?

Letters of recommendation from temporary positions

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Ano(n)ther VAP writes:

What are the boundaries of decorum on asking for letters of recommendation from a temporary position?

I'm a 1-year VAP this coming year, doing a sabbatical replacement for a well-known senior philosopher in area X (I also work in area X). If possible, obviously it'd be an asset to have this senior person's support as I go on the market again. But they aren't going to be around town or campus much, so there's not much of an opportunity to naturally build rapport.

Would it be strange to ask something like: "Given that I'm going on the market again this year, would you be willing to read some of my work and consider writing me a job market letter? Would you also be willing to come into campus to observe my teaching a few times?"

Interesting questions. I do think it would be presumptuous to ask someone to come in during their sabbatical to observe one's teaching. I'm less sure about whether it might be worth asking the person if they are willing to read some of your work, and if they like it, to write you a letter. In general, my approach to letters has always been roughly: it doesn't hurt to ask. This approach worked for me surprisingly well on the market, as the people I did ask were almost all happy to do so. However, in just about every case, I had some previous interactions with the people I asked--so I wasn't approaching them totally out of the blue. In contrast, in this case, it's not clear that the senior person knows the candidate at all. So I'm really not sure what to advise. I guess my own inclination is to think, "The worst they can do is say no." But what do you all think?

Editing volumes and the market

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

I am currently in an NTT position with a fairly modest publication record. I have ambitions for a TT teaching position.

I have an idea for an edited volume that I believe strongly in but also worry I am just at the wrong stage professionally to do this kind of work and that it doesn't make any sense given the labor and time spent involved and relatively little pay off I might see from it in terms of landing a longer term position.

Does my thinking on this seem about right?

The short answer is: yes, my sense is that anon is thinking about this exactly right. The longer answer is this...

Deciding which recommendation letters to use

Over on Twitter yesterday, Jonny (a philosophy of science postgrad) asked, "Suppose I have 10 letters of recommendation for PhDs, how do I determine whose to use?" Someone suggested we hold a thread on this here, so here goes!

First of all, congrats to Jonny on securing 10 letters. That might be an all-time record! In response, Craig Agule wrote: "Although this advice is not wholly uncontroversial, you should have some trusted advisor read all 10 letters, both to catch accidentally bad letters and to help you choose." Although I've never tried it, this is what I've been told before--and I've heard if you have your letters uploaded to Interfolio, you can have them sent to a trusted advisor (though I wonder if there are some ethical issues here, given that letters are intended to be confidential). 

In any case, I guess my own answer is a bit more complex. I think if it's possible to get a trusted person to vet your letters, that's a good way to go. But I also think some strategy is probably in order for selecting the best letters. First, when it comes to jobs at R1's and prestigious SLACs, I suspect name recognition may matter a lot. If you have some letters from really eminent people in the profession, my sense is that (all things being equal) those are probably ones to prioritize. Conversely, if you are applying to jobs at a "teaching" school, it is not at all clear to me that the same strategy is wise. In my experience, prestigious letter-writers tend to write research-heavy letters--ones that may make a candidate look like a bad fit for a teaching school (conveying in effect, "this person really belongs at an R1"). When applying to teaching schools, one should always include at least one "teaching letter", and I think one should try to figure out which of one's letters make one look balanced (i.e. both a good researcher and a good teacher). Finally, I think that whenever possible, it is good to include at least one "outside" letter by a person not from one's grad department, as everyone recognizes that faculty from your grad program have a vested interest in your success (and hence reasons to "oversell" you relative to someone who has no such vested interest.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I have to confess that this is a problem I never really solved as a job-marketeer. I had seven letters, never had anyone vet them, and just decided on a case to case basis which ones seemed to best fit the jobs I was applying to (most of the time, my experience is that jobs have a three-letter cutoff). This probably wasn't the best solution, but it worked okay! I suspect this may be in part because (or so I've heard) search committee members these days often take recommendation letters with a real grain of salt, focusing more on judging your materials for themselves. As a four-time search-committee member myself, I can attest to this. When a candidate's letters don't match your own estimation of their materials at all (viz. "overselling" the candidate), I suspect the tendency is to go with one's own judgment. But again, this is just my guess, and I could be totally wrong!

What do you all think? It might be particularly good to hear from candidates who have grappled with this problem effectively, as well as from search committee members!

Journals being unable to find referees

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

What to do when top journals reject papers without sending them for review not because the paper is bad but because they simply cannot find referees? My manuscript has been rejected from two top journals. One of the journals rejected the paper and the editor basically said that we do not have time to find competent referees for every paper and for that reason we have to reject some promising papers. Another journal rejected my paper after it has been "under review" for 6 weeks or so. They first contacted me and told that they have not yet found a referee for it because people keep rejecting referee invitations but that they will continue to find the referees. Just a day later I received another email saying that they have rejected my paper without any comments from the referees.

Is this practice common? Is it morally permissible? What an author can do to avoid this? Should I only submit papers to specialized journals that know more referees? (The problem is that if one does not publish in top philosophy journals, some philosophers think his/her work is not "real philosophy"). Should an author always recommend possible referees in a cover letter when submitting a paper? (at least some journals ask the author to recommend possible referees).

This is interesting, as similar phenomena happened to me for the first time recently as both an author and reviewer. In one case, an editor wrote to me apologizing for a long review time due to inability to find referees for a paper I submitted. Then, in another case, an editor for a different journal wrote to me asking me to review a paper because reviewers kept turning their requests down. In all my years, these are the first times I've encountered this phenomenon, and both instances happened in the past few months. I wonder what's going on, and whether this some kind of trend due to the professional conditions that David Velleman recently termed 'the publication emergency'.

Anyone else have any experience with this? On the one hand, it seems to me that members of the profession have a presumptive duty to take on review requests (viz. contributing their fair share to a system that plays a central role in our profession), so if people are turning down review requests left and right, then that's concerning. On the other hand, reviewing is 'unpaid labor' of sorts, so I know there's not much incentive for people to accept requests. But in any case, rejecting papers due to inability to find suitable referees seems super unfair to authors. So, I'm really not sure what to say on this. What do you all think? It might be good to hear from editors, reviewers, and authors on their experiences here!

'Negative' remarks in research statements

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

When it comes to writing research statements, is it OK if one tries to eschew remarks about what others have not done, but what you have done in favor of simply explaining your projects. I know The Professor is In says to avoid going negative, but I wonder whether in avoiding negative remarks it might not be clear to those who do not work in your AOS what your contribution actually is. Presumably, some may want to know why your particular interpretive angle on X is worth pursuing, and you often cannot motivate that without saying what others have said.

I think The Professor Is In is correct about this. One of the tricks to a good research statement is learning how to convey the novelty of your research without 'going negative'. If you look at my research statement (a much earlier version of which was vetted by the Professor Is In, and which I just revised this morning), you will see that there is very little (if anything) that could be construed as negative. Instead, there are brief explicit and implicit contrasts with dominant views, as well as brief indications of how my work resolves some critiques. Here are a few examples:

"I challenge the dominant view that answers to moral and political questions can be discovered by theory or rational argumentation, arguing that sound answers to moral and political questions should be seen instead as created by fair, organic, real-world negotiation."

"Chapter 1 of my book argues that be truth-apt, moral philosophy should be based upon a new methodology: seven principles of theory-selection adapted from the sciences."

"In two subsequent articles...I argue that Rightness as Fairness has important implications for reducing social polarization and for solving the 'alignment problem' in ethical A.I. programming...Finally, in a second book manuscript, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory (under contract, Routledge), I outline a unified theory of prudence, morality, and justice which reduces all moral and political norms to norms of prudence, arguing in turn that a wide variety of recent findings in behavioral neuroscience support the account. The revised version of Rightness as Fairness the book defends also resolves a variety of critical concerns raised to my first book."

"In addition to these two main projects, in two articles I have argued that several longstanding issues regarding human rights—regarding their number, justification, and action-guidance—can be resolved by distinguishing between (A) domestic human rights, which apply within states, and (B) international human rights, which justify international intervention."

Although I don't pretend my research statement gets everything right (if I learned one thing from the Professor Is In, it is that it is very hard to craft job-market materials that 'hit all of the right notes'), my sense is that this is probably the way to try to go about things. I have read research statements that spend so much time explaining how the author's view 'defeats' other people's views that it just comes across as 'getting too much in the weeds'. Leave that for your writing sample! That's where I want to see you argue against other people. What I want to see in a research statement is a crisp, concise picture of what you're doing. If what you're doing is interesting and original, my sense is that it should probably pop out to the reader without going into a bunch of detail about "why my view is better than X, Y, and Z".

But, of course, I am just one person, and I could be wrong about this! Does anyone who has been on the hiring side of things have any insight to share?

Interdisciplinarity: good or bad?

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

I am currently a graduate student and have been trying to develop a teaching portfolio at the intersection between philosophy, politics, and economics - i.e., teaching courses not only on political philosophy, philosophy of economics, philosophy of law, and so on, but e.g. on human rights policy and political economy as well. I am afraid, however, that search committees may think my profile is too interdisciplinary. Any thoughts in this regard?

This is great query. I'm not entirely sure about jobs at R1's or prestigious SLACs, where I've heard (albeit only anecdotally) that it can be important to look specialized rather than too broad or unfocused. At the same time, I can't help but wonder whether the specific kind of interdisciplinarity PhC mentions (PPE) might be an advantage at research schools. After all, they might be able to apply (and be competitive) not just for philosophy jobs, but also political science jobs in political theory or in business schools (I know a few philosophers in business schools at some pretty rarified places).

In any case, what I do feel pretty confident about is that interdisciplinarity in general is almost certainly a real advantage at teaching-focused schools similar to mine. My experience is not only that administrators at these kinds of schools tend to look very favorably on collaborative work across disciplinary boundaries. It is that philosophy departments value the ability of new hires to teach (and create) a wide variety of courses that might be of interest to students and attract majors--including political science majors, econ majors, law students, and so on.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have been on the hiring side of things?

Disclosing one's views when teaching?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, New to Teaching writes:

I’d love to start a discussion on whether we ought to tell our students our views on the material we’re teaching. Do you aim for your students to end the course not knowing what you think, perhaps because it shows that you’ve taught in a relatively unbiased way? Or, on the other hand, do you find that putting forward your own view provokes discussion and perhaps models a thoughtful approach to the issues? How likely are students to write essays they think the tutor will agree with in hopes of getting a better grade?

My inclination would be to not say much about my own views unless asked directly, but if asked, to answer honestly and openly. Is that a good strategy?

Any thoughts about the pros and cons of being more or less forthcoming about one’s philosophical views as a teacher would be appreciated.

I think this is a great query. My experience is that different people have very different views about this, and so I think it might be great to discuss it!

Conference presentations and the market

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

All things considered, how much does it matter when looking at a prospective candidate's CV that they have never been to nor presented at an APA meeting?

Mike Titelbaum replied:

At least for the R1 job searches in which I've been involved, what's helpful is that you have some experience at conferences, preferably not just grad student conferences. But APA conferences in particular bear no special significance to me on that front.

For what it's worth, I've heard people at R1's say similar things: that it's advantageous for candidates to have at least some professional (rather than grad) conference experience. I also expect that especially impressive presentation lists (viz. multiple invited colloquium talks at prestigious departments) are probably advantageous for candidates applying to research jobs. I'm curious, though, whether this is true of jobs in general. My own sense, having served on several search-committees at a more teaching-focused school, is that conference presentations and activity may play very little (if any) role in hiring committee deliberations. In brief, my sense is that this may be because committees at these types of institutions care most about two things: (1) a good enough publication record to get tenure, and (2) teaching/service. Because it's possible to present at a lot of conference but not publish much, my sense is that people at schools like mine may not attribute much weight to presentations. But, of course, this is just my sense, and it may be incorrect.

Any other search committee members willing to weigh in?

Is applying before job deadlines advantageous?

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

Here's a question I don't think I've seen discussed anywhere: as a job applicant, how much of a disadvantage are you putting yourself at if you don't submit your application until very close to the deadline? Do those submitting quickly after the job ad is posted get a de facto advantage?

Mike Titelbaum replied:

While I can imagine situations in which prompt submission might make a difference (suppose an emergency has come up and a department is looking to fill a job quickly), for your standard job search it makes no difference what order the applications come in. I have often been on search committees that don't even begin to read files until after the deadline has passed.

I am not so sure about this. Although Mike has been on committees that don't read files until after the deadline is passed, I know of cases where candidate files are read before the deadlines--and in these cases it seems to me it may be advantageous to get one's application in sooner. To see why, put yourself in the shoes of a search-committee member in this position. You know you will have hundreds of applications to read, so you want to get started evaluating them sooner rather than later. Suppose that several weeks before the application due date, you have seventeen candidates in the pool. Since you've begun looking at files early, you're not pressed for time: you have plenty of time to read those seventeen files. After reading the files, you may already have a few "favorites": candidates you feel like you want to interview even before anyone else has applied. Then suppose the deadline comes, and you get a few hundred applications basically all at once. Will you have the same amount of time and energy to read them thoroughly? Probably not. And will your earlier judgments (about the first seventeen applications you reviewed before the deadline) play an outsized role on who you choose to interview? Maybe. Given the existence and pervasiveness of primacy bias (people tend to favor the first sources of information they receive), as well as the anchoring effect (bias in favor of using early judgments to influence later judgments), it seems not at all implausible to me that applying early could be an advantage.

In short, while there may be cases (like Mike's) where applying early confers no advantage, I think there are plausibly cases where it does confer a real advantage. Since there is no real way for a candidate to know which of the two situations they are in, I'm inclined to think the rational thing to do is to apply as early as possible, on the off chance that it might pay off. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

TA-ing vs. solo-teaching experience

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

How important are TAs positions for one's CV and teaching portfolio? I'm currently a PhD student and have the choice between a prestigious TA position with a renowned professor and teaching a course as sole instructor. What would be best?

Mike Titelbaum responded:

Cleinias, I'd suggest you think in terms of what your total TA experience is going to look like when you're done with grad school. It's useful at some point to have been sole instructor of your own class. (At least once, if not more than once.) Personally, when I look at a job application it's not so important that someone TAed for a renowned professor versus a no-name professor. It's more important what kind of teaching experience they have and what I can expect them to be able to accomplish in the classroom.

I agree with Mike that it probably doesn't matter whether the professor one TA's for is renowned. My experience is that when it comes to evaluating candidates as teachers, search committees care about the teaching statement, rest of the teaching portfolio, and quality of the candidate's teaching recommendation letter (specifically, what the letter says about the candidate's teaching). 

However, I think Mike's point about TA-ing versus solo teaching understates things a bit. In terms of being competitive for jobs at 'teaching schools', my sense is that it is very important to have solo teaching experience. This isn't to say it is a necessary condition for getting hired at such a school, nor that candidates who have only TA'd never get hired into these kinds of positions. However, my sense is that search committee members can be pretty skeptical of the probative value of TA experience. TA-ing is wildly different--both far less involved and less challenging--than teaching one's own course. To teach one's own course, you have to put an entire syllabus together, design your own assignments, manage the classroom on a daily basis as the instructor of record, and so on.

The only time I think it might make sense to TA rather than teach solo is if (1) you already have solo-teaching experience, and (2) the course you're TA-ing for gives you experience in some other area (i.e. AOC) that you wouldn't otherwise be able to get (because, let's say, there are no opportunities for grad students to solo-teach in that area). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search-committees?

Postdoc after professorship?

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

Is it usually possible to get post-doc fellowships after holding a professorship? I'm currently unhappy with my tenure-track position (I started last year) and have been considering to apply for post-docs this fall.

Amanda responded:

If you are within the allotted time period post-graduation (anywhere from 2-6 years, usually) then there is no reason why you couldn't get a post-doc. I suspect your application wouldn't be treated much differently than others, but I could be wrong.

I'm not entirely sure. I've heard it said that search committees can be biased against candidates applying for more junior positions. I wonder whether it might make sense for someone like Professor to email the search-committee chairs of potential postdocs to scope things out, and perhaps explain why they are applying so that the committee understands why they are applying from a more senior position. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have hired postdocs?

 

Experiences with jobs overseas (in autocracies)?

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

Could someone share the experience of teaching philosophy at American colleges overseas where the regime is (at least partially) autocratic? I'm thinking about institutions such as Yale-NUS or NYU Shanghai, for example.

I'm actually really curious about this, not just the case of American colleges overseas under autocratic political regimes, but overseas jobs more generally. Are any readers with experience here willing to share their experiences? What has your experience been? Positive? Negative? In what respects? I'm really curious to hear!

Jobs in history of political thought?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'Am I a Philosopher?' writes:

I'm pursuing a PhD program at an European university on the history of political thought (19th-20th centuries). I gather that Anglo-American philosophers don't consider what I do as political philosophy, but as political theory or intellectual history. Is that possible to get a position in political philosophy in the US without producing normative-oriented research?

My sense is that jobs in the history of political thought are really rare in philosophy, and that it is probably difficult (if not impossible) to get a job in political philosophy without doing normatively-oriented research. My guess is that someone in this person's position is probably more likely to be competitive for a job in political science. However, I'm not very clued into that job-market. Anyone out there have any insight?

Continental Programs & the PGR

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, Cautiously Optimistic writes:

I start my master's in three weeks, and I am already thinking of the next step...After looking at the PGR, none of the ranked programs are continental programs. This is disappointing because I am partial to phenomenology and existentialism, and the programs they recommended FOR continental philosophy were stronger in epistemology, logic, etc. than my desired area. I worry that people take the PGR too seriously considering its bias. Is it best to apply to PGR programs, or non-ranked continental phd programs that have good placement? I am interested in Stonybrook (who have Steinbock) and Penn State (who have Nicolas de Warren), but neither Penn State nor Stonybrook are top PGR programs. Will this hurt me in the long run?

As Martin Shuster noted, "There are certainly non-ranked PGR programs that place quite well if not better than ranked ones (e.g., University of Oregon or Vanderbilt)." Indeed, the ADPA data make that pretty clear. I also personally know people who went to non-PGR-ranked Continental programs that have excellent placement rates who went on to get tenure-track jobs. So I'm with SPEP Grad Student, who wrote, "Take a close at placement data, if it is available." If I were entering grad school today, I'd be more concerned about the placement rates of the programs I was interested than I would be concerned program rank. 

But this is just me. What do you all think? It might be good to hear from current grad students and recent grads from the kinds of programs Cautiously mentions (Stonybrook, Penn State, etc.).

Best books on pedagogy?

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

I have been wondering, what are some of the best books to read about philosophy pedagogy? Or, if not explicitly *about* philosophy pedagogy, what are the most helpful books wrt developing one's philosophy pedagogy?

Sam Duncan followed up, writing:

It’s not specifically about philosophy but Ken Bain’s “What the Best College Teachers Do” is very well regarded and I personally found it helpful on number of levels. It’s short too so it’s an excellent place to start. I also found Kathy N. Davidson’s “The New Education” helpful in thinking about pedagogy.

Anyone else have any recommendations?

Getting contracts for edited volumes?

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

The blog has talked extensively about how to write and achieve a contract for a monograph. I wanted to know what the process is like for getting a contract for a volume. How does one start the process? Presumably one cannot have all the papers ready beforehand. Does one simply pitch the idea to a press (e.g. Cambridge), and depending on your expertise in the field they may bite? Does one have an introduction ready?

I'm probably not the best person to ask here, as I've only had papers in edited volumes, never proposed one. However, my experience as a contributor has given me a little bit of insight into the process. My sense is that individuals proposing an edited volume need at least three things:

1. A compelling introduction/overview of the proposed volume.
2. A list of contributors, including some established, well-known researchers.
3. A complete compilation of paper titles and abstracts from each contributor.

Then, of course, one has to put together a full proposal, based on the proposal forms that presses typically have on their websites (which require proposals to specify an intended audience, competing works, and many other things). Does this sound about right to people? It would be great to hear from people who have actually secured contracts for and published edited volumes. What does one need to do in order to put together and submit a good proposal?

European program-ranks and the market

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

I have a friend with a BA from a Canadian institution, and MA in philosophy from a US institution, who, for compelling personal reasons, wants to do a PhD in Europe (non UK). They have US and EU (non-uk) citizenship. I am putting this here because I wasn't sure what advice to give. Ideally, my friend would like to create the best possibility of being competitive for US jobs once the degree is complete (they are not ruling out Europe jobs, but those are limited).

1.Is there a clear philosophy prestige hierarchy in Europe? If so does it carry over into the United States?

2. The vague impression I get is that search committees often treat all non-uk European PhDs the same, kind of like a low ranked US program, although there is often the disadvantage of lacking teaching experience.

3.Somewhat in conflict with what I just said, other times I get the impression that, especially at research schools, a European PhD is much preferred to a mid to low ranked US PhD. This seems to be because the former has a negative reputation (among elite research schools) while the latter really has no reputation. There is also some sort of plus from the mysteriousness of it all.

4.The more elite liberal arts schools often like the diversity this would bring, especially if you speak multiple langues (again, this is just my impression that is not based on anything known to be reliable.)

If anyone is knowledgeable about this, that would be great. Other things of interest are odds of getting accepted from the US (but with EU citizenship) and odds of getting funded, how long it takes to finish, etc.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they are great ones to ask. Indeed, I'm very curious what the answers are myself, as I've recently noticed some people (including a few people I know) get great jobs in the US coming out of European programs. Anyone have any insight on Amanda's questions?

Seeking a UK PhD from a distance?

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

I am recent graduate of an MA Phil. program in the US and I am looking at PhD programs in the UK. However, I am looking at distance-learning programs because of family circumstances such as the Uni. of Birmingham or Uni. of Leeds. However, from my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong), programs like these in the UK are not funded. My question is, does anyone have any advice in regards to how to find funding for a PhD program in the UK given that I am a US citizen. Also, does anyone know of any programs that are funded (my interest is in philosophy of religion, aesthetics, and their relation to one another)? Thank you for any help or advice!

Amanda wrote in reply:

I hope someone can provide you helpful advice. But I would also recommend writing to the chair of the departments or graduate directors and asking. Each program will have some differences, so no one will know better than those currently working for the university.

I think this is a good suggestion, but I wonder what other people think. Does anyone have any helpful advice?

Prior credit toward tenure?

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

I have a question about moving from a VAP to a TT-job. Is it possible, in your experience, to count the years you have been VAP in the tenure clock when you move to a TT-job? For instance, if you had been VAP for 2 years, then you get a TT-job and you can go for tenure after 4 years. I'm interested in this especially in terms of articles published during the VAP period. Thanks!

A very good question. It's important to know the answer to, and my sense is that a good number of job-marketeers don't know much about it. 'Tenured' answered:

The rules around "prior service credit" as it is sometimes called, vary widely. I was able to get some credit for prior service at other institutions - for 5 years, they gave me three years credit, the maximum the institution would give. It does, though, add pressure to you. You are expected to earn tenure on the publications you do AT the new job (at least at some places). But I have seen people told they cannot count post doc positions, and other temporary positions as prior credit. So some institutions only count years at another tenured positions, or years in full time employment (ie. where your title is Visiting Assistant Professor). So count on nothing. In fact, I was not told how much prior credit I would get until AFTER I started the job!

My experience is that Tenured is right on a variety of counts. Some schools have very strong policies against awarding 'prior credit'. They may have policies not only against cutting the number of years before one can go up to tenure, but also policies against counting anything you have done before being hired toward tenure. Other schools may be willing to shorten time to tenure, but still not count previously published work and the like. In cases like this, it might sound great if a school tells you that you can come up for tenure after four years. But in that case, as Tenured notes, you'll be under even greater pressure to publish a ton during those four years, since your previous publications won't count.

Query about relocation expenses

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

This job-market season, I accepted a tenure-track job at a large state teaching-focused university. I am coming right out of graduate school. I was very happy that part of the offer included relocation funding.

But, the relocation funding is provided through reimbursement. This is a problem for me because I have been a graduate student in a major US city for the last 6 years and as a result I don't have the money to spend on relocation such that they can reimburse me.

Is reimbursement typical or standard in academia when it comes to funding moving or relocation expenses? If it is typical or standard, this practice seems to assume that graduate students have access to thousands of dollars of cash or credit.

Amanda then replied:

I dealt with the same problem. It is indeed typical to not pay up front and assume the hire has the money or credit to pay for everything. And this will most likely be true for everything in the future, notably conference travel.

When I signed my contract I was told it would be easy to get moving money paid in advance. I then followed up on this, and was meet with massive layers of bureaucratic red tape and apathetic administrators. In the end, it just wasn't going to happen. So I got rid of all my furniture. Put the rest of what I could fit in my car, and drove across the country staying in Motel 6's.

And yes, everyone assumes you have thousands of dollars on credit cards. They absolutely assume this, and they assume that if you don't, then you can apply for a credit card and get one...

I'm curious whether anyone else has experience with this, and particularly whether anyone might have helpful advice for Relocator. My own sense is similar to Amanda's: that universities typically expect you to pay for things first (e.g. on credit) and then reimburse you later. In the past, when I was in debt, this posed problems for me too. However, I had enough open credit to deal with it, so that's what I did. But, as Amanda notes, not everyone has access to credit. What should relocator do? Do universities ever give advances on relocation expenses?

Choosing job-talk papers

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

About the paper that you focus a job talk around. Suppose you have something at every stage of the pipeline - including, say, a manuscript that's not quite submitted for review, a manuscript that's under review, a manuscript that got an R&R decision, a manuscript that you've revised and resubmitted, and a conditional acceptance.

Are any of these options clearly a bad idea? On the one hand, as we get towards the end of the list, they're more polished, and you'll presumably look better presenting them. But also, as we approach the end of the list, they're more "done", and you run the risk of looking like you don't have new things coming.

'One-Time Job Candidate' then answered:

Just my opinion here, but I think the choice of topic for a job talk depends a lot on where you are giving the talk. If it's at a place with a PhD program, I would choose something new, interesting, ambitious, that may not be as far along in the process.

But at teaching-oriented places, I think it's better to give a safer talk in the sense that it's on a better-known topic which is accessible to a lot of people. At least, this was my experience with the job talks I had a few months ago. All were at teaching-oriented places, and none of the talks were based on a paper. Rather, they were overviews of my research program as a whole, tying my work into recognized and accepted philosophical problems that everyone can appreciate.

It was clear that the audiences appreciated this, including the undergraduates in attendance.

I found this interesting, as I would have thought the opposite to be the case: that it would probably be best to present something very polished at research institutions (given the concern for rigor in research, particularly in Q&A's), and something more ambitious at teaching institutions (that might excite the faculty and undergrads there, even if not terribly polished). But this is just my off-the-cuff reaction, and I don't really have much to go on besides my experiences and One-Time Job Candidate's.

What do you all think, particularly those of you who have done well on the market or been on the hiring side of things?

Taking time off work/the market for motherhood?

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

Would it be career suicide to skip the job market and adjuncting for a year (or maybe even two) to expand my family and be a stay at home parent for a little while? I would still attempt to write, publish, and present at conferences (in fact I'd have much more time to attempt to do these things if I wasn't adjuncting and on the market while parenting a young child). I was on the market during my first pregnancy and adjuncted right up until my due date. I'm not keen to try that again while also parenting a toddler. I also don't want to put off having another kid until after I get a permanent job (since it may never happen anyway). Would schools consider hiring someone with this kind of gap in teaching? If so, would there be a good way to explain it in my cover letter and/or CV when going back on the market at a later time?

'B' then answered:

Make a point of listing it on your c.v. or in your letter that you were on maternity leave. There are civilized departments out there. Hopefully no one will ask you to show the placenta to prove it.

While I think this is right--and I think this is an important issue--I also think that whether Anonymous should bet on 'civilized departments' may be a difficult question to answer. Allow me to explain.

I have heard two things anecdotally from a number of people. The first is that search committees may have a tendency to look askance at 'gaps' in one's employment record. The second is that, at many places, there may be fairly clear discrimination against women on the basis of motherhood. For example, I have heard from women academics I know personally that things like the following have been said in their presence, "Oh, she just had a child. Say goodbye to her productivity." Not only that: there is plenty of empirical research showing a very real "motherhood penalty" in hiring and wages--whereas men actually appear to benefit in the workplace from being fathers (whereas motherhood is prejudicially associated with less productivity, fatherhood appears to be prejudicially associated with greater productivity).

If you put these two (very) unfortunate things together--the anecdotal possibility that hiring committees may hold 'employment gaps' against candidates, and real evidence that motherhood is used against mothers in hiring--then B's advice may, sadly, not be the best advice to follow (at least if Anonymous does not want to risk these things, as the concerns in her comment suggests she is concerned about). That being said, I am neither a father nor (obviously) a mother, so I cannot pretend to speak to Anonymous' situation beyond this.

What do you all think?

Query on transferring PhD programs

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

Is there any specific advice about how to write your application for transferring Ph. D programs other than the obvious — don’t trash talk your old program, etc.?

I don't know, myself. I did transfer successfully from one program (Syracuse) to another (Arizona). But I don't recall doing anything special, aside from getting good letters from the faculty in the first program (who were supportive of my leaving, given that I was leaving in response to four of our professors--all of whom I planned to work with--being hired away by other programs over the course of a single year).

Aside from trying to get positive letters, though, I guess I only have one other piece of advice. When I applied to Arizona, I initially used a 'safe' but (I thought) clear and rigorous epistemology paper as my writing sample (one I had gotten an excellent grade on in a grad seminar). At one point, a member of the admissions committee (David Chalmers) asked me if I had any other writing samples to consider (perhaps because the committee was not too enthused with the first - though I don't know for sure). In response I sent a much more ambitious paper (on vagueness) as my second writing sample...and I was accepted into the program later that same day. So, for what it is worth, my sense then--and my sense now, based on my experiences on the academic job-market--is that people may be much more interested in ambitious rather than 'safe' work. But this, again, is just a hunch.

Anyway, that's all I have. Do you any of you have any helpful tips for someone interested in transferring PhD programs?

To promote one’s work, or not?

Updated: 2:50pm, 6/4/2019

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

Should I be trying to get people to notice my papers in some way other than just publishing and putting them out there? Cold emailing relevant interlocutors, posting about them in a public Facebook post, something like that?

I think these are great questions, one's I've wondered about on a number of occasions given the visibility the Cocoon provides. Here, in brief, are the conclusions I've come to: some people may look down on promoting one's work - but I think there is nothing to be ashamed of in doing it, and it probably benefits the profession and individuals who do it, at least on balance. Let me explain why.

How can we help you? (June 2019)

It's been a couple of months since we've done one of these, so I figured now 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:

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

Given that the job-market gets moving in a big way in just a few month, now might be a great time for first-time job seekers and other job-marketeers to ask any burning questions they have. Fire away - we're here to help! 

Concerns about recommendation letters?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, James W. Quinn writes:

Would it be possible to discuss the letter-of-recommendation system and its moral, practical justification? I have been enduring horrible situations—from plagiarism and unpaid labor to sexual harassment—in order to be able to apply for some jobs that require three, if not five, letters.

I've long had concerns about letters of recommendation, and Michael Huemer (University of Colorado) wrote a piece a while back summing up a lot of them. There was some really good discussion of Huemer's piece at Daily Nous. However, James Quinn's comment above reveals another (much darker) side to the letter of recommendation issue that I have not seen discussed as much: the manner in which requiring letters of recommendation may empower bad actors in the profession to abuse their power over graduate students and job-marketeers.

I'm curious how wide-spread these kinds of cases are, as well as to hear what our early-career readers think of the letter of recommendation system in applying for jobs. Anyone have any thoughts or experiences they are willing to share?

Dissertations: monographs or three articles?

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

I wonder what folks think about monograph dissertations in comparison to three-article model dissertations.

I wonder because it seems as if having three articles are more likely to increase once’s chances on the job market in comparison to a monograph.

I think this is a really interesting query, and I'm curious to hear what people have to say. Allow me to share a few thoughts.

Balancing frequent assignments with workload

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

It seems clear to me that students benefit a great deal from having many chances to apply what they've learned through frequent assignments, scaffolded essays, etc. I'd be curious to know how Cocooners with hefty teaching loads balance the desire to do all that with the demands of teaching three to five courses or sections a term. Do you stagger assignments between your courses and sections? Do you use a lot of peer-grading? What else?

Great questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers have to say! Here are a few of my own thoughts.

Earlier in my career (during my non-TT years and before tenure), I gave my students many frequent assignments while having a hefty teaching load. Students responded really positively--often saying in my course reviews that my courses were super challenging and full of work, but that it was worth it and they learned a lot. Unfortunately, doing that basically required me to work myself into the ground and wasn't very sustainable, at least not if I wanted (as I do) to maintain a modicum of personal well-being. So, ever since getting tenure, I have changed things a bit.

First, I've increasingly staggered types of assignments across courses, based on reflection on what I'd like students in different kinds of courses to learn. For example, some of my courses (lower-level courses for non-majors) tend to me more exam based, along with many frequent smaller assignments (e.g. 5 sentence reading responses and in-glass group assignments). The basic rationale is that my primary pedagogical aims in these courses are to expose non-majors--people who may never take another philosophy courses--to philosophical material, help them to understand it, and get them to think critically about it (both as individuals and in groups) on a daily basis. Conversely, in my courses in the major I want to focus less on exams and more on longer (1-page) reading responses, term-papers, and final presentations. In brief, this is because I think it's vital for majors in particular to learn how to think more deeply about the material, and to develop their ability to write about and present complex material and original arguments of their own. Long story short, I've found that staggering different kinds of assignments across courses (doing different assignment-types and lengths in different levels of courses) can be helpful for ensuring that students in all of my courses receive frequent assignments and feedback without working myself into the ground.

Second, I've begun staggering the timing of assignments within and across classes. For example, in my human rights seminar this Spring, I had students do 1-page reading responses each class for the first 11 weeks of the semester. However, the last four weeks of the semester they no longer have reading-responses due. Instead, they have term-paper workshops that require them to do some work at home (e.g. a paper outline, drafting their introduction, drafting their summary) and then bring that material to class for peer-feedback and submit to me for instructor feedback. I've found this incredibly helpful, as removing the reading responses frees up time for providing them feedback on their workshop assignments--and devoting the second hour of class to workshops lessens the amount of prep I need to put into my daily lectures. In other words, I "make room" for an increase in grading load (e.g. giving daily feedback on partial-drafts of term-papers) by lessening my workload elsewhere (no more reading responses to grade and shorter lectures). Similarly, because in my upper-division applied ethics courses I think it is pedagogically valuable to end courses with student presentations (followed by short group assignments discussing each presentation), I am able to end one course (say, Biomedical Ethics) with no lecture prep the last two weeks, thus again freeing up time for other things (grading final presentations, etc.).

In short, although I still do a lot of grading and have frequent assignments, I've been increasingly looking for creative ways to lessen my workload in one area (e.g. lecture prep, grading reading responses) whenever my workload increases in another area (term-paper workshops, final presentations, etc.)--so that I'm able to keep my students engaged with frequent assignments without working myself into the ground as much as I used to. In full disclosure, I think there are some pedagogical costs to some of the choices I've experimented with (viz. having lower-division courses more exam- and short-reading response based, instead of, say, having term-papers). Fortunately, though, as someone who is always looking for better ways to do things, the costs I've perceived here have led me to think about other approaches that I hope to experiment with moving forward--ones that I'm excited to try out! Indeed, if I've learned anything about teaching at all, it's that its often precisely these kinds of challenges--viz. balancing various pedagogical goals with workload, etc.--that inspire one to continually rethink and refine one's methods and keep things "new", both for oneself and one's students.

But these are just some of my thoughts. What are yours?

Reader query on coaching ethics bowl

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes in: Has anyone coached an Ethics Bowl team before? I just found out I will be next year, and I have no idea how to do it well.

I began coaching Ethics Bowl teams in my first job (a VAP at UBC), and have coached a team each of the past nine years at my current institution (a few of which have done quite well!). Let me begin by saying that it really has been one of the more rewarding parts of my job. The students tend to be really into it, it leads to good philosophical discussions that students learn from and challenge you to learn from as well--and when your team does well, it can be really gratifying to see your students shine (especially if, as is often the case, you've seen your students grow over several years). Finally, even in cases where your team doesn't do well, it can be a positive experience--provided you and your team members approach it as a learning opportunity.

Anyway, I don't want to give all of my team's "secrets" away (as my teams have worked hard experimenting with a lot of different things, some of which may not have worked for us but might work for other teams). So let me instead just outline how we prepare in general.

Transitioning to one's first TT job

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

I would be grateful to read a post on how one coming out of grad school or a post doc should prepare for starting their new tenure-track assistant professorship in the states, with an eye toward getting off on the right foot for securing tenure painlessly.

'Excited new prof' then added:

My request relates to Eddie's. I was wondering if anyone would have advice about what (not) to do during your first year as an Assistant professor on a tenure-track. I'm starting this fall at a regional comprehensive in the U.S.

Great questions - and there has already been some good advice given, particularly Old Prof's:

What NOT to do in your first year: do not agree to do all sorts of committee work, and then not deliver on what you said you would do (be realistic); do not hide problems with your teaching until they are so big the dean hears about it (get help early); do not assume that your new institution works like the ones you have been at in the past (ask questions); do not stop researching (show that you can balance research with full time teaching ... it is also the only way to get out of a bad place if you need to leave); do not go out drinking with your students or say inappropriate things to them; do not trash your colleagues to other people on campus (wait at least a year for that ;).

But let me add a few more things before opening things up for discussion...

Query on SEP & Phil Compass articles

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'possibly unlucky' writes:

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I would love a discussion of the way in which SEP/PhilCompass articles are handled. I think most view a publication in SEP or PhilCompass quite favorably (I'm always impressed by such publications) and these publications allow the author to exert a fair amount of influence over the subfield (unlike traditional journal articles, these reference articles can be read by hundreds, if not thousands). Yet the process by which credit and influence are distributed is, to me at least, extraordinarily opaque. I've only had experience with PhilCompass, but my sense is that the subeditors have a tremendous amount of autonomy and so there is no standard practice. There's no review system or procedure in place, so those who don't personally know the subeditor may not be guaranteed serious consideration. In my own case, I had to just cold email the editors. In one case the editors told me to come back in a year (a year!) if I hadn't published my article and they *may* reconsider it. In another case, the editor just ignored me. Have people had similar experiences or am I just unlucky?

There was quite a bit of discussion about this query in that thread already, but let me say a few brief things. In reply to 'possibly unlucky', Amanda wrote:

My experience is that invited publications count for a lot, as much as peer-reviewed journals for lots of research places. It is all about proving you are a member of an elite club, not some impassioned judgement of who is objectively best.

I have to confess that I found this very surprising. As someone who doesn't work at a R1 institution, I would have thought that Phil Compass and SEP entries would not count as positively in a candidate's favor as traditional non-invited publications featuring original research. Indeed, my own experience (having served on four search committees) is that some search committees really want to see whether a candidate can publish original research consistently through traditional, anonymized review - and that if a candidate only has a few publications, most of which are either invited or literature overviews (viz. SEP or Phil Compass), then that could even count against a candidate.

But, like others, I am merely speaking anecdotally here. Any search committee members care to weigh in? How do you (or committees you've served on) tend to treat Phil Compass or SEP publications?

How can we help you? (April 2019)

It's a pretty busy time of the semester, and we haven't had one of these threads in a while, so I figured now might be a good time for 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:

• 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!

Moving from renewable lecturer to one-year VAP?

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

Is there is a situation in which it makes sense to leave a potentially renewable lecturer position with pretty bad pay for a better VAP position with much better pay?

Is the renewability factor too important to give up for the one year, non-renewable position that pays much better?

I'd be curious to hear what everyone else thinks, but here's my answer. Absent extenuating circumstances (e.g. the lecturer salary being too low to live a decent lifestyle, adequately support one's family, etc.), the renewable lecturer position seems the better bet. I spent seven years on the academic job-market, and for me time made all of the difference. I was lucky to be in a renewable non-TT position that I could stay in that entire time. Had I been in a one or two-year position, I doubt I would have been able to stay on the market as long as I did--which again, was as long as I ended up needing to get a tenure-track job. On the other hand, if the lecturer salary is really low (and one really cannot fathom remaining in that kind of situation long-term), then maybe rolling the dice with the VAP makes sense.

What do you all think? It might be helpful to hear more detail from the relevant reader to orient the discussion, as well.

Taking time away from research

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

I'm not sure if you've covered this already, but.... When do you think a person is "allowed" to take time away from research? My list of papers-in-progress is long and so I more or less always think I should be working on one of them, whenever I have a spare moment (i.e. a moment not devoted to fulfilling other obligations). But right now I have a couple of hours to kill and yet I'm not doing research. I'm tired. I have a young child. I had 4 campus visits this semester and each one was fatiguing to prepare for and to go through. I'm teaching (albeit with a light load). 
How do you decide when to rest and when to push through?

These are great questions, ones I have asked myself from time to time. In fact, I would be very interested to hear answers to them, as I haven't been able to answer them well myself.

Reader query about undergraduate research

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, SSW writes:

As an undergraduate student, I wonder what is the best way to choose a dissertation topic? Since my department does not provide many courses on the topic I am interested in, I have to read something by my own. I have read some companions and Philosophy Compass articles, is there anything else I can/should do?

It's not entirely clear to me what SSW means when they ask about a 'dissertation topic.' For example, if they are asking about a PhD dissertation, then my answer is that it is probably much to early to think about that. On the other hand, if the question is about an undergrad thesis, then the question seems to me an apt one. Either way, though, I'm glad they asked these questions, as in thinking about them it occurred to me that I would advise something quite different than what they are currently doing.

Informing committees of job offers

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

I've just been offered a VAP at Institution X, where a decision is expected of me within about two weeks. However, I recently interviewed for a VAP at Institution Y, where I was told that they'd make a decision in about a month. I strongly prefer the position at Institution Y. How do I diplomatically reach out to Y in a way that might speed up their timetable, but not in a way that seems pushy or likely to tell me to PFO?

Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to me pretty straightforward. Just write a polite email informing the search chair you have a job offer (without mentioning who the offer is from), maybe mention that you are still very interested in their job, and ask them what the time-frame of their search looks like. At that point the ball is in their court. If they are seriously considering you as a candidate but don't want to lose you, then they will make something happen. If not, then not: they'll give you a polite PFO and that's that. I don't see any other real options here. Finally, for what it's worth, I suspect a search committee is less likely to speed up its timetable for a VAP position--simply because VAPs are temporary positions (whereas there is probably much greater incentive to hire the committee's top choice in a TT job).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees or engaged in this kind of negotiating as a candidate?

Why do journals not give comments?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, EL.DEE.ESS writes:

I have a question about the journal review process. I have run into the following problem in submitting to top tier journals, namely, that the journal gives a rejection without providing comments. It seems clear that it is not a desk rejection, as the papers were under review for several months, so it seems that the referees would have written down their thoughts on the paper. But the following justification is given for not providing comments: “We cannot provide comments on all rejected papers. We focus rather on arriving at a well-informed judgment without undue delay.” What is going on here? Are the editors simply refusing to provide comments because it takes up unnecessary time? Did the referees not write comments up at all? If there are no comments, on what basis is the rejection being made?

I know that the journals in question *do* occasionally given comments for rejected papers, so it is not as if they do not have the infrastructure or mechanism to provide them. I am wondering then why comments are provided on some rejected papers but not others. It is hard to see how simply *passing on* the comments for all rejected (but not desk-rejected) papers would make the process take longer or cause an undue burden in any material sense, but if I am missing something here, I would genuinely be curious to know. After all, having the comments can be extremely helpful. Any thoughts on what’s going here would be greatly appreciated.

This is a really great query - one that I have wondered about myself for quite a long time. I suppose it makes sense not to forward comments for quick desk-rejections. What does seem more puzzling is when a paper has been under review for a number of months (2-3+ months) but no comments at all are forwarded to the author. Assuming the papers did go out to referees, there seem to be only two possibilities: either the referees gave no comments, or the editors did not forward the comments to the author. However, both of these possibilities seem puzzling: if referees gave no comments, then there would seem to be no justification provided for a making a particular editorial decision--and if the referees did give comments, it seems strange not to let authors know what those reasons are. Finally, one further possibility is that the paper never went out to referees, but instead took 2-3+ months to desk-reject. But that seems strange too, to say the least--as it is hard to see why it should take so long to desk-reject a paper.

So I share EL.DEE.ESS's puzzlement. Anyone have any insight to share about what's going on in cases like this?

Prospective-student visits and PhD advisors

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

I'm a current MA student about to visit PhD programs, and I've realized that I have no idea what to say in meetings with potential faculty advisors. I've thought about trying to read some of their work beforehand, but I'm not sure how discussing that would help me (other than perhaps getting a handle on their methodological approach). I'm concerned about quality of advisement and so on, but I don't want to ask questions that might come off as indelicate or rude. Some guidance would be much appreciated!

Great query. In my experience, a student's eventual choice of PhD supervisor is absolutely vital. Some supervisors are effective, churning our successful PhDs and job-candidates left and right. Other supervisors, on the other hand, are truly awful--routinely having students who either never graduate or fail to be competitive on the job-market due to poor mentoring.

Negotiating tips, especially w/unionized schools

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

I would love some advice (and maybe even some sample language!) about how to negotiate effectively. Some background info: I'm a junior woman, and the institution that made me the (as yet unofficial) offer is unionized, which might affect how much room there is to move when it comes to salary. Thanks in advance!

The best negotiating advice I am aware of is by Karen Kelsky at the Professor Is In (see here and here). I won't belabor repeating all of her advice here, but let me discuss two things I think are probably vital to know.

First, I want to emphasize something vital that Kelsky emphasizes: your negotiating strategy needs to be in touch with the kind of job you have been offered. In brief, my experience is that although a lot of things are negotiable for R1 jobs, not much is for jobs at teaching oriented schools (e.g. liberal arts universities and community colleges). For example, asking for a reduction in teaching load or deferring your job for a year are totally fine at a research school. However, these are not things to try to negotiate with a job at a teaching-oriented school (e.g. a liberal arts university or community college). For one notorious horror story, see here. My sense is that at teaching schools, course-load reductions may never be given (or only given to department chairs), and there may never be pre-tenure sabbaticals nor (to my knowledge) job deferments. Indeed, my sense is that for jobs at teaching schools, the only thing one may be able to negotiate may be a modest salary increase. Candidates should be aware of these differences. Personally, when it comes to jobs at teaching schools, the safest thing to do is to probably just ask for a bit more salary, and the next-safest thing to do is to ask the chair of the search committee the open-ended question (after receiving the offer), "What, if anything, do you think is safe to ask for in negotiating?" My sense is that there is probably little harm in asking a question this broad, and that most people sincerely interested in hiring you will give an honest answer.

Second, there is the other issue Anon asked about: negotiating with unionized schools. Although I am no expert on unionization, to the best of my knowledge once a university is unionized US Federal Law prohibits one-on-one negotiations--as unionization is a legal status, entitling both sides (the university and its unionized employees) to collective bargaining. If I am wrong about this, please do let me know--but this is my understanding. 

Anyway, these are only my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you with experience negotiating (either as job-candidates on the hiring side of things)?

Addressing flight-risk in cover letters?

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

I have a question about tailoring cover letters. I'd like to convey in my cover letter that I'm not a flight risk but I'm unsure of the best way (or anyway besides outright saying this) to do that. Any advice?

This is a great question, and I am curious to hear from people who have served on searches about what they think. But here are a few quick thoughts of my own...

Using older teaching letters?

Two readers wrote in this week about using "old" teaching letters on the market. One reader writes:

I've noticed that a lot of schools lately require a rec letter that addresses teaching. What do people do about these? I've been in the same job long enough that the people who've seen me teach recently are all colleagues who don't know I'm on the market, and I need to keep it that way. The only teaching rec I can get, then, would be [many] years out of date. I'm sure that's not an unusual problem.

And Anon wrote in our "how can we help you?" thread:

Normally I just use one teaching letter, from someone who saw me teach at my current job. I've come across something that asks for more than one teaching letter.

I do have another teaching letter handy that describes my teaching from the last job (it's on Interfolio). The thing is, it's "out of date" - but does that matter in a case like this?

I get that my research letters change from year to year, but this is just a letter describing what I was up to in the classroom at a particular time and place. So is it okay to use an old one or does it look weird?

I'm curious to hear what other readers think--but I'm inclined to think it's just fine. A search committee member might notice that the letter is a few years old, but for all that I think they are likely to be more interested in what the letter says than anything else. I think it probably is a good idea to get a newer letter if you can--but if you're in our first reader's position and that's not really an option, I'm inclined to think it's not a very big deal.

But I'm just one person, and may be idiosyncratic. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?