The Philosophers' Cocoon

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.

Do awards matter on the market?

A reader writes in:

How important are "awards" sections on a CV?  Do hiring departments put much weight on them? I only ask because I routinely see faculty CV-s include them, but for the couple that I have, I have to say I'm not impressed with them knowing what getting them required. They largely involved me engaging in a lot of schmoozy self-promotion and essentially out-self-promoting others who were nominated for the same award. Is this really a CV section an early career philosopher should be worried about lengthening?

I'm curious to hear what readers think. On the one hand, I'm inclined to think that a teaching or service award is likely to be a real boon to a candidate when applying for jobs at teaching institutions. Having served on several search committees, my experience has been that there are so many well-qualified candidates, and the differences between them often so small, that distinctions like awards can probably make a real difference. But what about at research schools? Here, I suppose that a book award or article in the Philosophers' Annual might make a difference. But I'm not sure. I'm also not all sure that most awards are gotten through schmoozing. I received a teaching award at my university in 2017, and it came as a complete surprise to me--and another member of my department received the same award a few years later, and she didn't schmooze for it either.

In any case, what do you all think? Do awards matter on the market? If so, is there anything that grad students or job-marketeers should do in terms of pursuing them? 

Publishing advice for grad students?

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

My department discourages students from professionalizing too early--but they are vague on when professionalization should start ramping up. They actively discourage us from publishing (and they encourage us to get the dissertation finished first). (I think they're trying to counter people who get distracted by publishing and then let the dissertation collect dust.) So, is this normal? What IS the best publishing advice for a graduate student, when should we start publishing?

'Current grad & incoming prof' then responded:

Particularly if research is your goal, you should start publishing as soon as possible. Once you have a couple chapters, the dissertation can be hastily wrapped up at any point you get a job; but publications are what help you to get the job in the first place. Jason Brennan gives the good advice of always having 3 things under review (which I haven't ever been able to maintain, but may be a good motivator). The dissertation should always be thought of in terms of material for potential future publications, never as an obstacle to publication. Or at least this is how I went about things and what helped me.

The original reader then responded:

This is one of those things that becomes SO OBVIOUS once somebody points it out, thank you! It's going in my "tips and tricks" file :) It fits with thinking of research projects along a pipeline: try to move different projects along so that there's always three at the review point in the research pipeline.

Although I think Brennan's advice here is fairly good, I also think there are other nuances to be aware of here. Let me explain.

Humanities for All - Project Director Position

Shay Logan (Kansas State) wrote in to draw my attention to this Project Director position with the National Humanities Alliance in Washington, DC. I think it would be great if a philosopher were to get the post! Here's a brief description of the position:

The National Humanities Alliance (NHA) is a nationwide coalition of organizations advocating for the humanities on campuses, in communities, and on Capitol Hill. Founded in 1981, NHA is supported by over 200 member organizations, including: colleges, universities, libraries, museums, cultural organizations, state humanities councils, and scholarly, professional, and higher education associations. It is the only organization that brings together the U.S. humanities community as a whole.

What we do:

• Cultivate support for federal funding for the humanities. 
• Promote the public value of the humanities.
• Promote the value of studying the humanities.
• Convene the humanities community to explore best practices for advocating for the humanities on campus, in communities, and on Capitol Hill.

As a part of its ongoing work to promote the public value of the humanities, NHA seeks a project director to work on the Humanities for All initiative. Humanities for All documents and promotes publicly engaged humanities work in U.S. higher education, including research, teaching, preservation, and programming conducted with and for diverse public partners. It is a resource for scholars carrying out their own publicly engaged work, educators teaching on the public humanities, and scholarly societies and funders looking to support public engagement efforts in the humanities

The project director will have the opportunity to develop expertise in the state of the field of publicly engaged humanities work and gain experience in project management and advocacy. This expertise and experience will provide a foundation for subsequent work in both academic and non-academic settings.

Interested readers can apply at the website linked to above!

Tips for moving academic jobs?

A reader writes in:

What advice is there for someone who already has an academic job but would like to get another one in a particular geographic region?  Is it better just to beef up one's qualifications on paper? Or is it more important to start networking with the departments in the desired region? Or are there other things that are more important? How does one increase their chances of getting that second job? Would attempting to publish in two separate AOS-es be a good idea? Or maybe a better question is, of those philosophers who had a permanent job (TT or whatever) but left it for a second permanent job, what were the mechanisms that got the majority of them that second job? (I'm nervous here the answer might be something like "they were invited and didn't even have to apply".)

Great questions! Does anyone in the know have any insights they are willing to share?

How Can I Be a Philosopher in a Non-Academic Career? (APA Blog Interview)

The Blog of the APA has a great interview up today with Gina Helfrich, who received her PhD at Emory and "is now program officer for global technology at Internews, an international nonprofit dedicated to empowering local media worldwide." A couple of choice passages:

Q: Tell me about the twists and turns.

....

There were a lot of unexpected moments. Sometimes, it seemed as if a perfect job fell from the sky with the job description written just for me. Other times, I had to work very hard to find a position.

My first full-time job, as assistant director of the Harvard College Women’s Center, fell from the sky. I saw it come across a mailing list I was on as a result of my graduate fellowship working in the Center for Women at Emory University, and it was a great fit with my scholarly focus in women’s and gender studies.

After a promotion to director and four years at the women’s center, I felt restless. So I read books like What Color Is Your Parachute? I did informational interviews. And eventually, I networked myself into a tech job at a startup—but I got laid off after a year, and I then was stuck with this bizarre resume.

So I did what you do: I put myself out there, chased a lot of opportunities that didn’t pan out, and eventually landed a communications position with NumFOCUS, a nonprofit that supports open-source scientific research. Around the same time, I cofounded a staffing and consulting business to support better diversity and inclusion in technology. We started getting a lot of attention, and even got some venture capital, so at a certain point I was basically forced to leave my full-time/regular job. But the business didn’t work out, and after seven months of “funemployment,” I found my way back to NumFOCUS for few more years.

Then, something else fell from the sky. When I heard about my current position, I thought it was perfect—the candidate needed to understand open source software communities and be conversant in issues of diversity and inclusion. I submitted my resume and cover letter, and got the job.

Honestly, even that summary of my career feels a little too neat; it was very messy and unexpected. So that’s the non-academic path—terrifying, but beautiful!

.....

Q: What can philosophy faculty do to help their students pursue non-academic careers?

The most important thing is to be supportive. Graduate school can really undermine one’s self-confidence. But you need self-confidence to get a job—and faculty support helps.

Another thing faculty can do is get familiar with some basic resources to help graduate students find careers—things like the book Designing Your Life by Stanford University professors Bill Burnett and David Evans.

Faculty have to reckon with the fact that PhD students fund their lifestyles, but there are not enough academic jobs for every PhD student. So faculty really owe it to PhDs to support them in the search for all types of work. Our community should also do more to encourage and support hybrid careers for PhDs—you work in tech, for example, but also teach a course or write philosophical articles.

Job-Market Mentoring Program: Signups Open!

Helen De Cruz (St. Louis University) and I are happy to announce that signups are now open for this year's iteration of the Cocoon's Job-Market Mentoring Program. Job-candidates in need and potential mentors are both encouraged to sign up here. As a reminder, because of the COVID pandemic's expected effects on the academic job-market, this season our program will allow mentees to request non-academic industry mentors. Although volunteers who sign up as academic job-market mentors need to be tenure-stream faculty, we also encourage anyone in non-academic industry who is willing to mentor academic philosophers to sign up as potential mentors as well.

In any case, for those of you new to the program, here are the details:

Program Description:

This program, associated with The Philosophers’ Cocoon, aims to provide job-market mentoring to all those in need (regardless of background). The aim of this mentoring project is just what it sounds like: a scheme to enable job candidates in philosophy who face special challenges, including members of historically-marginalized groups as well as those with little access to mentoring (e.g., because their department or advisor does not offer this), to receive advice and support from more experienced members of the profession.

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?

Be my colleague! (VAP in feminist philosophy)

The Department of Philosophy & Religion within the College of Arts and Letters at The University of Tampa invites applications for a one year, full-time, non-tenure-track position as Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy beginning in August 2020. Apply here. 

The University of Tampa is a medium-sized, comprehensive, residentially-based private institution of 9,200 undergraduate and graduate students.  The University is ideally situated on a beautiful 110-acre campus next to the Hillsborough River, adjacent to Tampa's dynamic central business district, which is a growing, vibrant, diverse metropolitan area. UT reflects this vibrancy; with 20 consecutive years of enrollment growth UT boasts 229 student organizations, a multicultural student body from 50 states and 140 countries, and "Top Tier" ranking in U.S. News and World Report.

The area of specialization (AOS) is FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY.

The area of concentration (AOC) is OPEN.

The successful candidate must be able to teach an undergraduate Modern Philosophy course (i.e., 17th and 18th century European philosophy from Descartes through Kant with a focus on epistemology and metaphysics), an upper-division undergraduate course in Social Epistemology, and other lower and upper-division courses in the AOS.

Teaching load is 3 courses (12 credit hours) per semester.

Ph.D. in Philosophy must be in hand no later than August 30th, 2020. Teaching experience is preferred.

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.

40 ACLS Emerging Voices Fellowships

This is just a quick note that the American Council of Learned Societies has advertised 40 Emerging Voices Fellowships, :

At a time of economic downturn and uncertainty in academe, this program seeks to identify and assist a vanguard of scholars whose voices, perspectives, and broad visions will strengthen institutions of higher education and humanistic disciplines in the years to come.

The Emerging Voices Fellowship will allow recent PhDs in the humanities and related social sciences to take up one-year positions at select institutions in ACLS’s Research University Consortium beginning in August/September 2020. The program will provide a $60,000 stipend plus benefits, as well as $5,000 in research/ professional development funding, childcare or elder care costs, and access to ACLS professional development resources. Up to 40 fellowships will be available for a fall semester 2020 start date. We anticipate running a second competition this coming academic year for placements that will begin in fall 2021.

Looks like a great opportunity for philosophers in need of gainful academic employment in these tough times. Many thanks to Jake Wojtowicz for the pointer! H/t Krista Goff

Brennan on two types of grad students

In a recent Inside Higher Ed interview on his new book, Good Work If You Can Get It: How to Succeed in Academia, Jason Brennan states:

Anecdotally, there seem to be two types of grad students. Some treat their Ph.D. as an extension of college. They want graduate school to be a time to stew and develop. Others treat it more like an M.B.A. -- or, to use another metaphor, they act like athletes training for the Olympics. The latter think strategically. They try to ascertain what their CVs must look like when they go on the market to have the best chance of getting a job. They engage in backward induction, trying to determine what they need to do year by year to make their CVs look the right way when they enter the market. These students appear to be the most successful in terms of getting a job. For that reason, I suspect they are in the long run less stressed and happier, though admittedly I don’t know of survey evidence verifying that.

As I make clear in the book, I am not endorsing the way academia is. Indeed, I wrote an entire other book (Cracks in the Ivory Tower) on the bad business ethics practices of higher ed. But the current book is about succeeding in academia as it is, rather than how it should be...

I'm curious about Brennan's anecdotal claims here. First, do grad students who approach things strategically tend to fare better on the job-market and in their careers than grad students who treat graduate school as "a time to stew and develop"? Second, are the former "less stressed and happier" in the long run? Let me explain why I ask, and then ask readers to weigh in.

Tenure standards at state schools?

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

I have a question about the tenure standards at state schools that focus on undergraduate teaching. It seems clear that research schools really emphasize publications and SLACs emphasize teaching (with ok publications). What about those state schools that only have undergraduate programs? The jobs at these schools require people to focus on teaching, and the workload is similar to (or heavier than) the SLACs. However, some of these schools are research universities. Is teaching still the main focus when one is considered for promotion at those schools?

Good questions. My sense is that it may vary quite a bit, as I've seen philosophy departments at some state schools whose faculty regularly publish in top-ranked journals (suggestive of high tenure standards), whereas I've seen departments at other state schools where the faculty seem to publish very little. But this sense is based on little more that visiting department webpages when I was a job-candidate. Any faculty at state schools with undergrad-only philosophy programs willing to chime in with some insight?

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?

Becoming a more competitive candidate while TT

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

I'd be grateful to hear thoughts from you and others on what new assistant professors should do in their ~five years on the tenure clock to make themselves as competitive as possible for other positions at the widest range of institutions when going up for review at their home institution.

This is an interesting query because, as we've discussed many times before, there isn't just one academic job-market; there are multiple ones--roughly, the elite R1 market, R1 market more generally, R2 market, elite SLAC market, non-elite SLAC market, community college market, and so on. Bearing this in mind, I'm not entirely sure there is a way to make oneself "as competitive as possible for other positions at the widest range of institutions." Maybe having an excellent record across the board--in publishing, teaching, and service--will make you competitive across a wide array of institutions. But I'm not sure. When it comes to elite R1's, my understanding is that you basically have to be a 'star' to be competitive. At R1's more generally, I expect you just need to have a stellar publishing record. At elite SLACs, I suspect you probably have to have a stellar publishing record and a good record as a teacher. But non-elite SLACs, state schools, and community colleges? It's unclear to me how much a good publishing record matters.

Anyway, I guess my answer to the OP is: I don't really know! I suspect that, in general, it's important to stand out in some way: to have some kind of record of extraordinary achievement during your time on the tenure stream (in research for elite places, teaching and/or service for non-elite SLACs), etc. I also expect that having a strong record across the board is likely to make you an attractive candidate at many places. But, beyond these speculations, I have to confess that I don't have much of a feel for things here.

What do you all think, particularly those of you who have moved institutions successfully after tenure-review or who hired someone at that stage?

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?

Dossier tips for the COVID-era job-market?

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

How should job-market candidates next year deal with the effects of COVID-19 in their documents?

For example, I suspect teaching evaluations for this term will be all over the place: some will have remarkably good evals, I bet; but many will have terrible ones (the transition might have gone poorly, communication expectations weren't met, etc.) Should instructors issue some sort of caveat? (I mean, obviously everyone will know that COVID happened; but is it worth making this explicit?) Or should we omit these evals altogether?

A related issue concerns syllabi: I would typically put my syllabus in my dossier among the others for courses I've taught. But now I have this weird, ad-hoc syllabus-within-a-syllabus that attends to all the issues that have arisen from COVID-19, including adjusted expectations, new assignments, etc. I think this showcases important skills and highlights innovative approaches to teaching, etc. etc. But I am curious as to its relevance (in the eyes of search committees) going forward.

Any thoughts on these and other issues would be useful. (And yes, I'm aware the market will be a ghost town next year. But many of us are surely going to prepare for it all the same, so we might as well start thinking about some of these things now.)

Good questions, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. Here are a few of my own reactions.

Tips for transitioning into tech industries?

A reader writes in:

As an academic philosopher considering leaving the field, I've found your recent alt-ac posts, and the resources posted, very valuable. One possible trajectory I would be interested in learning more about, if this is possible, is the tech trajectory. In other words, suppose one has a doctoral degree in philosophy, but now, all the terrible things about the present considered, one wants to do something quantitative in the tech or adjacent industries. What does that path look like? How does one start to build credentials or the equivalent?

Great question! It's interesting to see that quite a lot of people in my new Philosophers in Industry directory are in tech. I think it would be great to have a guest-post or two on this from people who transitioned into tech fields. Any readers out there interested in contributing a guest post? If so, please just email me at marvan@ut.edu. In the meantime, I encourage any readers with experience in tech to post any tips they have in the comment section below!

My Path into Project Management (Guest post by Katharine Schweitzer)

The following is a guest-post by Katharine Schweitzer, a former academic philosopher who recently transitioned to a non-academic career in project management, and who also kindly volunteered to be listed in my new Philosophers in Industry directory. Katherine's post seems to me a profoundly helpful step-by-step guide detailing the general kind of process that an effective transition from academia to non-academic industry can involve. I am very grateful to her for putting it together and encouraging me to share it here!:

By Katharine Schweitzer 

Many job descriptions include “project management” as a responsibility. Project management is also a profession. Learning about how to manage projects is useful in many domains of life.

The Project Management Institute defines a project as “a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.” A project has a beginning and an end, is carried out for a purpose, and is comprised of a series of related activities. As a graduate student or a university professor, you have probably managed many projects, such as:

1. 1. Applying for a grant or fellowship
   2. Creating the curriculum for a class and teaching it
   3. Designing and carrying out a piece of independent research
   4. Supervising a student’s independent research project, such as an honors thesis or independent study
   5. Establishing and running a research lab
   6. Organizing a conference or a conference session
   7. Creating and publishing a website for a professional organization
   8. Chairing a search committee to hire a colleague
   9. Chairing a committee to create a component of your university’s core curriculum

Many of my friends and family are engineers, and project manager has become an option in the professional advancement of engineers after they prove that they are competent individual contributors. I learned about the profession of project management from my engineer friends. When they told me about their job responsibilities, I thought, “I would be great at that!” Managing projects involves being attentive to details, communicating clearly and concisely with people at all levels of the organization, and gauging the interpersonal dynamics of the team members who are carrying out the project work.

In summer 2018, I had no technical qualifications in engineering or IT, but I had plenty of project experience after five years of being a philosophy professor at the University of Nevada, Reno. For three years, I considered leaving academia. In June 2018, I communicated to my department chair that I intended to resign my position as a tenure-track professor, effective June 2019. In my final year as a professor, I created and executed a plan to start a non-academic job in project management in July 2019. Here’s how I did it. I hope that sharing my story will help others if they are considering a similar career pivot.

Backup career paths in the COVID era?

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

It would be useful to talk more about the back-up career paths for mint philosophy PhDs. And how to switch to them. This is more necessary than ever since Covid19 will disrupt the already competitive academic job market. If people like me had some hope before the pandemic, now university cuts on jobs and post-docs lead us to face reality: fresh PhDs have passed from having little chances to zero chances — not only in Humanities. So, many would be grateful if even more space could be given to non-academic careers in either the US and Europe. At least, I see also the positive side-effect: the situation will push to think more about the prospectives philosophers have outside academia. Thank you in advance!

This is a really important query, for obvious reasons--as the academic job-market is almost certainly going to be a disaster this year (even more so than normal, sadly). Anyway, here are a few resources to begin with:

• The APA's Beyond Academia Network: mailing list for philosophers searching for non-academic opportunities.
• Phil Skills: a website of interviews with philosophers in non-academic careers.
• Helen's series of interviews with philosophers outside of the academy at The Philosophers' Magazine.
• Our own Alt-Ac Workshop and Alt-Ac Jobs series featuring tips and guest-posts.
• Free range philosophers: more interviews with philosophers with non-academic careers.
• A helpful 'Plan B' article with practical tips at Chronicle of Higher Education.
• Beyond the Professoriate: a website and membership service featuring free (?) career events as well as (paid?) job-search courses, coaching, and other resources (I just discovered this and have no idea whether it's any good).

Finally, because I was curious, yesterday I did simple Google searches for "philosophers in industry", "philosophers outside of academia", and "philosophers non-academic careers. Because (1) to my astonishment I wasn't able to find anything like a list or directory in 15 seconds (let alone after a little more digging), (2) as we've discussed before networking is how the vast majority of jobs are found and filled, and (3) ex-academic philosophers are probably the best people to appreciate the talents and job situation of philosophers, I just decided to create a Philosophers in Industry Directory of my own. As of now, I am taking suggestions for additions, updates, and deletions by email: marvan@ut.edu. I hope some of you find it helpful, especially those of you who need a job or will need one soon (e.g. post-graduation).

Basically, I just did a little bit of digging and decided to list people alphabetically by last name, linking to their professional pages and listing their line of work. Although I imagine an individual listed here or there might email me asking to have their name removed or whatever, given that all I've done is list publicly available information on LinkedIn, an informal directory like this seems to clearly fine to put together--especially given that it might drive viewers and talented new employees to their company. Who knows? Among other things, I think it's kinda cool to see in one place all of the interesting and diverse things ex-academic philosophers have gone on to do in their careers. And if the directory turns out to be more trouble than it's worth, then I can always take it down. Until then, enjoy - and feel free to suggest additions, etc.!

In any case, do any of you have any helpful tips or resources for the original commenter?

Where the jobs were in 2019-20

I know that COVID-19 has upended everything, including the academic job market. However, every few years I've gone though PhilJobs and tallied up job-market ads to see what the year's academic job market has been like, and I was curious what this year's market was like so I've gone and done another tally. I realize that PhilJobs isn't a complete sample, as a good number of jobs may only be advertised elsewhere, such as at HigherEdJobs. However, collecting and collating this kind of data is really hard work and PhilJobs is the easiest to work with (by far)--so that is the sample I use each year.

Anyway, this year I did a PhilJobs search for ads posted between August 1st, 2019 and yesterday, April 21st. Given that very few ads are still coming out, this search seems to me to give a pretty good picture of what this year's market looked like--at least before any hires were cancelled due to COVID-19. Because it's not always clear which searches have been cancelled, I have not taken that into account, and anyway I think it's more interesting to learn which kinds of jobs were advertised, even if they did not complete the hires.

A few quick notes. The methodology I've always used in this series works as follows. When I encounter jobs with two AOS;s (e.g. metaphysics, moral philosophy), I counted each job as '.5' jobs in that area (or in the case of 3 AOS, '.33' jobs, etc.). Although I recognize this is a bit odd, it seems to me to make sense, as a job like that could go to someone in any of the listed AOSs, not just one particular AOS. Because I did this with all jobs, the numbers seem to me to accurately weight whether a job is in a particular AOS simpliciter, or whether it was also available to candidates in other AOS. Second, I only counted "junior-level" jobs (i.e. postdocs, lecturer, and Assistant Professor positions), not Associate or Professor level jobs. Third, I only counted academic jobs (leaving the very few non-academic jobs advertised on PhilJobs to the side). Finally, while I tried to get the numbers right, this is just a "quick and dirty" tally, not a formal study. While I don't think there are any major errors, I wouldn't be surprised if made a minor mistake or two. Here is the spreadsheet I put together, if anyone is interested in double-checking things. I'm happy to make any corrections.

In any case, here are a few highlights (readers can dive into the spreadsheet if they want to look at the distribution of jobs within particular AOS's):

TOTAL (junior-level) faculty jobs advertised = 468

• Value theory (ethics, social, political, law) = 153 jobs (32.7%)
• Open AOS: 133.6 jobs (28.5%)
• Science (including cog. sci) = 50 jobs (10.7%)
• Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 44.7 jobs (9.55%)
• History = 43.3 jobs (9.25%)
• Social identity (race, gender, feminism, disability) = 18.5 jobs (4%)
• Non-western: 12.1 jobs (2.6%)
• Continental = 8 jobs (1.7%)
• Religion = 5 jobs (1%)
• Aesthetics = .5 jobs (0.1%)

Junior-level TT jobs advertised = 224

• Value Theory = 76.8 jobs (34.3%)
• Open: 46 jobs (20.5%)
• History: 27.5 jobs (12.3%)
• Science (including cog. sci) = 24.5 jobs (10.9%)
• Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 18.5 jobs (8.3%)
• Social identity (race, gender, feminism, disability, etc.) = 11.7 jobs (5.2%)
• Non-western: 11.6 jobs (5.2%)
• Continental: 7.75 jobs (3.5%)
• Religion: 1.25 jobs (0.6%)

Junior-level Non-TT jobs advertised = 244

• Open = 87.6 jobs (35.9%)
• Value theory = 76.2 jobs (31.2%)
• Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) =26.2 jobs (10.7%)
• Science  (including cog. sci) = 25.2 jobs (10.3%)
• History = 15.8 jobs (6.5%%)
• Social identity = 7.25 jobs (3%)
• Religion = 5 jobs (2%)
• Aesthetics = .5 jobs (0.2%)
• Non-Western philosophy = .5 jobs (0.2%)
• Continental = 0 jobs (0%)

To my eyes, these numbers look pretty similar to recent job seasons. First, the largest proportion of jobs continue to be Open AOS and Value Theory. It is particularly striking to me that each year I have data for this, over 1-in-3 jobs (both TT and non-TT) have been in value theory areas. This also appears to have been a banner year for biomedical ethics specifically, at least at the postdoc level (14.8 non-TT jobs and 5.6 TT jobs). There was also a noticable uptick in jobs having to do with A.I. and technology ethics. More generally, though, there was a pretty even distribution across applied ethics (29 TT jobs), ethics/ethical theory (25 TT jobs), and social-political-legal/PPE areas (21.4 TT jobs). One area notably lacking in advertisements this year, however, was metaethics (0.5 TT jobs by my tally). However, it is entirely possible that some jobs listed as 'Ethics' could go to metaethicists. 

Second, 'Core' areas of analytic philosophy are still only 8-10% of jobs advertised, similar to 2017--though it may be that M&E types fare well when applying for 'Open' positions (which there were a lot of this year). It is particularly striking to me that given how many M&E grad students and job-marketeers there presumably are, I have only 5.8 TT jobs listed for Metaphysics and 4.9 for epistemology. Finally, for what it is worth, it also appeared to me that most (though not all) of the job advertisements in epistemology this year were in in social epistemology specifically. 

Third, this appears to have been another fairly good year for jobs in Social Identity related areas (race, gender, ethnicity, disability, etc.). In 2017, I tallied 19.3 jobs in these areas (6.5 jobs in feminist philosophy and 12.8 jobs in philosophy of race). This year, there were 18.5 jobs (10.7 in philosophy of race, 5.2 jobs in feminism and gender studies, 2.5 open jobs, and 0.5 jobs in philosophy of disability). This also seems to have been a pretty good year for 'non-Western philosophy' (broadly construed), at least at the TT level (11.6 jobs), including several jobs in indigenous philosophy.

Finally, Philosophy of Science and History of Philosophy have held steady at around 10-12% of jobs apiece, with Philosophy of Science inching up a few percentage points compared to previous years. Given that philosophy of science and history of philosophy plausibly graduate fewer PhDs than some other areas, these numbers seem pretty strong to me. Cognitive science and A.I. areas also seemed to have a very good year (8 TT jobs and 10 nonTT jobs).

I know that COVID-19 has upended everything, including the academic job market. However, every few years I've gone though PhilJobs and tallied up job-market ads to see what the year's academic job market has been like, and I was curious what this year's market was like so I've gone and done another tally. I realize that PhilJobs isn't a complete sample, as a good number of jobs may only be advertised elsewhere, such as at HigherEdJobs. However, collecting and collating this kind of data is really hard work and PhilJobs is the easiest to work with (by far)--so that is the sample I use each year.

Anyway, this year I did a PhilJobs search for ads posted between August 1st, 2019 and yesterday, April 21st. Given that very few ads are still coming out, this search seems to me to give a pretty good picture of what this year's market looked like--at least before any hires were cancelled due to COVID-19. Because it's not always clear which searches have been cancelled, I have not taken that into account, and anyway I think it's more interesting to learn which kinds of jobs were advertised, even if they did not complete the hires.

A few quick notes. The methodology I've always used in this series works as follows. When I encounter jobs with two AOS;s (e.g. metaphysics, moral philosophy), I counted each job as '.5' jobs in that area (or in the case of 3 AOS, '.33' jobs, etc.). Although I recognize this is a bit odd, it seems to me to make sense, as a job like that could go to someone in any of the listed AOSs, not just one particular AOS. Because I did this with all jobs, the numbers seem to me to accurately weight whether a job is in a particular AOS simpliciter, or whether it was also available to candidates in other AOS. Second, I only counted "junior-level" jobs (i.e. postdocs, lecturer, and Assistant Professor positions), not Associate or Professor level jobs. Third, I only counted academic jobs (leaving the very few non-academic jobs advertised on PhilJobs to the side). Finally, while I tried to get the numbers right, this is just a "quick and dirty" tally, not a formal study. While I don't think there are any major errors, I wouldn't be surprised if made a minor mistake or two. Here is the spreadsheet I put together, if anyone is interested in double-checking things. I'm happy to make any corrections.

In any case, here are a few highlights (readers can dive into the spreadsheet if they want to look at the distribution of jobs within particular AOS's):

TOTAL (junior-level) faculty jobs advertised = 468

• Value theory (ethics, social, political, law) = 153 jobs (32.7%)
• Open AOS: 133.6 jobs (28.5%)
• Science (including cog. sci) = 50 jobs (10.7%)
• Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 44.7 jobs (9.55%)
• History = 43.3 jobs (9.25%)
• Social identity (race, gender, feminism, disability) = 18.5 jobs (4%)
• Non-western: 12.1 jobs (2.6%)
• Continental = 8 jobs (1.7%)
• Religion = 5 jobs (1%)
• Aesthetics = .5 jobs (0.1%)

Junior-level TT jobs advertised = 224

• Value Theory = 76.8 jobs (34.3%)
• Open: 46 jobs (20.5%)
• History: 27.5 jobs (12.3%)
• Science (including cog. sci) = 24.5 jobs (10.9%)
• Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 18.5 jobs (8.3%)
• Social identity (race, gender, feminism, disability, etc.) = 11.7 jobs (5.2%)
• Non-western: 11.6 jobs (5.2%)
• Continental: 7.75 jobs (3.5%)
• Religion: 1.25 jobs (0.6%)

Junior-level Non-TT jobs advertised = 244

• Open = 87.6 jobs (35.9%)
• Value theory = 76.2 jobs (31.2%)
• Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) =26.2 jobs (10.7%)
• Science  (including cog. sci) = 25.2 jobs (10.3%)
• History = 15.8 jobs (6.5%%)
• Social identity = 7.25 jobs (3%)
• Religion = 5 jobs (2%)
• Aesthetics = .5 jobs (0.2%)
• Non-Western philosophy = .5 jobs (0.2%)
• Continental = 0 jobs (0%)

To my eyes, these numbers look pretty similar to recent job seasons. First, the largest proportion of jobs continue to be Open AOS and Value Theory. It is particularly striking to me that each year I have data for this, over 1-in-3 jobs (both TT and non-TT) have been in value theory areas. This also appears to have been a banner year for biomedical ethics specifically, at least at the postdoc level (14.8 non-TT jobs and 5.6 TT jobs). There was also a noticable uptick in jobs having to do with A.I. and technology ethics. More generally, though, there was a pretty even distribution across applied ethics (29 TT jobs), ethics/ethical theory (25 TT jobs), and social-political-legal/PPE areas (21.4 TT jobs). One area notably lacking in advertisements this year, however, was metaethics (0.5 TT jobs by my tally). However, it is entirely possible that some jobs listed as 'Ethics' could go to metaethicists. 

Second, 'Core' areas of analytic philosophy are still only 8-10% of jobs advertised, similar to 2017--though it may be that M&E types fare well when applying for 'Open' positions (which there were a lot of this year). It is particularly striking to me that given how many M&E grad students and job-marketeers there presumably are, I have only 5.8 TT jobs listed for Metaphysics and 4.9 for epistemology. Finally, for what it is worth, it also appeared to me that most (though not all) of the job advertisements in epistemology this year were in in social epistemology specifically. 

Third, this appears to have been another fairly good year for jobs in Social Identity related areas (race, gender, ethnicity, disability, etc.). In 2017, I tallied 19.3 jobs in these areas (6.5 jobs in feminist philosophy and 12.8 jobs in philosophy of race). This year, there were 18.5 jobs (10.7 in philosophy of race, 5.2 jobs in feminism and gender studies, 2.5 open jobs, and 0.5 jobs in philosophy of disability). This also seems to have been a pretty good year for 'non-Western philosophy' (broadly construed), at least at the TT level (11.6 jobs), including several jobs in indigenous philosophy.

Finally, Philosophy of Science and History of Philosophy have held steady at around 10-12% of jobs apiece, with Philosophy of Science inching up a few percentage points compared to previous years. Given that philosophy of science and history of philosophy plausibly graduate fewer PhDs than some other areas, these numbers seem pretty strong to me. Cognitive science and A.I. areas also seemed to have a very good year (8 TT jobs and 10 nonTT jobs).

Applying for postdoc grants

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

I’m curious about the kinds of post doc funding made available by grant agencies like the early career funding available through the Humboldt Foundation, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, Leverhulme Trust, and such. Would anybody be willing to provide guidance as to how one might go about obtaining such funding? I don’t mean just submitting the applications, which I take to be pretty straight forward (aside from the process of making one’s research appealing to the evaluators for such agencies). Some of these seem to grant postdoc funding for one’s individual projects at a host institution, where the host institution itself isn’t financially on the hook the person. How does one go about connecting with a desired host institution or faculty member at such a host institution? Is it all a matter of one’s antecedent connections? Is it ever acceptable to write a such a faculty member, in effect, saying “I’m interested in this project you’re working on, and it relates to my work like so. Would you be willing to sponsor my application to X?” Is there any other practical wisdom worth knowing about how to obtain such a postdoc? Perhaps this is obvious to job market candidates from Europe, but I'm a US grad, and this info seems harder to come by.

Euro responded:

I can say a bit about Marie Curie. They are very competitive, and more universities are spending money running workshops to help people write strong applications. You really need to have your research project connect tightly with a faculty member sponsor. So, clearly, it is best if you have already connected with the person, not only corresponding with them, but actually engaging with their research. I have sponsored two applicants (who did not get them ... which is not a surprise, given how competitive they are). But the evaluation reports explicitly talked about me, the sponsor, in the evaluation. (Incidentally, I was not the weak link). But they are not the sort of thing you just apply for. You need to have connected with your sponsor, and they need to support your project. As you note, universities love them because you essentially pay your own way. These sorts of grant schemes are common in Europe.

Euro then also added:

In most of northern-western Europe (Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Finland), the national funding bodies (and sometimes private foundations) support faculty research. One common form of support is to get money to support a project, which allows one to hire a post-doc or two (or more). The post-doc is tied to a very specific project, and is expected to work on it (though they can often spend some time on other research as well). These post docs are advertised like jobs (because they are jobs, and in many cases they pay well). But to be competitive you need to actually work on the topic of the post doc project. Here is where stretching things just does not work - I have seen applications that try. The most competitive candidates are already working on the topic, and have probably already read the supervisors work.

Any other readers with experience in these matters feel fit to weigh in? 

How do co-authored empirical papers look?

A reader writes in:

I have some opportunities to be a co-author on a couple of different empirical papers (both in political psychology).  I'm interested in doing them and probably will pursue them no matter what, but it got me wondering today how that might be perceived by university philosophy departments.  I'm pretty happy where I am (at a primarily teaching-focused institution), but for several reasons might have to consider moving in the future and would like to be able to get another academic job.  So, I am somewhat concerned.  Does a co-authored pub in an empirical field "count" for less in the philosophy profession?  Would a university view that research as "less" than a straightforward phil journal pub?  

I'm very curious to hear how readers answer. Here's my off-the-cuff reaction. I suspect co-authored empirical papers might be looked upon favorably by philosophy departments at teaching-focused liberal arts schools. At least, I'm pretty confident it would be at my university (which is now sort of an in-between school with an up-and-coming research profile). In brief, this is because at places like my university, interdisciplinary work is generally looked upon very favorably by everyone (faculty, administrators, etc.). Alas, judging by their query (they note they are already at a teaching-focused institution), it seems like this reader may be looking for a more research-y job. So, how philosophy departments at research institutions regard such work? Here, my totally vague and anecdotal impression is that interdisciplinary work and co-authored work may both tend to be looked upon less favorably. Why? Here, my sense is that there can be a real bias against things that "aren't real philosophy", and in favor of solo-authored work--and that such things very much are counted less than straightforward solo-authored philosophy publications.

But this is just my sense, and may not be accurate. It would be good to hear from a good variety of readers. What kind of department are you in, and how do you think the kind of work this reader describes would be regarded by your department, particularly when it comes to hiring?

APA Grad Student Council (GSC) statement

The APA released today a statement by its Graduate Student Council entitled, "Supporting grad students during COVID-19." I think it's a really good statement worth reading, disseminating, and acting upon to whatever extent possible.

What I learned from leaving academic philosophy (Guest post by Samuel Kampa)

By Samuel Kampa

By the end of April 2019, my academic career was over. My on-campus interview did not yield a TT job. For personal reasons, I made the wrenching decision to turn down a one-year postdoc offer. Every other opportunity ended in polite rejection, impolite rejection, or ghosting. With mixed feelings, I applied for non-academic jobs and eventually accepted a position at an education technology start-up called Yellowdig.

My story is not exactly a page turner. So why am I telling it? I'm encouraging you—no, urging you—to consider a similar "alternative" path, especially in light of the inevitable recession to come. A year ago, "TT or bust" was a common but ill-advised attitude toward the job market. That attitude should be unthinkable today. COVID-19 is an accelerant to a fire in academia that has been raging for at least a decade. When that fire is finally extinguished, the landscape of higher education will be unrecognizable at best and decimated at worst. Philosophy departments will stop hiring. Universities will receive less funding from states and lower yields from endowments. Enrollments will shrink at an even faster rate. Driven by the necessity to teach at scale, colleges will increasingly shift classes online. One by one, non-elite liberal arts colleges will shut their doors. And all but the most elite graduate students will feel the pain of the contraction. You might have thought staying in academia during a pandemic was the safest course of action. You'd be wrong.

If my story matters, it's only because it highlights lessons I learned too late. Like many of my grad student colleagues, I knew less about what it took to get non-academic jobs than I thought I did. My current position is a product of dumb luck, charitable interviewers, and just enough personal preparation. Be smarter than me; learn these lessons now. My intention is not to scare you, but to inspire concrete action. And if I'm "catastrophizing", it's because graduate education really is a catastrophe⁠—albeit a very white-collar, first-world catastrophe. How you respond to this catastrophe will determine the amount of needless pain you'll experience in the near future.

Moving from academia to a think tank (Guest post by Jason Schukraft)

I’m a senior research manager at a small, academically-unaffiliated think tank called Rethink Priorities. I’m paid to conduct original research, much of it philosophical in nature, that helps charities decide how to allocate their resources. It’s not a career I planned for, but it’s a great job, and my doctorate in philosophy turned out to be pretty good training. The demand for the sort of work I do seems to be increasing, and newly minted philosophy PhDs would be a good fit for many comparable positions. I’m writing about my experience so that others might pursue similar opportunities.

My Alt-Ac Journey

When I was accepted to PhD programs in philosophy in the spring of 2010, I naively believed that becoming a professor was more-or-less a given. Over the next several years, I was exposed to a variety of evidence to the contrary, but through a combination of confirmation bias and wilful ignorance, I convinced myself that the base rate of failure I observed on the academic job market didn’t apply to me. Since nobody in the department was talking much about alternatives to academia, I never really investigated my options, and I certainly did not tailor my research interests to appeal to the non-academic market. (My dissertation is in metaphilosophy.)

In my final year of grad school (2016-2017), I applied to 50 academic jobs and was rejected by all of them. At the time, my wife was pregnant with our second child. I could have applied to even more jobs, but I wasn’t willing to move my family across the country for a one-year VAP or adjunct position with uncertain prospects. (I’m not certain I would have received a VAP or adjunct position even if I had tried.) I was pretty despondent and totally unsure what to do with my life.

I assumed I would end up in a boring, entry-level, nine-to-five office job, probably in the tech industry. (There’s a lot of that around here.) I heard about Rethink Priorities through a newsletter I subscribed to. I didn’t think I was well-qualified for the position, but Rethink Priorities is a remote-only organization and thus offered flexible work hours. As the parent of two young children, that really appealed to me, enough so that I decided to write to one of the founders and inquire more. He encouraged me to apply, and I ended up being a good fit.

COVID-19, grad school, and the academic job market: a tentative proposal

Last week, Daily Nous ran a thread on next year's presumably extra-brutal academic job-market. Unfortunately, as Jonathan Kramnick points out here, COVID-19's effects on the academic job market will likely extend beyond next year ("for all practical purposes, the academic job market next year and perhaps the year after will be non-existent"). The fact that the job-market is likely to be especially brutal over the next few years raises many important questions. I want to focus on two:

1. What should PhD programs do to cushion the blow on their students?
2. What should search committees do to cushion the blog on job candidates?

I want to tentatively float for discussion a particular proposal in answer to both questions. I want to be clear that I am not wedded to the proposal. What I do want to do is get a conversation started, as I think we owe it as a profession to people who will be getting their PhDs during this very difficult time to do what we can to help.

Okay, then, here's the tentative proposal:

1. I'm inclined to think that PhD programs should immediately extend grad student funding for at least two years so that students don't have to go out on the market (or, if they do, they will have something to fall back on).
2. To help 'fund' (1), I'm inclined to think that PhD programs should consider not admitting new students, or at least admit far fewer new students than normal, for at least a couple of years.
3. I think it may make sense for search committees to adopt a policy for several years--to be explicitly stated in their job ads--that candidates who received PhD during 2020 or 2021 will 'receive special consideration' (if only to remind the search committee that any 'gaps' on a person's CV, or their inability to find full-time teaching work, may be due in large part to the extenuating circumstances generated by COVID).

Although I suspect people may have concerns about various elements of the proposal (and I do hope we can discuss them, as well as potential alternatives!), let me explain why I think something like this proposal might be helpful.

Applying for TT jobs just after starting one?

In our job-market discussion thread, a reader asked:

I was wondering about the ethics of accepting a TT job but then starting to apply for TT jobs again in the fall. This is a job where I suspect I will be unhappy for a few different reasons--no one to talk to about research, isolated geography, and weather.

My dissertation adviser says it is unethical to take a TT job and then start applying. And I am inclined to feel the same way. But philosophy friends say that in today's market, there is no problem in taking a job one would want to keep applying from. And that applying from a TT job for another job would give me a leg up. Versus staying in my current VAP job and applying in the fall.

I don't have an offer. I just finished a campus interview. No offer may be forthcoming. But I am just trying to sort my thoughts out about it.

What do people think?

A couple people answered in the discussion thread, but I'm curious to hear what more people think about this. For my part, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I'm inclined to think that employees don't have any general obligation to stay in a job they don't enjoy--particularly given that employers often have little compunction for letting employees go when it suits them. On the other hand, I'm also sympathetic to the idea that new TT hires have some kind of presumptive obligation to stick around for a year given how much time time and resources the hiring institution (and individuals in the department) invested in the process. Finally, I'm also sensitive to the idea that someone who was just hired TT would be taking a job away from other job-candidates who don't have a TT job--something that seems icky to me given how desperate people are on the job-market, especially in the post-COVID era.

For these reasons, I'm torn, and I'm not sure there is any kind of determinate moral answer here. What do you all think? 

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?

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?

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?

A Professorship and three post-doc fellowships in Philosophy of Religion

I received from Yujin Nagasawa (via Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad):

I am starting a new Templeton-funded project called the Global Philosophy of Religion (https://www.global-philosophy.org/). The aim of the project is to promote research involving philosophers of religion from all religious traditions and geographical regions. As part of the project, we are advertising three postdoctoral fellowships - in Hindu philosophy of religion, Islamic philosophy of religion and Jewish philosophy of religion - as well as a senior lectureship in philosophy of religion (tradition unspecified).

The list of the positions are published here: https://www.global-philosophy.org/vacancies

-----

Yujin Nagasawa

H. G. Wood Professor of the Philosophy of Religion

School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion

University of Birmingham

Edgbaston, Birmingham

B15 2TT

United Kingdom

Web: http://www.yujinnagasawa.co.uk

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!

Twitter thread on negotiating offers

Elisa Freschi drew my attention to this Twitter thread on negotiating academic offers. Here's the thread re-posted:

1/My first piece of advice is simple: negotiate the terms of a TT offer you receive. Negotiation is expected, it’s the norm, even if no one ever taught you how to do it.

2/Approach the negotiation with a positive attitude (not entitled). Let them know you are excited to be their colleague.

3/Overall, don't frame your ask as "I need/deserve more" but more like "there are just a few things I need to do THE BEST JOB I CAN FOR YOU."

4/The Chair is likely your go to person. They are “on your side” and can help you frame your ask in ways that make sense for that institution. Remember THEY WANT YOU!

5/SALARY. Your based salary is the place to start because it will make the most difference in your earning power long term (your raises will be a % of if).

6/In graduate school someone showed me a graph that said on average men get 4% more salary they are first offered, for women that number is 1% (b/c women don’t ASK). Everyone should ask for at least 5%. AT LEAST. I asked for (and got) 10% more on my first job offer.

7/Do your homework. Public institutions make salaries public. When I was negotiating with for my first job at UNCG I knew the salary of every member of the department. The Chronicle has averages for most other institutions by rank.

8/The Chair likely can’t offer you what an Associate Professor is making if you are hired as an Assistant, but she can offer you almost as much (and then has a recent to ask for an equity raise for that Associate next year).

9/Asking for money is awkward, I get it. A simple, “I am excited about the possibility of joining your department and a salary of X would make my decision easier” or “I was hoping for a salary of X” should work.

10/RESEARCH SUPPORT. Depending on what you need, this is the time to ask! And just b/c you are in a humanist doesn’t mean you don’t need guaranteed research funds. In my case I needed to do a lot of international travel of research so got a hefty start up fund for that.

11/Research funds can also pay for computer upgrades, professional dues, developmental editors, fancy office supplies, all kinds of things that will make you more research productive. And they are NOT TAXED.

12/TEACHING SUPPORT: If you have to teach new classes at the new job, ask for course develop funds (perhaps as summer salary) to get those new courses prepped. Think about if you need funds to purchase materials for library collection (that you can assign).

13/COURSE RELEASES: These can make a huge difference to you. First TT job? Ask for 2-3 course releases to take as a pre-tenure leave. If the institution already has a pre-tenure leave, ask for 1-2 to help you get new courses prepped and keep your research on track the first year.

14/Keep in mind that depending on the institution some things are easier to give you than others. Sometimes research funds are a no go, but course releases are fine. And vice versa. This is what the Chair can help with.

15/And just b/c they say no to something you ask for doesn’t mean they don’t value you. Institutions tie chairs'/deans’ hands on some matters. Don’t take it personally. The negotiation is a business transaction.

I wonder how accurate readers in the know think this advice is for philosophy. Six years ago, a job-candidate in philosophy had their offer rescinded mid-negotiation. I don't know how often this happens, as there may well be people who keep these things quiet (I don't know). In any case, for what it's worth (and I could be wrong), the Twitter thread above seems to me probably far too optimistic (and potentially dangerous) for the philosophy market (with the exceptions, perhaps, being the R1 and elite SLAC markets). My spouse recently negotiated competing offers in a STEM field, and in her case the above thread seems to me exactly right. But her discipline's job market is very good. Philosophy's market, as we all know, is horrible: it's a "buyer's market", meaning that there are far more qualified candidates than positions. My sense is that in general, this means that hiring institutions may be a heck of a lot less willing to negotiate. Sure, there are probably really good R1's that have the money and desire to negotiate substantially to get the candidate they really want. But R2's? SLACs?

In my case, all of my offers (after my first VAP) were from SLACs, and in each case the only thing the institutions were willing to negotiate on were salary. Further, I think it's really important to be sensitive to the norms at the institution that has an offer to you. For example, to the best of my knowledge (from fairly good first-hand experience), many SLACs just don't negotiate course releases, additional teaching funds, travel funds, or research funding. Salary may be the most you can get, and asking for a lot more could go very poorly. And, while I'd like to say that the worst that can happen is that "they say no", the above case shows that assuming this can (perhaps rarely) result in disaster. My suggestion, then, is this: try to find out what the norms are at the institution that has given you the offer! For example, suppose you have a good rapport with someone in that department: the chair, search chair, or another faculty member. Consider asking them what they think can and cannot be negotiated before you actually try to negotiate. My sense is that these people typically only want to help you. They're not deans or provosts looking to keep costs down. They want to hire you, and they probably want you to be happy! So, consider asking. See what they say. That's my advice.

What do you all think about the above Twitter thread, my alternative, and negotiating in general?

Reading recommendation letters

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

[W]hat are the ethics as far as *reading* [recommendation] letters are concerned[?]. Marcus, you said, you don't focus much on letters. Would a really bad letter turn you off a candidate you otherwise liked? I wills say that at R1's, and i've been involved in searches at 3 different institutions, letters are taken extremely seriously. Professors do distinguish between strong/stronger, sounding "restrained" etc. And with grad school applications they are maybe even more important. So what should a search committee member do when a candidate has, say, 1 really strong letter, 1 decent letter, and 1 bad letter?

Good questions. I'm really curious to hear how people answer. Here are my answers, beginning with a quick clarification. Amanda is right that I don't focus much on recommendation letters. This is because the science on this is unequivocal. First, recommendation letters as standardly evaluated poorly predict future performance. In fact, they have some of the lowest predictive validity of future performance of any commonly used measure. Second, they show demonstrable gender bias in academia specifically. Consequently, I'm with Mike Huemer: I don't think the hiring process in academia should include recommendation letters at all anymore. I think they do more harm than good, making hiring more a matter of personal reputation than actual achievement.

Using other offers to renegotiate one's position

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

I am curious about experiences/advice on using new offers to renegotiate existing positions. So, you already have a full time permanent position at a University but get an offer from a different University that you want to use as a bargaining chip (at least potentially).

I am generally curious about the process here, but I am particularly interested in something that is likely a bit idiosyncratic: If you currently have a Non-Tenure Track (but permanent) position (something like an "Assistant Teaching Professor") and get offered a TT position at a different University. Is there any path to getting the NTT job switched over to a TT position (perhaps not immediately, but with some sort of guarantee or promise)?

I obviously understand one response is "just take the TT position" but let's assume there are some good reasons to stick at the current University, although preferably with a TT position.

Although I could be wrong, my sense is that this is pretty simple. All you need to do is schedule a meeting with your dean, letting them know, "I have an attractive offer from another university. But I really love this university, and would like to stay here." The ball is then in their court, and as far as I can tell, what happens next depends on a variety of factors:

1. the financial situation of your university,
2. the institution's hiring policies,
3. the freedom (or lack thereof) of the administration there to convert your current position into a tenure-track position,
4. how much they value you.

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?

Professional philosophy and authenticity

To set a price for oneself whereby one becomes no longer a person but merely a cog! Are you co-conspirators in the current folly sweeping over nations, which, above all else, want to produce as much as possible and to be as rich as possible? Your concern ought to hold out to them a counter-reckoning: what vast sums of genuine inner value are being squandered on such a superficial external goal! (Nietzsche, Daybreak, 206).

Like other fields with a high degree of professionalism and lots of competition, academic philosophy exacts a lot of us. It requires we're willing to move practically anywhere, face painful dilemmas about family, finding jobs in the same area of your spouse, relocate multiple times, lose our savings yet again, and--hardest of all--lose our friends or opportunities to be close to parents and siblings. For those of us who are first-generation, or immigrant, or both, it also often requires we cut emotional ties with our friends and home environment. Even if we don't want to cut ties, it happens, almost inevitably. Or so is my experience. 

But to what extent does academic philosophy require that you give up yourself? To what extent does it require the loss of authenticity? 

I've been mulling over this especially after I read this moving piece of philosophical autobiography. The piece is written by Fabio, who ended his career as a philosopher after a two-year postdoctoral fellowship. He writes honestly about his struggles with academic philosophy, 

Philosophy has always been a very personal affair. Well, not always. When it stopped being a personal affair, it also stopped being enjoyable. It became a performance. I realize that many of you are able to seamlessly weave personal involvement and academic performance together. For me, that’s always been impossible. I’m too slow, my thoughts too dim, and too prone to distraction to focus on one single problem. And when I do, I am unable to crystallize my involvement with such a problem to intelligible and coherent terms. And even if I manage that, I can at best produce a competent list of platitudes. When the inexpressible (not because mystical, but because too close to the bone for me to articulate onto the field of discourse) project of shaping (edifying, in both senses of the term) my own individuality — what I thought philosophy was about — became the public performance of puzzle-solving, that’s when I developed a rejection of philosophy.

My first response to this would be to say: but you don't need to choose! Philosophy can be so much more than puzzle-solving. Still, I think it's important to be honest and clear about the trade-offs involved. Philosophy written from the heart is, at least in my experience, more difficult to sell to a journal than philosophy that intervenes in some recent debate that you might have something useful to say about, but not really keeps you up at night. 

Clearly, though, philosophers do prize honesty and authenticity--the voice of the person who seeks and is honest about it. The best philosophy is deeply personal. Augustine's Confessions, which wrestle with faith, grief, family, still resonate today, as do Descartes' or Al-Ghazali's skeptical doubts. We value Zhuangzi's playfulness and Mengzi's earnest optimism. To know such people, even across the ages, is like having valuable friends we can lean back on, and from whose works we can draw wisdom and insights now. We marvel at Fanon's raw insights into racial micro- and macro-aggressions and how his perplexity gives rise to deep philosophical insights. We read along with De Beauvoir's mixed feelings on her mother's death, more recently also Elizabeth Barnes' and Havi Carel's deeply personal insights on disability and long-term illness. We admire philosophers who can weave the personal and the professional. 

Maybe there's a tension between two kinds of philosophy, as Martin Lenz speculates: "The first kind is what one might call a spiritual practice, building on exercises or forms of artistic expression and aiming at understanding oneself and others. The second kind is what one might call a theoretical endeavour, building on concepts and arguments and aiming at explaining the world." --maybe the problem is that we value the second one almost exclusively in professional academic contexts. 

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.

New series on tenure

Yesterday, I came across an interesting discussion on social media on what tenure requirements are at different schools. Because it is clear from that discussion and others discussions I have encountered that tenure requirements differ greatly at different institutions, I thought it might be good to run a short series on the tenure process and tenure requirements. It occurred to me that such a series might be of interest to a variety of the blog's readers, including job-marketeers (who might benefit from better awareness of differences in the tenure process and standards across institutions), tenure-track faculty who have not gone up for tenure yet, and members of the profession more generally.

Anyway, I tentatively plan this series to cover the following topics:

• What tenure processes themselves are like at different institutions
• How clearly and consistently tenure standards are stated and conveyed to job-candidates
• What tenure standards are like at different kinds of institutions
  • R1 (research) institutions
  • Elite liberal arts universities
  • Non-elite liberal arts universities
  • Regional public state schools (non-R1's)
  • Community colleges
• What tenure-denial is like and involves (including potential for appeals)

Are there any other topics the series should cover? If so, please let me know in the comments section below this post. Because the quality of information this series provides will depend on reader comments, I'd like to encourage readers to share posts in the series, so that readers who may have experience and insight in these matters can chime in! For now, I'd just like to solicit suggestions on any additional topics to cover in the series. The first substantive post in the series will come in the next day or two!

Mentioning age in recommendation letters

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

I am a professor at an European University, and I would have a question concerning letters of recommendation.
Is it appropriate to write something like "This is an impressive list of accomplishments for someone who has not reached their 30s yet"? I want to emphasize that these accomplishments are exceptional for a 28-year-old. Or should I never mention or refer to the student's age?

Interesting question. I guess I'm inclined to think one shouldn't discuss age (so as to avoid unwittingly playing into ageism). I think there's nothing wrong with saying in a letter that someone has an impressive list of accomplishments for their career stage--but again, I'm inclined to think it is best to leave chronological age out of it. What do you all think?

Tips for recruiting majors & promoting diversity

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, ABD Philosophy Student writes:

In the recent 'What do first-round academic philosophy job interviews look like?' it's suggested that there are two common questions one might get: (1) How would you recruit majors? and (2) How would you promote diversity in the classroom and/or on campus?

I'm wondering: (1) How does one recruit majors? and (2) How does one promote diversity?

Not just, what can I say? But, what are genuinely effective tactics for these projects?

Good questions, and I am curious how readers would answer. I will share just a few things I did, my department has done, and which I have seen work well.

In terms of recruiting majors, when I was in a non-TT position I took it upon myself to put together a detailed informational packet on philosophy and the major, which I then took to my department. The packet included information on the major itself, including how easy it is to double major, as well as information on graduate school test scores, employment and salary statistics, examples of successful, real life people in all different kinds of fields who majored in philosophy (focusing on diversity too), and so on. In the years after distributing that flyer, our major numbers more than doubled, and 60% of our majors are consistently women and historically-marginalized minorities. I also coached an Ethics Bowl team each year, which seemed to recruit some diverse majors, and one of my junior tenure-stream colleagues has been very active and creative in relaunching our Philosophy Club, organizing club meetings around philosophical issues related to hot topics in pop culture and the news. We also began a series of 'lightning talks', featuring philosophers from nearby universities who give 10-15 minute philosophy talks on their research to the club, followed by discussion--which I think attracts and interests students in philosophy far more than, say, a traditional 30-60 minute colloquium talk. Finally, this year we began the fall by putting together a "meet UT's philosophers" event (with food!) where new students, majors, and potential majors could meet each other and the faculty--and we even started a department Instagram page (thanks to the suggestion of several students).

In terms of diversity, when I was still in a non-TT position, I also took it upon myself to create and c0-organize an annual human rights conference with a sociologist, which not of featured diverse academics but also representatives of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, Enterprising Latinas, the League of Women Voters, the CARIBE Program for refugees, and many other organizations. These conferences were advertised all around the university, and attended by a diverse body of students.

Anyway, these are just some things we/I have done at my university, and I don't think there's any one way to do (1) and (2). But my advice is simple: be proactive and get creative. Talk to other people inside and outside of your department, brainstorming about things you could do. Chances are, you'll come up with something, and as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained! Do any of you have any tips of your own, including things graduate students might do (since the OP mentions they are ABD)?

Poll results: service and the market

A couple of discussions the past few weeks got me thinking about the role that service (to one's department, university, the profession, etc.) plays on the job market. First, a little over two weeks ago, Daily Nous hosted a discussion on whether graduate students should receive compensation for service work. Second, around the same time, a colleague in the discipline at a research university mentioned on social media that they actively discourage their grad students from engaging in service, the rationale being, if I recall, that it's just not worth grad students' time and energy. I weighed in on this discussion, saying that my experience working and hiring on four search committees at a liberal arts university is very different: namely, that service may substantially benefit candidates on the market for jobs at universities like mine. 

Anyway, both of these discussions got met thinking: do search committee members, and search committees as a whole, care about service? Do candidates' service records affect how they are evaluated by search committee members? If so, how?

Because these seem to me to be important issues, I decided to run an informal poll asking search committee members to weigh in on a few questions. To be clear, it is just an informal poll with a relatively small sample size (N = 29), not a formal study--so the results should be presumably taken with a serious grain of salt. However, here are the results:

• Number of respondents: 29
• # self-reporting as from R1 research universities: 18
• # self-reporting as from regional state universities: 4
• # self-reporting as from non-elite liberal arts universities: 3
• # self-reporting as from elite liberal arts universities: 1
• # self-reporting as from community colleges: 1
• # self-reporting as from 'other': 2

Q1 - A job-candidate's service record (viz. service to their department, university, community, etc.) can play a real role in how I personally evaluate their candidacy as a search-committee member:

Q2 - The search committee(s) I have been on have taken candidates' service records (viz. service to their department, university, community, etc.) into account in their collective deliberations on who to interview or hire:

Q3 - Depending on your answers to Q1 & Q2, what kind(s) of service may play a role in how candidates are evaluated?:

All responses, complete and unedited:

• "Diversity related service, public philosophy, service that brings in media attention, service that attracts grads to the department, undergrads to classes or the major."
• "All forms, but especially technology, diversity, and proactive, positive contributions to the profession."
• "Course development, curriculum reform, labour organizing, establishing MAP chapters, etc."
• "Student outreach, diversity initiatives, reading and discussion groups, syllabus reform."
• "Service with students."
• "Anything that indicates that they would be a responsible member of my department--graduate representative, serving on committees, organizing events, etc."
• "In a UK context, it really is a must. You need to be able to show some "admin" experience, e.g., being part of committees, taking on admin roles in your department."
• "Has the candidate been involved in any diversity initiatives on campus, or leadership/shared governance roles. At my institution we need people to do a lot of service because we are badly understaffed, and we also need people who can help with diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts."
• "Undergraduate mentoring; teacher training related initiatives; diversity related initiatives (e.g. MAP chapter)."
• "It's not so much that kinds of service matter, but when debating candidates with differing research outputs, variations in teaching and administrative loads become relevant to predicting future performance."
• "Anything that indicates that the candidate is a team player."
• "Stuff that shows experience working with grad students, stuff that shows they would be a leader in enriching our intellectual community."
• "I don't care about journal refereeing. I take an absence of departmental service, or only insubstantial-looking service lines on the CV, as something of a red flag; it suggests to me that the candidate won't pull their weight in the department. Larger professional service roles suggest the candidate is becoming connected, which is a weak positive sign of reputation-building (which can matter for tenure)."
• "Work that showed a serious commitment to various kinds of diversity (running a MAP chapter, teaching philosophy in urban schools, etc)."
• "I was not allowed to officially consider any service, only the vague 'capacity' to take on roles within the department. This is a serious issue, and I wish that I could take into account junior colleagues that have undertaken senior roles (perhaps to the detriment of their research outputs). If able to, evidence of taking on important departmental roles would be great to ensure that we are hiring someone that can cope in those roles (i.e. future chairs of departments!)."
• "Primarily we have looked at administrative experience--has this person served as a chair, been in charge of adjuncts, performed class scheduling, served as an advisor."
• "Founding/running undergraduate clubs, recruitment efforts (with data to show their personal involvement), conference volunteer work, tutoring/mentoring students in an official capacity."
• "Philosophy club, public philosophy, pedagogical committees."
• "None."

Q4- I answered the above questions on the basis of my experience serving on search committee(s) at:

Again, this is just an informal survey--but I for one find the results intriguing, especially the qualitative answers to Q3 (indicating the kinds of service respondents care about, and their reasons for doing so). Anyway, I hope you all find this information helpful, and would be curious indeed to see what a more formal study might find!