The Philosophers' Cocoon

Reader query on lateral moves

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" post, Amanda writes:

It might be a good idea to have a post about moving jobs. Suppose one is a junior professor and wants to move jobs (the situation I know of is someone who wants to move for a spouse.) Does it make sense to do this before tenure or after? And what difference does it make in each of the following situations:

1. at a teaching school trying to move to another teaching school.
2. at a research school trying to move to another research school.
3.at a teaching school trying to move to a research school.
4..at a research school trying to move to a teaching school.

The situation I know of is actually 4. This person is not sure they can move "up", and thinks chances of getting the right location at a teaching school is better.

I think this is a great query, as I have the pretty clear sense that a lot of people are looking to move 'laterally' from one tenure-stream job to another. In fact, I've also encountered a surprising number of cases of people willing to move down in rank (e.g. from tenured Associate to tenure-track Assistant) for various reasons (e.g. better location, moving from a teaching program to an R1, etc.). My sense here comes from several sources, including just talking to people (where I've heard a lot of people say they have 'feelers' out on the market pretty much every year to see if they can move).

So, then, what are the answers to Amanda's questions? 

On not putting your life on hold on the job market

Suppose you are--perhaps you are--someone in your thirties or beyond, and on a temporary contract. Examples include a postdoc, a Visiting Assistant Professor position, a fixed-term lectureship, an adjunct position. 

In my experience, and in the experience of many people I know, it becomes progressively more psychologically difficult to be on temporary contracts as one gets older, especially if one hits thirty, or thirty-five. Inevitably, you start comparing yourself to your peers, or people younger than you, who get hired while still finishing up the dissertation. In Europe it's relatively standard to have multiple postdoc positions. In the US it seems to becoming more common too. 

This uncertainty is exacerbated by our tendency to put our lives on hold, promising ourselves we will do all the things once we get that elusive tenure track or permanent job. Putting one's life on hold means big plans like buying a house, marriage, having children. But it can also mean things like making more time for one's hobbies, or finally learning to play the piano or study Chinese.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 16: job-talks at teaching schools

A reader wrote in yesterday:

I’m trying to mentor a former student who has an upcoming campus visit at a SLAC. This student has been asked to give a job talk, the parameters of which seem a little unusual. The search committee has said that it wants to hear about the candidate’s research interests and projects in this talk -- but that they also want the talk to reveal how the candidate presents scholarly material to a lay audience, for the purpose of assessing teaching. In effect, it seems that the committee wants one talk to serve both as a research presentation and also as a teaching demonstration. The candidate has one hour in total (including q&a). At my university, we always have candidates do a research talk and a teaching demonstration, and while there are of course important connections between them, they are fundamentally different requirements that are judged by very different criteria.

Have you ever had a thread on this particular kind of requirement? If not, would you be interested in starting one? I’d be very interested to hear thoughts and advice from others on how to prepare for, and succeed in, such a talk.

This is a great query. As I explained to the reader via email, this sort of thing is not at all unusual at SLACs. Indeed, my department has done something very similar for our recent TT hires, telling candidates to pitch their job-talk to undergrads. Allow me to explain the reasons for this. I'll then share some quick tips and open things up for discussion.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 15: recommendation letters

As a candidate, so many things about the academic job-market seemed hopelessly opaque to me. What were search committees looking for? How did they read and evaluate dossiers? How did they decide who to interview, invite to campus, or hire? I've tried to shed some light on these things so far in this series, at least from my particular standpoint (having served on several search committees and having spoken to people at other institutions who have as well). I hope you are all finding the series helpful.

In any case, one of the things that seemed the most opaque to me as a job-candidate was the role that letters of recommendation play in the process. How are letters of recommendation read? What are search committee members looking for in them? What looks good? What doesn't? As I explain below, my own experience--which once again may be idiosyncratic--is that there is no simple answer to any of these questions. It's no wonder the role that letters play seems so opaque from the candidate's side of the process: it seems hardly less opaque to me on the hiring side (though I do think there may be a few areas of consistency that candidates may find helpful). Allow me to explain.

Job-market mentoring program update - part 2: mentee feedback

Last week, I shared mentor feedback from this past year's iteration of the Cocoon's job-market mentoring program. In today's post, I am going to share feedback from this year's mentees. Helen and I hope that sharing this feedback will encourage more people to sign up for this year's program, which will open for signups on June 1st. Our hope, again, is that this program will help make the market a tiny bit more equitable, by helping more candidates--particularly those with special challenges--go on the market with the kind of mentoring they need to be competitive.

Here, then, is the feedback we have received thus far from this past year's mentees:

Question 1: Types of mentoring received?

"specific and detailed feedback on job application materials. In general, plenty of useful advice on aspects of the job market process that one wouldn’t have gotten from any other source." - Anonymous mentee

"Provided sample dossier materials; Help constructing CVs, Cover Letters, Teaching Statement, Research Statement, and a Teaching Portfolio; and interview training, including sample questions, mock interviews, and detailed feedback." - Anonymous mentee

"Dossier Materials" - Anonymous mentee

"[Redacted] read some materials, and also gave advice on what to apply for." - Anonymous mentee

"General discussion, reviewing application materials." - Anonymous mentee

"Dossier Materials." - Anonymous mentee

"dossier material." - Anonymous mentee

"general advice." - Anonymous mentee

"dossier materials." - Anonymous mentee

"reviewed many of my application materials, discussed tailoring strategies with me, and provided a much-needed external perspective on my market process." - Cat St. Croix

"Dossier materials (including CV, cover letter, research statement, etc.) Interviewing tips." - Anonymous mentee

"Dossier Materials." - Anonymous mentee

"Reviewing materials, strategizing which jobs to seek, discussion of interview prep. My own preference was not seek much in the way of moral/ emotional support, but to keep the relationship focused on the task of finding a job." - Anonymous mentee

"Reviewing dossier materials, mock interview, general job market advice." - Anonymous mentee

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 14: CVs

UPDATED 5/11 - 5:40pm

In this series' post on cover letters, there was some discussion of whether to include a 'Works in Progress' section on one's CV in, which is apparently something people are routinely advised to do. In rough outline, my experience--which another search committee member echoed--is that Work in Progress sections are unlikely to make any difference. When it comes to research, people on the hiring side of things are more interested in demonstrated ability to actually publish. Since merely having work in preparation or even work under review doesn't demonstrate that, as Amanda notes my sense is WIP sections are probably a 'wash': include one, or don't - it probably won't make a difference.

In any case, that discussion got me thinking about CVs more generally. Given that this series is intended to give candidates an inside look of how search committees actually think and do things, what 'secrets of search committees' are there regarding CVs? My sense is that there are some unsurprising secrets, as well as some more surprising ones - though please bear in mind that the following remarks are based on my experiences at a teaching-focused institution (as well as discussion with people who have hired at other similar institutions):

Get your AOS & AOC right: Every search committee member I've talked to looks at CVs first, before anything else. Why? Because they are the easiest way to check the first thing that matters in any application: whether the candidate is qualified for the job being advertised. The easiest way to check this is to pull out the candidate's CV and check their AOS/AOC lines. If the candidate's AOS/AOC fit the job ad, then the rest of their CV will be looked at. If not? In that case, my experience is their application goes straight to the 'trash.' Maybe this isn't the case for all jobs (research jobs?) - but, at places like mine, when we advertise a given AOS/AOC, those are the areas we have to hire in. If you don't have the right ones, my sense is that applying is simply a waste of time. Which brings me to two other important issues:

    1. Don't 'bend'/exaggerate your AOS/AOC: if you don't really have any background in the area advertised, don't include it on your CV just to make you 'look' like you're qualified. It will become very clear from the rest of your CV whether you are or not - so don't bother trying to be deceptive. At best, it will accomplish nothing - at worst, it can look dishonest.

    2. Don't list four AOS and eight AOCs: this one is surprisingly common, and also looks bad. Almost no early-career philosopher legitimately has more than one or at most two AOS. If you did your dissertation in X, then that's a legit AOS. If you did your comprehensive exams in areas X and Y, and have written some papers in both areas, then maybe list both as AOS. But do not list more than that. You don't have four legit AOS. Making it look on your CV like you do reeks of dishonesty or self-deception. The same goes for AOCs. You don't have an AOC in area Z simply because you took a grad seminar in it. You need to have some more substantial experience than that. As a rough rule of thumb, you should only list an area as an AOC if you have a pretty substantial background in the area--something like multiple grad courses and real teaching/TA experience in the area. Two or three AOCs is legit, maybe 4 (EDITED). Anything more is seriously pushing it. Indeed, far from helping you, listing too many AOS/AOCs are likely to hurt you, making you look out of touch with professional norms.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 13: teaching dossiers

I have talked about teaching statements and teaching portfolios several times in two previous series. I still stand by the things I wrote there, particularly about how important it is for teaching statements to use concrete examples of teaching practices rather than broad generalizations and emotive language. However, my recent experiences on search committees and discussion with other people who have served on search committees elsewhere have driven home a few other important things I think candidates should know:

Too many teaching portfolios are indistinguishable: As I mentioned here and here, one of the most important things candidates need to do is "stand out" from the crowd. Your dossier is one of dozens or even hundreds of others the search committee is looking at. Particularly if you are applying for a job at a teaching school, the committee is looking for something that distinguishes you as a teacher - something that makes you "jump off the page" as someone particularly worth interviewing. Alas, in my experience, roughly 8 in 10 teaching portfolios are more or less indistinguishable from one another, saying similar things (such as stating that they diagram arguments, have students do group work, engage in Socratic dialogue, etc.), having similar teaching evaluations (basically, fairly happy students), similar looking syllabi, and so on. Unfortunately, it's a simple fact: if you're doing what everyone else is doing, you're going to have a hard time standing out. So, either you need to develop a more original pedagogy, or you have to show in some clear way how you are particularly good at what you do. In the teaching statement, concrete examples of in-class discussions, assignments, etc. are helpful, as in my experience hardly anyone actually does things the same way in the classroom (even those who do Socratic dialogue typically do so in distinct ways). On a similar note, I think it's important to not only include syllabi in the teaching portfolio, but also examples of term-paper assignments, rubrics, etc.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 11: interviews

UPDATED 4/30 - 7:15pm

Thus far in this series I've relayed some of my experience on how search-committees (at least at teaching schools like mine) evaluate candidates from afar: in terms of fit, originality, time on the market, career-stage, project choices, teaching experience, and online presence. As the comments section in my posts on horse-trading and online presence indicate, not everyone on the hiring-side of things entirely agrees with some of my experiences--but, on the whole, there hasn't been too much disagreement on other issues. 

In today's post I'd like to move to a different part of the hiring process: interviews. What comes off well in a job interview? What comes off poorly? I'll just share a few things that have stood out to me, and then open things up to comments. Given that my experience is hiring at a certain type of institution (a teaching institution that also values research), I would very much be curious to hear from people who have hired both at institutions similar to mine, but also ones very different than mine (R1's, CC's, etc.). In any case, here are my thoughts.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 10: online presence

I had two separate conversations about online behavior recently with people who have served on search committees. The first person asked me whether it is ethical for people on search committees to google job-candidates to see if their online behavior (e.g. on facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) raises any "red flags." Then, just the other day, someone else expressed to me that people's online behavior can very much be expected to be held against them in hiring, especially if their online behavior is egregious or consistently off-putting. We can of course discuss the ethical issues here, if you like (and I suspect some of you will). Still, setting aside the ethical issues, there are at least two things I think are worth saying here.

The first is that, regardless of the ethics, it seems to me likely at least some search committee members are going to care about candidates' online behavior and be aware of that behavior (via facebook, Twitter, reading blogs, etc.). In other words, like it or not, I think this is an issue candidates need to be aware of and worry about. Even if one thinks it is wrong for search committees to take this kind of stuff into account, I just don't see any feasible way of policing it. Sure, policies could in principle prohibit members of a search committee from bringing up such issues in formal discussion--but I do not see any way to prevent them from doing so in private (i.e. in their own heads). I also suspect it is unlikely for there to be any moral consensus on the ethical issues here, as in my experience there is a great deal of disagreement on these matters. 

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 9: horse-trading

I had a conversation recently with a friend who served on their first search committee. One of the things they said they found most surprising about the experience--and which they never would have really thought much about as a job-candidate--is the role that 'horse-trading' can play.

This person said that as a candidate, one sort of imagines that search committees sit down, agreeing who the best candidates are, developing a coherent rank-order of candidates, and then interviewing them. However, the reality is quite different. Typically, what happens is that each person on the committee develops their own ranking of candidates. Then the committee gets together to share and discuss their rankings, and what often occurs is something like this:

Candidates A and B are near the top of everyone's list.

Candidates C and D are at the top of some people's list, but far down other people's.

Candidate E is at the top of one person's list (who feels very strongly about them), but far down everyone else's list.

The same search committee member is ambivalent about C, but strongly opposed to D.

This actually simplifies a great deal. Things can be much more complicated than this. Indeed, in some cases there may be no candidates at the top of everyone's list. But let's stay with this simple example. What will tend to happen in this sort of case?

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 8: teaching experience

In my post, "Two Enlightening Job-Market Conversations", I paraphrased the following remark from a friend of mine who has been on a hiring committee at a small teaching-focused institution:

Many candidates only or primarily have experience as TA's or maybe one or two solo-taught courses, which is totally insufficient for getting a job at an institution like mine.

I think this is a really important and under-recognized point--one that a lot of grad students, grad programs, and job-candidates may not adequately appreciate. My sense is that grad programs (and their students) have a tendency not to prioritize breadth of teaching experience. This sense is reflected in the following conversation, which occurred in the comments section of the above post.

Reader submission: 'Academic Frustrations: Publications & Jobs'

The following is a post submitted by Rögnvaldur ('Valdi') Ingthorsson (Lund University):

Academic Frustrations: Publications and Jobs

—Valdi Ingthorsson

I recently came across an old post by Jason Stanley in The Philosopher’s Cocoon about the frustration of getting papers through the peer-review process (Stanley on Peer-Review). The post put its finger on a couple of things that have frustrated me for a while. First, why is it so difficult to get philosophically interesting papers published in high-ranking journals? To my mind, these journals seem to be mostly filled with papers that don’t do much more than recirculate received views, albeit in a competent way. Second, why does quantity and ranking still rule over quality in the hiring process? I have come to think the two are closely related. As you can figure, I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who struggles to get published and to get a job. I very much expect that journal editors and tenured faculty in hiring committees will not recognise themselves in the description. But I think it is healthy for them to find out how the whole thing looks from the other side (even if it is all biased and exaggerated, a possibility I cannot rule  out).

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 7: AOS and project choices

In the comments section of my post in this series on originality, Pendaran Roberts wrote:

If you're going to be original, based on my experience, it needs to be within a well-worn and, preferably, popular topic...Anyway, originality is certainly not something to shoot for simpliciter. I think what you want is a 'cool' project, immediately understandable and appealing to non-philosophers, in an acceptable and popular area. I'm not sure 'originality' really captures this idea correctly. I'd use words like 'cool,' 'popular,' 'trendy,' 'consistent with the zeitgeist...'

Pendaran's point here actually gestures toward several different issues that, in my experience, grad programs and their students may not pay enough attention to: the role that one's choices (of AOS, dissertation topic, etc.) can play in one's competitiveness (or lack thereof) on the market. 

Two enlightening job-market conversations

I had a really enlightening conversation with a friend yesterday that had some interesting parallels to a conversation I had with another friend several weeks ago. Both friends are philosophers, both work at different universities, both work at 'teaching schools' (i.e. small liberal-arts colleges), and both have served on search committees.

One interesting parallel between my two friends concerns their graduate programs. One of them received their PhD from an Leiter 'unranked' school, the other from a fairly well-ranked (but not 'Leiterific') school. The friend from the unranked school noted that their unranked program has a far higher TT job-placement rate than many Leiter-ranked schools (as reported in Jennings et al's 2015 placement report). This friend speculated that this is because their grad program doesn't try to compete for research jobs. Their PhD program didn't obsess over things like journal rankings (they said this is something that wasn't even talked about). Instead, while their program cares about research, they focus primarily on preparing their graduates for teaching jobs--getting their grad students a lot of solo-teaching opportunities, developing their pegagogy, and so on. Further, this friend remarked to me that this really stood out to them as a search committee member. The person noted that many applicants present as a 'terrible fit' for a job a teaching school like theirs (I'll return to some reasons why below). 

Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 6: career stage

In the comments section of my introductory post to this series, Humanati wrote:

I have a topic that I'd like to see covered: to what extent do search committees really adjust accomplishments and (e.g. teaching) experience to career stage? I ask because of my own experiences of the market this year. Here’s my situation: a few publications (some in top 10, others in top 20 journals), Leiter-ranked R1, great teaching evaluations and a decent (though not overwhelming) amount of teaching experience, went on the market the same time I began a post doc. Not unhappy with the outcome; I did well. But what I found most interesting was the feedback I received (through various channels) from places where I *wasn’t* first choice. I was told time and time again that an important deciding factor was comparative seniority/experience. I often lost out to people who’d been visiting assistant professors or postdocs or assistant professors for 1-3 years already—people who, largely owing to a 1-3 year head start, had slightly more or slightly more impressive publications than me, or slightly more teaching experience than me. This made me suspect that these universities were just favouring a sure thing (someone who has *already* demonstrated that they can get x number of publications, teach y amount of courses a semester) over a slight risk (someone who has demonstrated potential, but less hands-on experience). But then, these prospective employers consistently emphasised how ‘incredibly impressive’ my CV, etc. was *for my career stage*. A related point that a friend has often made to me concerns time spent completing a PhD. I understand that institutional norms play some role in this. But one point that this friend put to me (one with which I’m inclined to agree) is that it can sometimes seem slightly unfair not to take it into account. Suppose Dr. X has one publication and took 9 years to do her PhD, and that Dr. Y has two publications of comparable quality and took 6 years to do her PhD. If all else is equal, I’m inclined to think that Dr. Y is the more impressive candidate! Do search committees ever take this into account—how long a candidate took to do his or her PhD and what he or she accomplished in that time span?

This is a really good query. I've encountered something like it on many job-market discussion boards: if candidate Y has accomplished more than X in shorter amount of time, isn't Y the more impressive candidate, all things being equal?  More generally, do search committee members take into account 'career stage'? If so, how?

I'm very curious to hear from other people who have served on search committees. However, my own sense is that this is probably yet another place where research and teaching jobs differ greatly. Allow me to explain.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 5: jobs abroad

In the comments section of my post in this series on originality, Pendaran Roberts writes:

This is a great blog with a lot of interesting insights. However, I seriously wonder how much the anecdotal data presented in this search committee series is worth. For example, the stuff about originality is quite questionable in my experience. In the UK at least, it looks like big funding bodies stray away from originality. I had a pretty original research program. However, the funding bodies preferred to fund stuff on Kant, for example.

I suspect the explanation is that who to fund is decided by a committee largely comprised of non-philosophers, so the stuff that gets funded has to seem on the surface to be acceptable and worthwhile...

If you're going to be original, based on my experience, it needs to be within a well-worn and, preferably, popular topic...Anyway, originality is certainly not something to shoot for simpliciter. I think what you want is a 'cool' project, immediately understandable and appealing to non-philosophers, in an acceptable and popular area. I'm not sure 'originality' really captures this idea correctly. I'd use words like 'cool,' 'popular,' 'trendy,' 'consistent with the zeitgeist...'

Now it's perfectly possible that search committees for TT jobs in America or the equivalent here in the UK function quite differently...but one of the best ways to secure yourself a permanent job in the UK is to get a 'fancy' grant or grants. So, I think PhDs in the UK (and Europe) should be thinking about how to get these grants...I know grants are less of a thing in the US, so maybe originality matters more in America than it does in the UK.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 4: Staleness

In the comments section of my second post in this series (on "fit"), Daniel Brunson wrote:

Solid advice, but I wonder if you could consider the balance of "do all the things!" with the supposed (?) "stale PhD" phenomenon in a future post.

An excellent query - one I was very concerned with on the job-market myself. Does one's PhDs 'go stale' the longer one is on the market? That is, is more time on the market a disadvantage? And if so, can anything be done to ameliorate it? 

Moving for jobs

In the comments section of Tom Cochrane's post in our long job-market journeys series, Amanda writes:

Marcus can we have a thread on moving for a job? For some people who love adventure, I suppose the choice is easy. But for most people, they are faced with a real life-altering, and not at all easy, choice regarding whether to permanently move somewhere very far from friends and family or leave the profession. In my experience, there is an expectation that you must be willing to move anywhere or else you are simply not dedicated enough to be a philosopher. But is this rational? In a discipline that prides itself in critical thinking it is amazing we don't talk about the tradeoffs of being an academic. One big one is that moving away from family means it might be impossible to eventually care for aging parents. I would love to hear how some people went through this decision making process, and perhaps some thoughts on whether professional expectations are reasonable or healthy. 

An excellent query - one I haven't seen much discussed. I too would love to hear from people who've had to make these kinds decisions, both on (1) how they made their decision, and (2) their experience once the decision was made (how their lives changed, whether they are happy with the decision, etc.).

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 3: Originality

In the comments section of my previous post in this series (on 'fit'), Shen-yi Liao wrote:

Out of 100 job applications, I think there are 80 people who would be perfectly good for the job. And choosing from that often just comes down to highly circumstantial, if not arbitrary, factors that are really hard to predict from the outside, even from the ad. 

Then, however, Al wrote: 

I’ve been on 1 US search committee (R2 with MA) and involved in two U.K. searches (R1)...In both the US and the U.K. my experience has it that an interesting project made a big difference. I don’t think it’s easy to say what this comes to since people on a committee will have different preferences, but if your search is in, say, mind you start to get pretty tired seeing the same thing over and over and then someone with a decent pub or two and some nice teaching experience breaks out because they have a different take on an issue or a different application of something familiar. I know that’s pretty vague but hopefully you get the idea.

Together, Shen-yi's and Al's points underscore a general issue about the job-market that seems rarely discussed: the importance and nature of originality. Allow me to explain.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 2: Job Fit

When I was a candidate, I was a bit baffled by the interviews I got (and didn't get). Judging by the job-ads, sometimes I got interviews for jobs I seemed a good fit for; other times I got interviews for jobs that seemed like a bad fit; and still other times I didn't get interviews for jobs that I seemed like a perfect fit for...even though I got interviews at "better" schools for which I seemed like a worse fit. It made no sense to me. What in the world were search committees looking for? I expect many candidates can empathize.

So, let me try to address (and then open for discussion) the three questions I raised in the introductory post to this series:

1. What is fit?
2. Why does it matter to search committees?
3. What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?

Readers should bear in mind that my answers to these questions are based upon my particular experience, and I encourage others with different experience to share their thoughts in the comments section!. 

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 1: Introduction

I recently had a conversation with someone who served on a search committee for the first time, who expressed surprise at just how different the process was than they might have expected as a job-candidate. Being on the other side of the process was very illuminating, they said, and it might help candidates to learn more about it. Because I was on the market as a candidate for seven years and have now served on three search committees (two for tenure-track hires, one for a non-TT hire), I'm very well acquainted with what it is like to be a job-candidate and a search committee member (at least at a teaching school). Consequently, I thought it might be helpful to share a bit about what the process is like. While I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss any particulars about actual hires (viz. how actual hiring decisions were made), there are general things about the search and hiring process that seem to me entirely appropriate to make candidates aware of.

In my next post, I will talk about the oft-mentioned notion of "fit" (i.e. what it is for a candidate to fit a particular job). My general sense, having perused many online discussions of the job-market, is that candidates often think of competitiveness for jobs in general terms: publications, teaching evaluations, and so on. But, as is often noted, "fit" appears to play a large role in search committee deliberations--larger, it seems, than many people may be aware of. So then:

1. What is fit?
2. Why does it matter to search committees?
3. What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?

As I will explain in my next post, my experience is that the answers to all three questions are complex--far more complex than people who have never been involved in a hire may be aware of. So, I hope current and future jobs-candidates find the next post--and this new series--helpful.

Reader query: being competitive for teaching jobs coming from a prestigious program

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

I’m currently finishing up at a fairly prestigious graduate program. As expected, all of my advisors are interested in getting me a research job. They tend to talk up opportunities at R1s and talk about the “struggles” of teaching at SLACs and state schools with hefty teaching loads.

Here’s the problem: I desperately don’t want a research job. The only part of philosophy I like is teaching it. I’m happy to do research to make sure that the content I teach is accurate and informative, but I have no interest in churning out papers to be cited four or five times. I do not want to be a leading scholar of anything. I want to teach my students how to think for themselves and how to think well.

How does someone from a research-obsessed PhD program position themselves for jobs with a strong teaching focus? (I mean where the requirements for tenure are at least 50/50 teaching and research.)

My program has given me several opportunities to teach and I have received accolades and good evaluations for my teaching, but I’ve had no luck at all convincing schools that I’m dedicated first and foremost to my students.

Amanda replied:

Peter first I would try applying to prestigious slacs. They like fancy degrees and care a lot about teaching. But also getting involved in any programs that focus on teaching. There are camps and stuff like that you can do. Do adjunct work, even if it is just one class and you don't "need" to do it. It would help show you as a serious teacher. Put teaching first on your CV (before publications) and emphasis in your cover letter what you said above: that despite the pressure to be a researcher you prefer a teaching job. Lastly, I would avoid too many and too prestigious publications. With your degree it could be easy to "over-qualify" yourself for many teaching jobs.

As for your professors. I would not mention your goals/plans unless you really really trust them, as they will try to talk you out of it. Just apply for teaching jobs and when you accept one that will be that. Given this market, it is very hard to criticize anyone for accepting a TT position of any sort. Lastly, if you are sure you would be much happier at a teaching job, I would not apply to research jobs. If you are offered the position there will be all the pressure in the world to take it. And just like that you could end up in a life-time position that makes you unhappy.

Amanda's suggestions sound basically right to me. Someone coming out of a top-program will be probably be at a disadvantage for non-elite teaching jobs--and too many high-ranking publications may only accentuate that disadvantage (due to potential assumptions by search committee members that they must be looking for a more elite job). So I agree someone like Peter should probably have their eye on more highly-ranked SLAC jobs. However, I think if someone like Peter developed themselves as a candidate and pitched themselves in the right way, they could in principle make themselves competitive for teaching jobs more generally. How?

The unexpected upsides of teaching jobs?

Sam Duncan (Tidewater CC) recently wrote a guest-post for us on how people in our profession often seem to perceive teaching jobs in a negative light. Because we do our PhDs at research universities, we are socialized to want research jobs--for prestige, ample time and resources for research, low teaching loads, and so on. Indeed, Sam is far from alone among my philosophy friends for encountering negative reactions to his job. As Sam recounted, when he told one of his grad school professors about his community college job, the response was "Well you deserve a better job but it’s a step up." I've heard many similar stories. One of my other friends (a well-accomplished researcher at a SLAC job) mentioned recently than when people learn where she works, they act like she's from Jaaku.

However, what are teaching jobs actually like? As Sam put it, his job is "actually a really good job by almost any objective measure." I've had a similar experience, and recently got to thinking about some of the benefits of working at a teaching school. Having worked at one for nine years now (after working for one year at a research school), here is a short list of some of the unexpected upsides I've experienced:

Should you want a research job?

I recently came across a social media post by an early philosophy grad student noting that "their dream: is to eventually land a research job. This is, of course, the kind of job grad students are typically socialized to desire (PhD programs tend to prize research). And of course an R1 job may sound great on the surface: a light teaching load, lots of time for research, lots of other philosophers around (both faculty and grad students) to talk shop with, and so on. However, some recent experiences have led me to wonder whether R1 jobs are all they are cracked up to be.

Reader query on the worst aspect(s) of the job

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Anon writes (my emphasis):

Following up on the thread about impostor syndrome and the one on Daily Nous about the graduate student mental health crisis (which is probably a faculty crisis too) I think this might be a good time to focus some light on the following issue: What is the worst aspect of your job as a professional philosopher? Or if you are a graduate student or job seeker, what is the aspect of the job you look forward to least, and wish most to avoid. Basically what is the one thing in the profession that most drags you down, saps your will to work (or to live even), such that fixing this problem would result in the single largest improvement in your professional, and hence personal, well-being?

For me, I think it is the relentless speed-up of the job driven by the relentless demands for ever-increasing "production". It is bad enough when it comes from the mindless MBA-bots which run universities now, but the worst thing is that so many academics have now internalized this imperative and it guides their professional actions and expectations (even while they complain about it). I find this incredibly alienating, in the Marxian sense. The constant pressure, combined with the fact that I have to publish on what's fashionable, rather than what I think is worth working on (let alone interesting), has utterly drained my work of any value to me. This, in turn, is compounded by the need to publish quickly, so the work is necessarily half-assed, which in turn saps my self-respect since I am not even producing the best crap that I can (and I have to spend time engaging with work that is, it seems to me, similarly rushed and drained of value...). I feel that I am not a researcher but simply an academic "content-creator", whose job is just to generate a fancy version of click-bait. I often find myself day-dreaming that being an adjunct would be preferable; yes, I would have less time to write, but outside of class my time would be entirely my own.

I know not everyone feels the same way about the need to produce, and I am interested to see what other people consider the worst thing about their job, or the profession more generally.

I think this is a good query. If there are particular things that people find frustrating about working in the profession, it can be good to know what those things are--not only for commiseration, but for (hopefully) working to make things better. I may weigh in myself down in the comments section. For now, though, I think it might be good to just open the topic for discussion: What is the worst aspect of your job as a professional philosopher, and why? Let me also ask one further question: What do you think could/should be done to make that part of your job better?  

Getting tenure standards in writing?

In the comments section responding to Ash's recent query on grappling with tenure denial, Ash writes:

Thanks so much everyone again. I hadn't expected so many people to recommend appealing. I have looked into it and I suppose I will appeal, if only to voice my disappointment with the inconsistencies and lack of transparency in the process...

One final question: did other people *get* their tenure standards in writing? They were shared with me a couple of times during the fly-out--once by another assistant professor at the time, who left for another position before I started--and at a few meetings, two with the Chair, since then. But I never thought to get them in writing. I've asked the three other people who have been assistant professors since I joined here, and they all said they were given the same formula--X number of articles, Y number of articles in top journals--but none of us were given it in writing. And we never thought to get it because... There didn't seem to be any disagreement about what the standards were. And we wouldn't have anticipated this kind of situation.

Amanda added, "I would love to hear people's thoughts about getting tenure in standards in writing. Is it weird to ask for this?" I too am curious to hear from readers on this.

Where the jobs were(n't) in 2017: by AOS

Updated 2/21 (11:30am EST): Due to feedback, I reclassified 'cultural' and 'non-Western' philosophy under History/Traditions. I also moved social epistemology from 'social identity' to 'epistemology.'

Last June, I gave an informal tally of how academic philosophy jobs were distributed by AOS in 2016. Because I am always curious what the job-market looks like, I've put together another tally this year (see below).

A few quick notes. First, I tallied tenure-track jobs by doing a general search on Philjobs from August 1st, 2017 through February 16th, 2018 (some 'open contract' jobs turned out to be TT); then I tallied non-TT jobs by doing a search for 'fixed term' and 'open contract' (as some non-TT jobs were open contract as well). Second, because some job-listings had multiple openings (the single listing for NEH fellowships listed 35 jobs, whereas some other postdocs had 2 or 3 openings), I included the number of openings in my tallies. Third, like last year, whenever I encountered jobs with multiple AOSs, I assigned each AOS a fraction of a job. For instance, if a job listed two AOS, I assigned each AOS '.5' of a job; if there were three, I assigned each AOS .33 of a job; if there were four, .25; and so on. While again I recognize this might seem a bit odd, I think it is a well-motivated, as it helps distinguish how many jobs were dedicated to a specific AOS as opposed to jobs split between many. Fourth, I only counted junior, entry-level academic jobs (postdocs, Assistant Profs, Lecturers, etc.), not senior jobs (Associate) or non-academic jobs. Finally, while I've tried to be accurate (I went through everything twice), this is just an informal tally. If there are any errors, please do let me know and I will correct them ASAP. Also, because I'm reporting these numbers a bit earlier this year than last, I'll plan on updating them in June.

Anyway, here are my (rounded) tallies by AOS, along with some brief commentary:

TOTAL JOBS = 423 (228 TT, 195 Non-TT)

Breakdown by AOS (TT + Non-TT combined)

• Aesthetics: 1.5 jobs (.03%)
• Continental: 9.2 jobs (2.2%)
• Core: 39.3 jobs (9.3%)
• History/Traditions: 49.4 jobs (11.7%)
• Open AOS: 135.5 jobs (32%)
• Religion: 8.8 jobs (2.1%)
• Social identity (race, gender, etc.): 15.4 jobs (3.6%)
• Science: 22.8 jobs (5.4%)
• Value theory (ethics, political): 141.4 jobs (33.4%)

I find this pretty astonishing: 65.4% of all junior-level academic jobs this job season have been either Open AOS or in Value Theory, and 1/3 of all jobs were in value theory.

Reader query on returning to academia

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

Could we have a thread where people discuss whether they have any knowledge of someone who left academia and returned, and how they would look upon such candidates? I am considering taking a non-academic job. I have good teaching experience and excellent publications. I would be open to applying selectively to academic jobs in the future, while working a non-academic job. I am just curious whether that is realistic.

Great question! I have no idea how others think about this, and agree it would be great to hear from people on the issue. For my part, I personally know one fellow who recently left academia but has published some pretty great papers (in really well-ranked journals) after leaving. I have a hard time believing this person wouldn't be seriously considered for academic jobs. But this is just my feeling.

What do readers think?

What to do if the hypothesis is true? - part 1: job candidates

Last week, I floated a hypothesis that might partly explain why a certain type of philosophy job-candidate seems to struggle inordinately on the market, relative to their level of accomplishments. Very roughly, the hypothesis is that individuals from lower Leiter-ranked PhD programs may be utilizing a counterproductive job-market strategy: the strategy of trying to publish their way into a job through publications in highly-ranked journals. On the one hand, I hypothesized that even if candidates like this publish in top-journals, they may still be non-competitive for research jobs, given prestige bias (for candidates from 'Leiterific programs'). On the other hand, I hypothesized that if candidates like this have publications in highly-ranked journals, they may be non-competitive for teaching jobs, by appearing like a flight risk (or perhaps, as Amanda added, by appearing like someone who wouldn't be happy in a teaching job). Either way, the hypothesis goes, the above job-market strategy may be a bad bet for candidates coming out of lower-ranked programs.

This hypothesis (which I have Amanda to thank for getting me to think about) has gained uptake the past several days, both in the comments section and on social media, where I encountered quite a few people (faculty and job-candidates) who noted the hypothesis seems to cohere with their experience. I also received emails from job-candidates who fit the profile saying the same thing. Still, for all that, it is just a hypothesis. It may be accurate, it may not be. It would be good to find out more definitively, such as through a study similar to Helen's forthcoming study in Ergo. 

In the meantime, there is the question about what people should do if the hypothesis is true. Because we don't know for sure whether it is true, we should probably exercise caution here. Still, I think it may be worth discussing, particularly for job-candidates like Tim who are having trouble getting any interviews as things are. I also think discussing the hypothesis further may help people--both faculty and students--in grad programs that struggle to place people in permanent jobs. So, let us consider two questions:

1. What should job-candidates like Tim do if the hypothesis is true?
2. What should grad students and grad programs do if the hypothesis is true?

I would like to dedicate the current post to the first question, and then return to the second question in a follow-up post.

Grad-program rank, publications, and job-market: a hypothesis

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, one of our readers ('Tim') speculated on why he hasn't gotten any interviews on the academic job-market this year:

One of the things that keeps shocking me over and over is the number of interviews Amanda and TT Lady announce having. NINE first round interviews? Jesus. I've had fewer than that in three years on the market...

I've had zero this year so far. None. Not a single first-round interview.

The response I expect is 'Well, Tim (no, not my real name), you really need to reexamine your materials then, or publish more or..' Here's the thing: I hired Kelsky to help with my materials. And I did some of the job-mentoring stuff offered elsewhere. And I (literally) have published almost twice the amount that is required for tenure at the institution where I currently have a temporary position. And no, not all of them are epicycle pubs. And there are several areas where I'm one of the `go to' people to ask.

Yet I've had zero first-round interviews. My application is not being taken seriously, it seems. I would love to explain this (this fact, the general one) by anything other than my being a white male. But it's hard to come up with anything nearly as plausible. 

While the ADPA Report indicates gender-effects in hiring, Tim's explanation for why he hasn't received any interviews seems to me to run up against some facts--among them, the fact that there appear to be people who share Tim's demographic identity who have gotten plenty of interviews and jobs (as I noted, my last two years on the market, I received a fairly large number of interviews, and I've had some friends with similar experiences). This suggests to me that whatever role gender does or doesn't play on the market, there is probably something else going on in Tim's case. What could it be?

Following some things that Amanda has said in the past, and some of my experiences mentoring candidates, I've toyed with a hypothesis on what might be going on in these types of cases. I want to be clear: it is just a hypothesis. It may be totally wrong. But let me say why I think it is worth thinking about.

Reader query on applying for higher-ranked jobs

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

I have two related questions. First, is it possible to apply for a tenured job while once is still tenure-track oneself at a different school? (Suppose that I'm about to go up for tenure at School A, and would almost certainly get it. But School B is hiring a tenured line this year before I would go up for tenure, and I would like to apply for it if I can.)

Second, does the answer to the first question change at all if one is applying for an American job from a country with different academic ranks? For example, if one is applying from Australia as a Lecturer (which I understand is roughly equivalent to Assistant Professor in the United States), is one in basically the same boat as if one were an Assistant Professor in the United States, or is this harder if one is coming from a different country?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the first question is generally "no." I mean, of course you can apply for a tenured job while still tenure-track--but I'm pretty sure you won't be seriously considered. Am I wrong?

As to the second question (does the same thing apply for jobs in other countries with different academic ranks?), that I have no idea about. Anyone have any insight to share on this and/or the first question?

Guest-post on perceptions about different types of jobs

The following is an invited guest-post composed by Sam Duncan (Tidewater Community College):

Whether we admit it or not, we philosophers think a lot about how other philosophers view us and our academic positions. In fact, many of us often weigh this more than we should other considerations like the day to day reality of jobs and their larger impact on the world.  I worked as an adjunct and as a lecturer on a year to year appointment for many years and one of the thoughts that dogged me was that my professors and colleagues from grad school thought of me a failure. When I finally landed a full-time gig at a community college I couldn’t shake that thought that even though I liked my job, other members of the profession would view me as a failure. The reactions of some of my former professors only reinforced this. I remember writing one to tell her about the job and her reaction was basically “Well you deserve a better job but it’s a step up.”

The thing is, it’s actually a really good job by almost any objective measure. The pay is good, and my workload and stress levels are much lower than my friends working in research focused jobs. I also have a lot of autonomy in the way I do my job. In fact, not only does administration not meddle in how I do my job but they’ve been extremely supportive of my own ideas and responsive to the few concerns I’ve had as a faculty member. For instance, I wanted to offer a bioethics course here and a number of deans and other administrators did a lot of work to help me through the process and to drum up interest in the course once it was offered. This is a huge contrast to the relationship between the administration and faculty at the research focused school where I worked as a lecturer, which could only be described as acrimonious if not poisonous. And while I don’t have to do much research to keep my job, the college is extremely supportive of research. I get a pretty good travel budget and my dean is overjoyed when I present papers at conferences. So I can do research if and when I feel like it, but there’s none of the publish only to publish pressure that many faculty members feel at research focused institutions. To me at least that seems ideal. Why then would my former professors and others respond in a tone of commiseration? And why would I care?

Reader query about interviews with deans

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

I have my first fly-out! The visit will include a meeting with a dean. But what gets discussed in such a meeting? What should I expect? How should I prepare? Any insight would be very much appreciated.

First of all, congrats - I hope you knock it out of the park! Second, great question. It's been a few years since I've interviewed with a dean, so I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask, but I'll share a few thoughts in a moment.

Before I turn to that, though--and ask you all to share your thoughts--I'd like to highlight an important issue. In response to Curious' comment, Amanda wrote:

The meeting with the dean is the easiest part of the interview. It is basically just for show. When I've had these meetings I was asked easy questions about my research, teaching, what I think of the area etc. Most schools choose who they want to hire and the dean signs off on it. (Curious if anyone has a different perspective from me. I think in Europe and the UK things might be different?)

As I mentioned in a brief rejoinder, my experience is very different than Amanda's. I had an on-campus interview at a very small SLAC whose dean (I learned from a search committee member) was not only a de facto member of the search committee, but the person whose "vote" mattered more than anyone else's. Basically, the school was so small that the dean micromanaged things and wanted to make sure new hires fit his vision of the college. In essence, if the dean wanted you, he would make that known to the search committee, and if he didn't then you were out. So, yeah, the interview with him was sort of important!

Reader query on confidence & job-market disappointments

A few days ago, Nick wrote in our job-market discussion thread:

So, I've just learned, yet another time, that I was not a finalist for a job. I'm having a hard time converting first rounds into fly-outs, and yet I've been told many times, first or second hand, explicitly or tacitly, that I interview just fine. I had one campus interview two years ago, zero last year, and so far only one coming this year. I'm starting to think this might as well be a fluke given how few of them I've had. This might be my only chance, and so I should give it all; at the same time it's hard not to despair in the face of repeated failure. How does one not let failure erode one's confidence?

I expect many other job-market candidates are in a similar boat. I know I was. A few years on the market I got no interviews. Other years I got quite a few first-round interviews, but converted few of them into fly-outs. And, on more than one occasion, on-campus interviews ended in brutal disappointment. I know all too well how hard it can be to keep going in these circumstances--and how difficult it can be to stay confident. Which is why I thought it might help Nick and other candidates to devote a new thread to the topic.

How, then, would you all answer Nick's question? I have no easy answers. But here are a few things I think may be helpful...

Reflections on our recent grad school poll

Following our recent discussion of an undergraduate's questions regarding grad school, last week I ran an informal poll asking readers who pursued a philosophy PhD: "If you pursued a PhD in philosophy, would you do it again?" I thought it might be useful to discuss the results so far, which are as follows:

If you pursued a PhD in philosophy, would you do it again?   Selection   Votes  Definitely  28% 64  Probably  25% 56  Unsure  16% 36  Probably Not  21% 48  Definitely Not  11% 24  228 total

As one reader helpfully noted, the poll was by no means a random sample. It sampled readers of the Cocoon, a professional philosophy blog whose readers who therefore plausibly have a higher-than-average likelihood (among all those who pursued a philosophy PhD) of still being members of the academic profession. In other words, the poll seems likely to not include responses by many people who left the discipline during or after their PhD, and who might plausibly provide more negative answers. For these reasons, as well as the informal nature of the poll, it is probably a good idea to take the poll results with a healthy grain of salt. Still, I think it might be worth reflecting on the poll results, especially in relation to other known facts, such as the fact that (1) recent job-market data indicate that only around 35% of philosophy PhDs get permanent academic jobs (at least within the first three years post-PhD); and (2) humanities PhDs in non-permanent academic jobs appear significantly less satisfied with their jobs than in private or public non-academic industry jobs. 

Because the poll is plausibly skewed in a positive direction (for reasons outlined above), I think it may be helpful to informally look at the poll results as a kind of Best-Case Scenario, where this name just means something like "the most positive results one is likely to get to the poll question among early-career philosophers" (this blog's target audience).

Reader query on a deceased letter-writer

A reader writes,

One of my letter writers unexpectedly passed away. I am still able to send this person's letter. I was hoping to get help with the following questions:

1) Is this something that I should indicate in my application?

2) If so, what is a respectful, appropriate way to do so?

Thanks!

Good questions - and not ones I've ever encountered before. Any thoughts?

Replying to odd interview questions

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, Anon writes: 'So suppose you have an interview and someone says "tell me about yourself." What, on earth, are you supposed to say in response to this question?' Maybe this wouldn't be an odd interview question in the non-academic work (I'm not sure), but it sure does seem it bit off-beat for academic jobs.

How would you all reply to a question like this? What would you consider a good answer?

More generally, what kinds of odd interview questions have you encountered, and how did you reply? Do you think your reply was a good one? Why/why not? The only oddball question I remember getting was, "Why do you think you've been on the market so long?" To the best of my recollection, my answer was something like, "It's a tough market." I think it was a good answer. ;)

Reader query on custom student evaluations

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

Eventually, I can see myself giving the job market another go. But next time, I want to submit job applications with evaluations of my teaching that contain answers from students that search committee members might actually find illuminating, given all the well-known problems with student evals (e.g. unreliability, biased, etc.). There have to be questions that search committee members would prefer to see answered over those questions found on a typical university-approved teaching eval, such as "How would you rate this teacher's effectiveness overall?" or "Did this teacher arrive to class on time?". So, my question for Cocooners, is what are they? Imagine you're on a search committee. What kind of feedback would you like to see from an applicant's students?

While another commenter  ('With a Job') wrote (in somewhat more colorful language) that people could care less about student evals when trying to move around after your first TT job, I'm not sure this is true if one is looking to move from one teaching-focused institution to another, which Eugene confirmed he is indeed considering for reasons relating to geographical location. Although I know people who are skeptical of student evaluations in general (for what seem like good reasons), I know others who do care. As to Eugene's follow-up question, "I suppose it would be interesting to hear, then, why people think that matter at _any_ job stage. Why is there is so much emphasis placed on them when we apply for our first jobs?", I don't think it takes too much imagination to speculate on some purely pragmatic reasons for institutions to care about them.

In any case, Eugene's query raises several questions I suspect readers might be interested in hearing answers to, among them:

1. Which types of student-evaluation items do search-committee members care about? Why?
2. What kinds of alternative questions might be formulated that committee members might find insightful? Why?

Poll: would you still choose to pursue a philosophy PhD?

In light of the discussion in the comments section of our recent query by an undergraduate considering grad programs in philosophy, I thought it might be interesting to run an informal poll. Specifically, I'm curious how many of our readers who entered PhD programs in philosophy would make the same choice if they could go back in time and make the decision again.

Obviously, this is an unscientific poll and there might be significant self-selection effects, so I encourage readers (particularly those considering grad school in philosophy) to take poll results with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I thought it might be interesting to gauge our readers' thoughts. I respectfully ask readers to answer the poll honestly, and to fill it out only once. The poll is open to those and only those who entered a PhD program in philosophy, regardless of whether they finished their program. Finally, if you would like to briefly share why you answered the poll the way you did in the comments section (in a manner consistent with the blog's Mission), please do! 

If you pursued a PhD in philosophy, would you do it again?

Definitely

 

Probably

 

Unsure

 

Probably Not

 

Definitely Not

 

 

pollcode.com free polls

Reader query on tailoring cover letters

A reader writes in:

A standard piece of advice about tailoring in cover letters is to explicitly mention faculty at the school one is applying to. This seems smart and right. Here's a problem-schema I've run into several times, though: I'm looking at the University of X. Professor Y, who has been there for six years, looks to have research interests that overlap mine. But on examination, I see Prof. Y has published very *very* little in their six years at X. I conclude that Y may well not be in line for tenure. Should I mention Y in my letter or not? On one hand, it seems I shouldn't -- Y may well not be there, and tying myself to them might hurt me. On the other hand, it seems I should -- it at least demonstrates that I've looked into the faculty at X.

There are variations on this problem involving old faculty members who haven't published in a long time; faculty members who are on phased retirement; etc. Feel free to bring up variations as well as solutions. 

It's hard for me to offer determinate advice in this case, as I don't know the concrete details of the case. However, I would caution the reader and other applicants against guessing which faculty are likely to receive or not receive tenure. Allow me to explain.

Thoughts About Emotional Investment in the Philosophy Job Market

By Andrew Moon, assistant professor of philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University.

An important practice I learned while on the job market was to manage my degree of emotional investment. If you are too emotionally invested in getting some job, and you do this for many jobs, then the job market will crush you emotionally because you'll be getting the same rote rejections that everybody but 1 out of 300-400 applicants experiences.  Better, I thought, to just not emotionally invest at all. Rejection is hard when you’ve emotionally invested yourself.

I thought this way for a small period of time.  Then a friend noted to me that if I didn’t emotionally invest at all, then I wouldn’t put in the sort of determination and energy into my applications that they deserved.  I agreed.  So, what should I do?

Well, here’s what I did. There were the "schools I wasn’t particularly thrilled about but it's better to have a job than nothing" schools and the "wow schools! but I don’t have the right pedigree or publications or abilities or whatever, so they won't accept me anyway" schools. These were all worth applying to, but I normally put less emotional investment, time, and energy into those jobs. Somewhere in the middle were the jobs I would put more emotional investment into: schools I was both excited about and also thought I had a little more of a chance at getting than the rest. In the end, I’ll admit that I’d often be surprised about where I ended up actually getting an interview, and it wouldn’t always be at the schools where I put more time and energy into the application.  Still, this strikes me as good advice.

Here’s another piece of advice that compares the job market and romantic relationships. Put only as much emotional investment into something (or someone) as it (or that person) has put into you. In romantic relationships, one errs when one is already daydreaming about a wedding when the person hasn't even said "Yes" to your request for a first date. And the first date is the first-round interview. If you haven't gotten an interview, then you haven't gotten to the first date.

Therefore, all schools, before a first round is offered, should have very little emotional investment from you. For nearly all of my schools at that stage, I expected rejection, and I honestly didn’t even read most rejection e-mails beyond merely seeing that I was rejected. Still, you should submit an application (i.e., ask the person out) and put in due effort while doing so!  But with small emotional investment. Only if you get that first-round interview should you start letting yourself emotionally invest to any serious degree (and you can raise the time and energy you devote to that school), but even then, it should be pretty low.  You can start to ramp it up more if offered a fly-out interview.

Well, those were some thoughts about what helped me when I was on the market.  Maybe they’ll help you too.  Comments, disagreements, and other tips of advice are also welcome!

Reader query on obtaining jobs for couples

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" post, Anon writes:

I'd like to see a post on couples finding a dual positions somewhere. It would be nice to see what success looks like in this arena. It's hard to know how to go about solving this problem when you have no idea what possible solutions look like. E.g. Is it possible to get 2 tt positions? If so, how? Do most resign themselves to a tt position with a permanent, but not Tt position for the other? Any instances of job-sharing? What does the negotiation process look like for these sorts of things?

When I talk to senior academics about this, they are about as clueless as well meaning non-academic friends and family:"why don't you just find positions in the same city?" Or. "Hey, there are other colleges nearby, has your wife tried applying to these?"

Great questions. I have very little clue what the answers are. I've heard (only very anecdotally) that it is rare to obtain dual TT positions--and that it's more common for one person to get a TT job and then the other person either a non-TT job at the same university or a nearby one (including nearby community colleges). However, I have no idea how accurate these anecdotes are, or how one actually goes about seeking dual positions. 

Is there anyone with experience with these matters willing to share some insight? 

Friendship and being an academic

I was on the phone with a friend of mine--not a close friend, but a good friend still. We call just a few times a year. He does not do social media; he does not like Skype. So the old fashioned phone it is. He even has a landline. He is an academic, and well-known in his field. He was also extremely fortunate to live in the same area since he was a young child. As a result, he has several close friends, friendships that span decades. They go out to the theatre or the movies. They host dinners at each others' houses. As I was talking to him about this, I noticed how I envied him. Such friendships are clearly still an ideal of human sociality. Friends, the Big Bang Theory, and other shows portray people who are well-embedded in a network of close friendships.

Moving around multiple times, it is hard to maintain close friendships. 

 Raphael, self-portrait with a friend

When discussing this topic on social media (which, for all its ills, is one of the things that allows me to keep in touch with friends) many of my academic friends mentioned similar experiences, such as "My spouse is my only close friend". 

This article was originally published in 2012, but recently republished, because "the topic is timeless." Accordingly, it becomes harder to make friends as one gets older, in ones thirties, forties, and beyond. The reasons for why are complex--being more picky, more busy. But it is sad all the same, and perhaps an under-appreciated negative aspect of the precarity of the job market. 

Given how awful the precarity of the academic job market is (see here for a recent piece that describes this in gut-wrenching detail), friendship would not seem to be high on the priority list. Yet, friends mean a support network for practical as well as emotional matters. It is a source of self-worth and dignity, as eloquently described by philosophers such as Aristotle, Confucius and Augustine. Augustine wrote about his personal friends at length, evidently a source of delight, and sometimes frustration to him. Being denied friends is thus being denied a vital, perhaps even philosophical, part of the human experience.

We can go into tips and suggestions on how to mitigate this problem. Perhaps those of us without close friends aren't trying hard enough. But given that many close friendships are forged, without much effort on our part, in our childhood and twenties, it is a result of how the academic labor market is structured. Seeing close friendships unravel is yet another price many of us have to pay.

Reader query on a recommendation-letter issue

An anonymous UK PhD writes in:

Its coming up to two years this February since I finished my doctorate. In that time i've applied for lots of postdocs/associate profs etc. Nearly all of these job applications required letters of reference (usually just two, sometimes three). Now, recently I asked, politely as always, for one of my references (who was the external examiner for my PhD), to once again write a reference. On the one hand I always feel slightly bad about this, since i'm asking them to do something for me which they strictly don't have to and which is a burden. On the other hand, at this stage how else is one to get references (I have sourced others but this particular individual is a 'go to' reference), and surely they should just be using pretty much the same reference each time with a few tweaks. On asking again for the reference I got quite a rude email (by academic standards), in which the ref said something to the tune of "I've never had to write so many references for anyone in my life" (and it wasn't intended as a joke, it was quite harsh in tone). Now i don't just apply for any jobs, like most people on the market I pick and choose carefully, but nonetheless apply widely within reason. I was wondering what readers at the Cocoon made of this response, and what attitude one should to take towards it. Even if the individual has had to write 30+ references (really that should mean send to an email or server 30+ reference statements which are very similar if not identical) surely its just a hazard of the profession, given the market, that if you agree to do refs for someone you will end up doing a job lot of them. Is there a point at which you should stop using a reference like this, i.e. someone external to you (so not a supervisor etc) given a certain amount of times you have used them? If so whats the cut off? Any thoughts from other early career people at the Cocoon on this would be helpful.

I'm curious to hear what other readers think, but here are some of my thoughts...

Job-market reporting thread

Seeing that the job-market discussion thread turned into an all-purpose job market discussion, I figured it might be good to have a separate thread for job-market reporting (i.e. reporting interviews, flyouts, offers, hires, and so on). This is that thread. From here on out, please visit the other thread for general job-market discussion, and use this one (if you like!) to report on job-market news only.

Note: I've placed permalinks to both threads on the right-hand side of blog.

Query for search committee members: self-aggrandizement or no?

An interesting question just arose in the comments section of our job-market discussion thread.  Tenured wrote, "The killer for most people's application is their letter of application...People put very odd things in the letters. They go on and on about their research and nothing else...and often quite silly emotional things."

Having served on two search committees and mentored several job-candidates, I wholeheartedly agree. As I mentioned a while back in our Job-Market Boot Camp's entry on cover letters (see also here), my experience on both sides of the market--both as a candidate and search-committee member--has been that truly effective cover letters, teaching statements, and research statements are understated, simply laying out one's qualifications, accomplishments, teaching methods, and research as descriptively as possible, without "selling oneself" or self-aggrandizement (e.g. "I have published in the highest-ranked journals in my field", "I am a passionate teacher" etc.). I was given this advice by a job-market consultant I hired, who claimed (on the basis of serving on many search committees) that this is one of the biggest errors job-candidates make. I know several people who did much better on the market (getting permanent jobs) immediately after following this advice, and the same happened to me: I got a lot more interviews, and ultimately a tenure-track job.

Reader query on TT contracts, raises, etc.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted on how tenure requirements and decisionmaking can differ by institution. In the comments section there earlier today, 'recent grad' requested that I survey readers about some other respects in which jobs at different institutions can differ:

Could you create a poll or a post asking tenure-track folks to list a) the lengths of their pre-tenure contracts, b) any raises those pre-tenure contracts involved, and c) what kind of review, if any, was required for each additional pre-tenure contract?

These are really good questions, ones that people on the job-market could probably use good answers to!

Job-market discussion thread

Each year, some of our readers request a thread to commiserate about the job-market: a place to share news about interviews, questions about particular jobs, and so on. Here's a thread for this year's market. Feel free to share away!

(Note: I've included a permalink on the Cocoon's right side-bar so that you can find this thread for the rest of the season).

Reader query on going on the market after being hired TT

In the comments section of a reader query a while back on teaching-intensive visiting positions, a reader writes:

Sorry if this is the wrong space to ask this, but I cannot seem to find the new 'how can we help you?' thread. Anyway i just started a tenure track job at a mid ranked liberal arts school with a 4/4 load. I like the school. I am grateful to have a permanent spot and my life would be fine if I stayed here forever. However, my first choice would be a research job and that is my goal to eventually move to a research spot. My question is would it be a mistake to apply to a few research jobs that I am a decent fit for this year? Is it possible to do that without my new colleagues finding out? I clearly do not want them to think poorly of me or that I am not happy or grateful to be here. I am both happy and grateful. On the other hand I do have these goals and it is hard for me to at least not try for a research job that is a good fit. What does everyone think?

Good questions. I'm unsure what the right answers are. I suspect it is unlikely (though not impossible) that one's colleagues would find out that one went on the market - but, if it were me, I'm not sure I would want to run that risk. At liberal-arts schools, TT lines are hard for departments to come by, and a department can lose the line altogether if a new hire jumps ship. So, I think there is a real risk of alienating one's new colleagues. At the same time, if you really want a research job, it's understandable why you might want to put feelers out for some select jobs - and I know a lot of people in TT and tenured jobs routinely do this.   

For these reasons, I'm just not sure. What do you all think?

 

The ADPA report & job-placement: multiple job-markets

I wrote a post a few years ago arguing against an analogy I'd often heard comparing the academic job-market to professional sports. In brief, the analogy is that just as in professional sports, the academic job-market consists a large number of highly qualified and talented people all competing for the same small batch of jobs: TT jobs, the "major leagues" as it were. I suggested that, in my experience and on the basis of some hiring and publication data I collected, the analogy didn't seem right at all. My sense was that there is something like two very different job-markets: a research market and a teaching market. 

The new ADPA Report broadly seems to me to broadly bear this out. A good number of PhD programs that aren't highly Leiter-ranked have really good permanent-job placement rates--with some of them placing 60-75% of their graduates in permanent jobs...just not R1 jobs with PhD programs (pp. 44-5):

3. University of Virginia: Permanent Rate: 76%; PhD Rate: 0%

4. University of Cincinnati: Permanent Rate: 75%; PhD Rate: 13%

5. Baylor University: Permanent Rate: 73%; PhD Rate: 5%

7. University of Florida: Permanent Rate: 67%; PhD Rate: 0%

8. University of Oregon: Permanent Rate: 65%; PhD Rate: 6%

9. Indiana University Bloomington: Permanent Rate: 64%; PhD Rate: 9%

12. Georgetown University: Permanent Rate: 61%; PhD Rate: 4%

On the other hand, when the ADPA report's placement results are ranked in terms of placements at R1's with PhD programs, the results look very different:

1.  University of California, Berkeley (59%)                               

2.  University of Pittsburgh (HPS) (43%)                                    

3.  Rutgers University, New Brunswick (36%)          

3.  Princeton University (36%)

5.  Massachussetts Institute of Technology (35%)

6.  Carnegie-Mellon University (33%)

7.  Harvard University (31%)

7.  New York University (31%)                                                          

7.  University of California, Irvine (Logic & Philosophy of Science) (31%)

10. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (26%)

Etc.

The takeaway? There isn't just one job-market--and different types of grad programs have better placement-rates for different types of jobs. If you want a research job, Leiter-ranked places still seem like the place to go to grad school. However, if you want a non-research/"teaching" job--or just any permanent job--some low/Leiter-unranked schools far outperform more prestigious Leiter-ranked schools. Whatever gripes some people may have about the ADPA report, this seems to me very good stuff to know!