The Philosophers' Cocoon

Time to TT job (by Leiter rank)

[Updated w/second graph]

Jonathan Weisberg (Toronto) posted this graph on social media today (compiled from the 2017 ADPA report):

There are a number of things interesting about this graph...

First, there isn't that much difference in the average time to getting a TT job from across the PGR. All across the spectrum, the average time to first TT job is somewhere between 1-2 years. However, a closer look at the graph reveals some other interesting things.

The second interesting thing about this graph is that the shortest average times to TT job are for graduates from PhD programs rated a 4 or 5 (which are top-ten programs in the Leiter report) but also programs ranked lower than 2 (which are unranked programs). In fact, although there are fewer data points, graduates from unranked programs (at the far left of the graph) appear to have the shortest average time to first TT job. Note that this coheres with data from the ADPA job-placement report, which indicated that unranked programs such as Baylor, Oregon, Florida, and Cincinnati have some of the highest placement rates of all graduate programs.

Third, the programs that appear to have the longest average-time-to-TT job are those rated between 2 and 3.5, which correspond to programs ranked 20-50 in the Leiter report. Incidentally, this corresponds to the hypothesis I ventured a while back that graduates from mid-ranked programs may have the most trouble on the job-market because they are trying to compete with PGR top-20 graduates for R1 jobs (a generally losing proposition), while at the same time potentially pricing themselves out of teaching jobs by focusing so much on research.

Fourth, it's interesting to me that in the entire graph, the least amount of variance appears to occur for graduates from programs rated lower than 2. In this part of the graph, every person who got their first TT job did so in about 5 years or less--something we find nowhere else on the graph. There also appears to be less variance on the far right side of the graph. Finally, though, the most amount of variance appears for programs rated between 2-3.5 (again, graduates from schools ranked 20-50 in the Leiter report). This also coheres with my hypothesis that graduates from these programs may have the most difficult time on the market.

Finally, it is worth reflecting on the fact that although a good number of candidates get their first TT job in their first year out (there is a lot of clustering at the bottom of the graph), a fairly large number of candidates take between two and seven years to get their first TT job. A lesson here, I think, is that grad students and candidates really need to disabuse themselves of the notion that they should expect a TT job in their first year or two out. If you head to grad school or head out on the market expecting to get a job in your first year or two, you have unrealistic expectations. Yes, quite a lot of candidates do get jobs that quickly--but a heck of a lot do not!

UPDATE: here's an interesting second graph Weisberg shared that is zoomed out and includes extreme outliers removed from the first graph.

Yes, that's right: this graph reports significant numbers of individuals who received TT jobs well before receiving the PhD, as well as people who got their first TT job after 20+ years on the market, including one person it apparently took 50 years. (!)

Non-standard publications and the market

In the comments section of our most recent 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, anon writes:

What would publications from https://1000wordphilosophy.com/ look like to a potential search committee members?

The editors do come right out and say

"We publish approximately 10% of essays that are submitted, usually after substantial revisions and editing.

Most, but not all, of our published essays are by professors of philosophy or advanced graduate students in philosophy.

Essays published at 1000-Word Philosophy are peer-reviewed publications. "

I realize not as much weight as journal articles but I 
am still curious.

Anonymous then chimed in as follows:

Hi anon--just one perspective here but my guess it is somewhat representative of folks on research-focused hiring committees: having a publication like this would make no difference to me one way or another when assessing a file. My guess is that some faculty at research-focused would (unjustifiably) count it as a very slight negative, because it makes you look "less serious" as a researcher or something, and that some would count it as a slight positive (but not much of a positive). I have no idea what people in other kinds of institutions/departments would think.

As far as research schools go, this sounds right to me. Research-focused departments are looking for top researchers, where is this typically understood as original work in top-ranked journals, book presses, etc. Since short 1,000 word introductory anthology pieces don't speak to that, my sense is that Anonymous is right: one of these publications is liable to make little or no difference in how anyone evaluates a file (and it could indeed be a minor negative). But what about more teaching-oriented departments?

Publications undermining market competitiveness?

In our newest "Ask a search committee member" thread, Nate writes:

I earned my Ph.D. from an unranked program in 2016. My sense is that the unranked school at the top of my CV pretty much disqualifies me from R1 type schools. However, I've published a lot for someone at my career stage in an effort to overcome the unranked program that I'm coming out of. To date, I've got 11 publications. 2 are in general journals in the 15-20 range on Leiter's recent poll, a handful are in good specialty journals, and a couple are in edited volumes. Given my publishing record, though, I'm now starting to worry that I've published myself out of some of those teaching jobs.

I've had some success on the market so far. I had a fair number of interviews the past couple years, and I got a handful of offers for VAP/Postdoc jobs this past year (I'm currently in a postdoc at a med school). However, I've been pretty much shut out of the TT market. My worry is that my unranked PhD means I'm not a candidate for research jobs and my publication record means that I'm not a candidate for teaching jobs. Is this a legitimate worry? If so, what can I do?

Amanda then responded, "I will just say this - yes, unfortunately, that is a legitimate worry. Whether it is a legitimate worry for you in particular is unclear, I would have to see your CV." I think Amanda is absolutely right here. But let me try to elaborate on some of the issues that I think may be at play here, as I think it may help Nate and others make better sense of their situation as well as what they might do to be more competitive.

Ask a search-committee member (mid-market edition)

Now that we're in the middle of the job-market--with many job app deadlines already passed and at least some interviews occurring--I thought it might be good to run another ask a search-committee member thread.

For those of you new to the series, this thread is a place for you to share any burning questions you have for people serving on or who have previously served on search committees. So, in the comments section below, feel free to ask any questions you like within the blog's mission, including (but not limited to) questions about:

• The process of judging application materials
• Skype interviews
• On campus interviews
• Etc.

I will then post new threads on each query for search committee members (and others) to weigh in!

Advice for applying to CC jobs?

In our job-market discussion thread, anon writes:

[W]ould anyone here be willing to give me just a bit of advice on applying for TT jobs at community colleges?

I have read somewhere that in addition to the cover letter, even regarding your CV, it might be wise to remove sections about research?

Anyone have a lot of experience or success applying for these types of positions?
Tips? Advice?

Great questions! I applied to a number of CC jobs during my seven years on the market, and think I only received one interview. So whatever I was doing didn't work very well--and I'm not sure what does. Does anyone with experience with community college jobs--as a candidate or search committee member--have any tips to share? 

When to expect interview requests?

In our job-market discussion thread, ED asks, "Is it reasonable to expect to hear about interview opportunities (positive or negative) before the holidays, from departments in the US advertising tt jobs with deadlines in October or November?"

Good question. Our job-market reporting thread has been pretty dead so far this year. Is this because not many hiring departments have set up interviews yet, or is it because people aren't reporting? It's been a few years since I've been on the market, so I'm not sure what the market calendar is like these days. Anyone have any insight? When do the lion's share of interview requests go out these days?

Interview practice and candidate rankings

In the comments section of our, 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, Anon writes:

Do search committees usually have a ranking in mind when they invite candidates for Skype interviews? How can candidates best prepare for these things, particularly on short notice when one is balancing a heavy course load?

Both are very good questions. I will be curious to hear what readers think--particularly search-committee members, though job-marketeers may be able to help with the second question. Here, at any rate, are a few thoughts of my own.

Interview questions

In our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Recent PhD writes:

I was wondering if any search committee members would be willing to share the kinds of questions one might encounter in an interview. In particular, are there any difficult questions that get asked that tend to throw off candidates? What should a candidate be especially prepared to talk about beyond their research, teaching, etc.

This is a wonderful question. It would be great to hear of examples from search committee members. Here are a bunch that spring to mind to me...

Thank-you notes after interviews?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Anon writes, "Should candidates send follow of thank you notes after Skype interviews?" Ah, the perennial question! I'm curious to hear how other people who have served on search committees answer. But here are a few quick thoughts...

Applying to postdoc & TT in same dept?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Mercado writes:

(1) Should someone who is ABD apply to a tenure-track job and a postdoc that are in the same department? The worry here is that applying to both positions will cause the committee to undervalue your application.

(2) In this kind of case, is a job-search committee the same as the postdoc search committee? That is, do these committees have the same members?

Good questions. Although I could be wrong, I see no reason not to apply to both. To the best of my knowledge, there are usually separate search-committees for each job advertised. I also think it is unlikely (though not impossible) that the committees will talk to one another about their candidate pools--with perhaps one exception (one that might benefit you!): if the TT committee thought very highly of you but you end their second-place finalist, it's possible they could lobby with the postdoc committee to hire you into that position. I've actually heard of something like this happening before. On the other hand, if you don't fare well with the TT committee, the postdoc committee still might think highly of you. So, it seems to me best to apply to both jobs, as I'm inclined to think it will maximize your chances for both jobs.

But perhaps I am wrong about this. Admittedly, I haven't been in a department where simultaneous hires like this have been done, so I could be offbase! What do those of you in the know think?

Asking about spousal hires

A reader writes in:

When is a good time in the interviewing process to bring up spousal hires? My spouse is an academic in a different discipline. I’ve heard some people say that they’ve had remarkable success being upfront about their dual body problem— that is, early in the interview process. And yet I can’t help but feel that a committee would be less inclined to invite or extend an offer to a candidate with a dual body problem. At the same time, my fear is that a department would be resentful if I didn’t bring it up until the last minute. I also worry that it would be more difficult to negotiate a spousal hire within a two-week exploding offer window.

I don't have any experience with this, so unfortunately I don't have any idea! Does anyone who has served on the hiring side of things have any insight they are willing to share? 

Tailoring cover letters to schools

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Tom writes:

This question is for those folks who care to see ye olde `I want to be at your specific school because X' thing in the cover letter.

Do you care where in the letter it happens? Should it be first? Right after the stuff about my research but before stuff about teaching? Last? Have I completely misunderstood what a cover letter should look like?

I will be curious to hear what other search-committee members think. Having served on three search committees at a liberal arts university, my sense is that at schools like doesn't matter precisely where you tailor a cover letter to the school. What matters is that you do it and how you do it. Let me explain.

Relationship-status and the market

In the comments section of our "Ask a Search-Committee Member" thread, Anon writes:

Suppose a candidate has a partner who is finishing their PhD and won't be on the market for a couple of years. Would knowing this about the candidate make you worry about whether they might become a flight risk? Should candidates in this situation, and relevantly similar ones, just not talk about their relationship status until after a contract is signed? What do you infer if candidates aren't mentioning anything about having a partner (e.g. on a visit, where multiple faculty members keep bringing up their partners in conversation.)?

My sense is that search committees may indeed worry about flight-risk in cases like this. I would advise most candidates to avoid talking about their relationship status. I don't think people are likely to infer anything from candidates not mentioning their partners. Remember, you are applying and interviewing for a job. Search committee members are not permitted to ask questions about things like these, nor should they expect you to volunteer any personal information. Fortunately, in my experience, they don't! The only time I'm inclined to think it could be wise for a candidate to volunteer any information like that might be if their partner's status might provide the committee reasons to think the candidate will not be a flight risk (such as in cases where one's partner has family in the area).

But these are just my thoughts. I'll be curious to hear what other search committee members think.

Published or unpublished writing samples?

In the comments sections of our 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, ED writes:

Assuming all else equal, do search committees prefer an unpublished paper as a writing sample to a very recently published or forthcoming paper being used as a writing sample?

Assuming so, and now assuming that one thing is not equal - namely, that the unpublished paper still has some minor kinks to be ironed out (because it's unpublished!), would search committees still prefer to read the unpublished thing over the more polished recently published or forthcoming one?

Or is all of this just terribly nit-picky and not worth worrying about?

Good questions. I honestly don't know the answers! I've heard conflicting things. I recall hearing before that some think published pieces look more professional. But I also recall others suggesting it may be best to submit an unpublished piece, as it suggests your best work is still to come. Personally, I'm inclined to say one should just submit one's best work, whatever it may be--as my sense is that what matters most is the quality of what you submit.

What do all of the search-committee members out there think?

Success stories - what you love about academic philosophy and why you decided to stay put

The exploitation of academics in precarious positions, particularly adjuncts but also graduate students, has given rise to a remarkable literary non-fiction subgenre: the quit lit.

Quit lit are heartfelt pieces where academics vent their frustration. I find these pieces very useful. They help us critically evaluate some of the assumptions academics make, such as that a PhD is required to be a good philosopher (this piece by Rachel Williams argues it isn't). This piece by Eugene Sun Park, on why he quit his PhD programme, challenges the homogeneity in academic philosophy and lack of viewpoints outside of the western canon. And this classic piece by Rebecca Schuman  (not a philosopher but a German scholar) advises against graduate school.

I'm on board with all of that but sometimes it is also useful to share stories of success, particularly by people who didn't go to prestigious schools, who struggled and who succeeded. Who in spite of the odds stacked so heavily against them still thought academia is worth it and derive joy from being an academic philosopher. I believe those stories have their place too (hence our long job market journeys feature a while back), and I'd be interested to hear readers' stories about (either in comments or send to us). Such stories can help people in difficult situations see that it does sometimes pay off to stay--although of course, there is a risk in doing so--and for busy people who feel a bit overwhelmed by it all why they are academics in the first place.

So with that in mind I want to hear stories about: 

• you staying in academia, and ending up not regretting it
• accomplishments you got in spite of difficulties (including e.g., health issues, poverty)
• what you enjoy about academic philosophy

You  can comment anonymously but we need a real email address (which we won't reveal).

Search committees: do additional pedagogical training and research matter?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search committee member", Postduck writes:

How does it look to have pedagogical training from one's institution (e.g. teaching certificates, courses, etc.)? And is it worth doing more than one of these things?

'junior faculty' then added:

Related to the previous comment (re: pedagogical training), what about pedagogical research? Sometimes I get the sense that some view the scholarship of teaching and learning as not 'real' research, so I wonder how search committees respond if they see a candidate who has a research program in pedagogy. To be clear, this would be research related to teaching philosophy (even if it has wider implications).

Lauren offered up one answer:

Re: pedagogical training, it would count in your favor as far as I'm concerned. But how much depends a lot on what it is, how significant it is, etc. One workshop isn't worth much; a substantial course, on the other hand, is stronger. Earning a teaching certificate very much depends on what is required, and I tend to be skeptical about how much those are worth unless the candidate gives me reason to believe otherwise--my own PhD institution originally had a "certificate" but it could be achieved simply by attending a certain number of 1 hour teaching sessions. If your training was more substantive than that, you should indicate that in some way.

My answer is different. Having worked at and hired three times at a "teaching" school--a mid-sized liberal arts university that takes teaching very seriously, as well as research--my sense is that every little thing here helps.

Ask a search-committee member

Now that the job-market is in full-swing, and a lot of application deadlines are coming up on November 1st, I thought it might be good to have a thread for any last-minute questions job-candidates have for search committee members. Is there anything you are dying for the "inside scoop" on, such as:

• What looks good or bad in particular dossier materials (cover letters, research statements, teaching portfolios, etc.)?
• How decisions are made about who to interview (e.g. do publications matter most?, etc.)
• What to include or not include?
• How to interview well?
• How the search process works?
• Etc.

If you have a question, just pose it below and (assuming it's within the blog's mission) I'll start a new thread on it for search committees to answer!

Query on framing one's research

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

I am curious about strategies for illustrating 'research promise' (either in a cover letter or research statement). How do people try to communicate their future research ability?

Here are some thoughts I have so far:

1. Mentioning existing publications indicates an ability to publish - so past success is some evidence of the potential for future success.

2. Mentioning works in progress indicates very near future publications (or, ideally, should, but obviously if it gets rejected a lot maybe it will be awhile). The issue here is that, hypothetically, if a paper is under review when you submit your application for a job, it would be accepted for publication prior to starting the job. And so does not seem to clearly indicate anything about what you will do once in the position. Except insofar as it is evidence that you work (much like 

3. Mentioning areas of research. Here the area is reasonably large (big question or some particular subfield) and you of course place your previous work and current work within it, but the hope is that by indicating the more general area you are (implicitly) indicating you can and will do future research, although you are not clearly indicating what that will be.

4. Mentioning future plans. This seems like the most directly relevant, but the issue seems to be that this will often be quite vague or 'promissory'. "In the future, I intend to explore the such and so question" or something like that. Maybe this is less problematic if it fits with previous and current work.

So I see various methods of indicating research promise, but all seem to have issues. But I am just wondering what other people do and what search committees respond to with regard to this issue.

Query on diversity statements

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

Would it be possible to have a post about how to write diversity statements[?]

One recent ad says: "A diversity statement discussing your experience in working with students from many different backgrounds."

Another says to include "a Statement of Diversity and Inclusion describing past experience and contributions to diversity and inclusion efforts, and a description of how you will demonstrate a commitment in these areas in teaching, research, and/or service."

I've heard quite a few people ask about this before, and have to confess that I'm not entirely sure what a 'good' statement looks like. 

Offhand, I guess I'm inclined to say that a strong statement might show how one's research and teaching engage with diverse perspectives--such as one's selection of philosophical topics, authors and readings, engagement with different philosophical traditions, etc. I suppose it might also help if one could illustrate particular classroom practices (for instance, an in-class group assignment) that require students to engage with diverse perspectives. I expect it might also be helpful to explain extracurricular ways one reaches out to diverse students (viz. involvement with student clubs, such as an undergraduate philosophy club). For example, the faculty member who heads up our philosophy club has focused the club's bi-weekly meetings on philosophical discussions of the #MeToo movement and Childish Gambino's 'Feels Like Summer.' 

But these are just a few quick thoughts. Anyone who has served on search committees care to weigh in?

Misleading job-market materials?

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, Dr. X writes [note: comment edited to preserve anonymity]:

There should be a discussion of the types of misleading information to avoid putting on one's CV.

An example that everyone should know by now to be deceitful: listing something under review as a "publication". JUST. STOP.

A more underhanded example: claiming that PhilPeople metrics declares you as being, say, "top  [X] for citations (past five years) for [Y]", without also noting the extremely narrow criterion for entry into PhilPeople's data pool...

Good query. I wasn't aware of the PhilPeople issue, but I hear about similar things every job season. What other kinds of misleading things should candidates take care to avoid? 

Longitudinal TT job data?

A reader writes in:

I was just looking through your stats about 2017 job postings here.  Very helpful!

I'm wondering if you also have some longitudinal information about how the number of job ads has shifted over, say, the last five years or so.  I'm guessing the number of advertised TT jobs has gone down, but I can't seem to find that info on your site or on DN, etc.  I did see other posting from you about the 2016 and 2015 market, but some of those stats included info about August postings and some did not, so I found it hard to compare over time.

I don't have longitudinal data myself, but seem to recall coming across some graphs before indicating the philosophy TT job-market has declined steadily since the 2007-8 financial crisis. Does anyone know where those graphs or data is to be found? Thanks!

Query: what if one can't count on a letter-writer?

An anonymous reader writes in:

[W]hat should a prospective candidate to the job market do when she cannot count with a recommendation letter of her previous supervisor? I imagine some PhD students do not have a good relation with their ex supervisors, and thus this bad relation may create two possible scenarios: in some cases a supervisor may refuse doing a recommendation letter (for ex, by not answering a mail), or in other cases, the content of the recommendation letter may be more harmful than beneficial for the prospective candidate. This may be an important obstacle for getting a job. 

Great query. My first immediate thought is that the clear thing to do is to move on and get outside letters. However, this doesn't address the problem that not having a letter from one's previous supervisor might seem like a red flag to search committees. And unfortunately, I'm not sure I know what to say about dealing with this issue.

Anyone have any helpful tips here? 

Query about tailoring cover letters

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" post from several months ago, GE asks:

I'm a graduate student entering the job market for the first time, and I'm finding it a little bit baffling to develop a cover letter. The advice on Philosopher's Cocoon and a few other online sources is all pretty consistent: you have an introductory paragraph, a current research paragraph, a publication/presentation/future research paragraph, and a fit paragraph. But a lot of jobs specifically ask that you highlight particular things in your cover letter. Often this overlaps with things that you're already putting in a cover letter, or it can be added in the fit paragraph, but it's hard for me to believe that if a search committee specifically asked for you to speak to your experiences advocating for diversity and inclusion, for instance, that they want to read through a whole bunch of stuff about your research before you get there. In those cases, should I rearrange my cover letter to highlight that stuff sooner? Or should I *only* be addressing the requested topics in my cover letter in those cases?

Good questions. I'll be curious to hear what other search committee members think.

Query on junior scholars writing books

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

So what are everyone's thoughts on writing a book as a Junior (non-tenured) scholar, particularly when you are not from somewhere fancy? So here are some things I have either seen or heard:

• If you do write a book, even if it is very good and published with a very good press, or even the top press, it is likely to be ignored.
• If you are searching for research jobs, then *maybe* a book with Oxford, Cambridge, or Routledge might help, but other presses likely not. And even with the aforementioned presses great articles are probably better.
• For tenure at a research place, books with the above presses can help but you better have had great article publications as well.
• For teaching schools books are more competitive with articles? Maybe? I am really less sure on this.

Good questions - I'll be curious to hear what readers think! Here are a few of my thoughts.

Tips for inside candidates?

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

The department in which I am currently a postdoc is conducting a job search in one of my areas of specialization. While I have heard of all sorts of “inside hires” for which the job search was merely a formality, nothing about this job search is in any way tailored to me. I simply more or less fit the bill reasonably well. I am not a perfect fit for the job ad, and so am far certain I can expect to get the job.

Since learning about this job, I have a few questions for the readers of this blog:

First, I wonder how I should conduct myself in the coming months. Should I consider myself from now until then as being in interview mode? This could go on for several months. 

Second, since the odds are that I will not get a job offer, I should expect either not to get an interview, not to get a “flyout”, or not to get the offer. But what should I expect from people around the department? I know I would appreciate a genuine face to face ‘sorry, you just aren’t what we are looking for’ from my experience on the job market that might never come. Would me applying end up sour my relationship with my colleagues for the remainder of the postdoc?

Lastly, despite not being a case of an intentional inside higher [sic], I do enjoy familiarity with everyone on the search committee. What can and should I do to best take advantage of this fact, if at all?

Great questions! I'll be curious to hear what readers think. Because I was an inside candidate for TT jobs on two different occasions--once at the University of British Columbia (where I did not get the job) and once at my current university (where I did)--allow me to share a few thoughts before opening things up for discussion.

How does the job-market look?

I know know the job-market is stressful--but I'm curious what people's impressions about this year's market are so far:

1. How does the market look as a whole (better, worse, or roughly the same as recent years)?
2. Any noticeable trends (types of positions, changes in application processes, etc.)?
3. Are any AOS's having particularly good or bad years?

Anyone interested in chiming in? Our job-market discussion and reporting threads have been a bit quiet so far, though I know it is early still!

Query on grad program attrition

Mike Titelbaum (University of Wisconsin-Madison) wrote in by email:

I am a big fan of The Philosophers' Cocoon, and occasionally jump into the comments section...[But] There's something that occasionally comes up on Cocoon threads and elsewhere that bothers me...

Often when we counsel students comparing graduate schools, we suggest that they look (among other things) at the percentage of admits who complete the program. The underlying implication seems to be that higher completion rates indicate a better program. But this seems to me out of step with another discourse floating around the internet in general and the Cocoon in particular—that deciding as a PhD student that you don't want to become an academic isn't a failure in any sense.

Sometimes a department has a low completion rate because they're unsupportive, are chasing out certain students, or have a toxic environment. But PhD students leave programs for many reasons, including that the program has done a good job of revealing to them what the academic life is like, and they've decided it isn't the life for them (even though it might be available to them). If a department was pressuring people to stay and finish their degree despite having had such a realization, that would enhance their completion rate but it seems to me would be the kind of department that I would discourage a student from joining.

There's also presumably a big selection effect here. Different departments wind up with different kinds of students.  Some populations might be more inclined to decide that academia isn't for them and leave their program before completing. That would hurt a department's completion rate, but perhaps indicate nothing bad about how the department treats students once they arrive. In fact, if a department is more willing to take a risk on certain types of students who might not finish, that might be a good sign about that department's atmosphere and goals.

As I said, this is just something that's been bothering me. I have absolutely no empirical data on any of this, and not even much anecdotal data. But if you're measuring a department by its completion rate, then you're assuming the sole goal of a PhD program is to create PhDs (and possibly then academics). Perhaps instead the first goal of a PhD program should be to help students figure out whether writing a dissertation, completing a PhD, and then becoming an academic is the right path for them?

I think Mike raises really good points here. In email discussion, I suggested that perhaps the best thing to do is to compile and make more transparent both qualitative and quantitative data regarding attrition and job-placemtn.

Good open-access journals?

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

I like the idea of publishing my research in open access venues, since I find the for profit journal industry contrary to the academic ideal. My solution is to try to at least aim first for publishing at open access journals. If my papers get rejected from these, then I will submit them to the standard “respectable” journals. In this way I give open access journals first dibs. But, since I am currently a postdoc and I need to make sure I get published in journals that others (hiring committees) consider “respectable.” My question is what are considered leading open access journals. The only one I can think of in philosophy is Philosophers’ Imprint. It would be very helpful for my aim to compile a list of other OA journals that are considered respectable.

Good query. Ergo immediately comes to mind. So too, at least in ethics and social-political, does JESP. But beyond these, I'm not too familar with which philosophy journals are open access, let alone considered "respectable." 

Anyone have any insight here?

Teaching videos for the job-market?

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

Something I've been wondering about: Do you think there is any benefit to taking videos of, e.g., lectures, talks/presentations, etc. and sharing them in one's portfolio in the relevant place? The advantage, I would think, is that it serves as further evidence of the kinds of claims one is making about teaching/research skills.

My guess is that 99% of committees will ignore them, but that it couldn't hurt to put them out there. I'm reasonably confident about the former, but less so about the latter.

In response, another reader wrote:

[T]he catch is you have no right to video record your students. You would need them to sign release forms, and to be given the option to leave the lecture that day. Certainly this is the case in America.

Fair enough - but suppose you were to get permission. Is there any chance of it benefiting a candidate by having a link to a teaching video in their portfolio? And it is true that "it couldn't hurt to put them out there"? 

Phasing out letters from dissertation committees?

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Number Three asks: At what point should I stop asking dissertation committee members for letters of recommendation? Two years post-PhD? Four? More?

I will be curious to hear what other people think. However, my own thoughts (based on my seven-year experience on the market and time on three search committees) are these:

1. It is not at all clear to me that you should ever stop using letters from your committee.
2. But it is a good idea get additional outside letters to supplement them.

My only evidence for these two claims is admittedly anecdotal, but here it is...

Reader: what are teaching schools looking for?

In an email query this weekend, a reader asked:

"Teaching schools" (whatever vague and ill-defined collection of institutions that picks out) claim to value teaching. So one would think that applications at teaching schools would be evaluated along broadly the following lines:

(1) Will this person stick (e.g. Can this person do whatever is needed to get tenure, and are they going to stay and try to get it?)? If no, discard the application; if yes, go on.

(2) Do they have evidence of their ability to teach? If no, discard the application, if yes, go on.

(3) Among those that are left, look for those with the most evidence of having ability to meet our teaching needs.

This seems sensible. But here's the deal: I meet (1) for sure. And I have taught (actually taught; not just TA'd) more than 40 courses. And I've taught broadly. And I have great evaluations. So I *feel* like teaching schools should be beating down my doors. But they aren't.

Approaching the job market: not a lottery or about philosophical worthiness

(UPDATE: comments now open!)

This is a guest post by Meghan Sullivan. She is Professor of Philosophy and the Rev. John A. O’Brien Collegiate Chair at University of Notre Dame, and has lots of experience with job searches. 

Jonathan Kramnick's observations about changes in the MLA job market transfer to the philosophy market.

And while the job process is certainly high stress for all involved (especially the candidates), I don't think it needs to be as mysterious as it is often portrayed to be.

I am part of a big research department, that is nearly constantly hiring, that serves a philosophy-theology based core curriculum, and that places a high value on collegiality and pluralism. Like many of my colleagues, I've served on a bunch of search committees for the past seven years and as part of many students' job searches. Here is the guidance I give job candidates to try to take the mystery pressure out of the whole thing.

1. Hiring departments are generally trying to solve a problem and meet some goals -- that is what triggered the search. Hiring is not a matter of giving out awards for philosophical worthiness. It isn't a matter of selecting someone who will raise the mean IQ of the faculty. At least not at any healthy department. When a job gets listed, the department is thinking "We really want to grow in metaphysics and we'd love to be able to offer courses in metaphysics and philosophy of science." Or "our university just started up an Honors program. It would be great if we could find a faculty member that will increase our strength in phil religion and help organize that program." Or "We think research on philosophy of race is incredibly important right now. Who is likely to lead us into new avenues in this subfield? What would they write on? What would they do with a conference budget?" Often times when candidates have a rough time on the market, it is no reflection on their abilities or research choices -- it is just that other candidates solved the problems better. That doesn't make you feel great, but it helps in not taking a pass-over as a personal judgment.

Research & teaching job markets: an important difference?

I've written a number of times on how there are multiple academic job-markets, not just one. As a quick rough first pass, there is a research job-market and a teaching job-market--and hiring committees in each market look for different things. A few of my experiences have led me to believe that there may be another important difference--one that may be of great interest to grad students and job-marketeers: potential differences in being able to 'work your way' into a TT job. Allow me to explain.

Although I could be wrong, my sense is that if one does not get a research job relatively quickly (i.e. either right out of grad school or after a postdoc), one's chances of getting a TT job are likely go downhill quickly and stay that way (unless your publishing record is so undeniably good that hiring committees take notice). Why do I say this? I have to confess that my sense here is based mostly on anecdotes. But here are the anecdotes. I know of a few cases where someone was out on the market a while, published up a storm (in top-ranked journals), and then finally got a TT job at a research school. But I don't know many of these cases. I know far more cases of research-minded people--people who have also published up a storm in top 10 and top 5 journals--who still don't have a job or get many interviews. These anecdotes seem to me to fit well with Helen's work indicating it is next to impossible to "publish one's way up the hierarchy" into research jobs, as well as with what I have heard about the importance of trajectory. Basically, my sense is that if you don't get a research job relatively quickly, people on the hiring end of things at R1 schools may be likely to pass you over in favor of people coming out of grad school who "people are talking about."

Query about canceling classes for campus visits

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, Anon writes:

...I am extremely stressed out about applying from my current TT position. Suppose someone is teaching a MWF schedule and lands multiple on-campus interviews. The faculty member will likely have to miss a number of teaching days. What is one supposed to do in this situation? How is one supposed to explain multiple absences, especially at an institution where there are strict policies that discourage canceling class?

Because this seems to be a common quandary (I've heard similar questions asked by many different people), I figured it might be good to gather answers to it in an independent thread. I'm not sure I have any good answers. Anyone have any helpful insight here?

What's wrong with letters of recommendation

All of this.

Choosing PhD programs: further issues to consider

There is an interesting discussion at Daily Nous regarding the importance of different kinds of teaching experience for the job-market. Readers may recall that the importance of teaching experience is something I discussed in the Cocoon's Secret Lives of Search Committees series. As I noted there, having served on several search committees at a teaching-focused institution, my sense is that many PhD programs do not emphasize teaching experience nearly enough. Teaching focused departments are looking for candidates who have more experience than just TA-ing. They are looking for candidates who have independent teaching experience--and breadth of it at that (since teaching-focused departments often need faculty who are prepared to teach many different classes, including ones outside of their AOS).

Query on submitting extra application materials

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

I have a small question but it is one that I know a lot of people face. When applying for jobs, is it always best to send exactly what the department asks for? Or is it sometimes better to send more materials if you have them? (I think this has been discussed but I can't find where.)

Also, more specifically: if a job asks for, say, two research and one teaching letter, but it is possible to send them more (e.g. whatever system they are using allows for additional uploads), should you send them more?

My thoughts about this were as follows: it's probably different for research-focused and teaching-focused jobs, and you should try to identify which category the job in question falls into. I worry that sending additional research letters to teaching-focused jobs communicates that you think of yourself as a researcher/writer more than a teacher/philosopher, or perhaps that you are aiming to get a more research-focused job. But for research-focused jobs, you should send as many letters (within reason--once you hit six or so it's probably just annoying to have more) as possible, if you are sure that they are very strong.

This is a good query, one I wondered about a lot as an applicant and didn't get much guidance for. I'm curious to hear what readers who have served on search committees think. For my part, I'm inclined to think it may be good to submit extra materials (i.e. additional recommendation letters) when applying to research jobs. However, my sense is that it is probably not a good idea to submit additional materials for teaching jobs. Allow me to explain.

Query on length & structure of teaching dossiers

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

It emerged in discussions in recent-ish memory that some people have pretty short teaching dossiers.

How are those structured? When I put together just all my course evaluations, from about 12 courses, I have about 25 pages of material.

More generally, I guess I would be interested in hearing about guidelines for minimum and maximum lengths of the various sub-sections of the dossier.

This is a good query, as in my experience many candidates go wrong here. In reply to anon's query, 'On the Search' wrote:

Committees just do not want to see all your teaching evaluations. Let us imagine you submit 25 pages of evaluations. And let us assume that 120 people are applying for a job. That means there are 3000 pages of teaching evaluations. Do you think any committee will read this much?

Having served on three search committees now, I entirely agree...

Reader query about 'key selection criteria'

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

Jobs in the UK and Australia often ask applicants to complete forms detailing how they satisfy "key selection criteria." They seem like HR documents that no one ever reads. And they're often _very_ lengthy. Should these be taken seriously?

As I don't work in the UK or Australia, I am probably not the best person to answer this question. However, my sense is that key selection criteria matter a great deal in these markets in the sense that, yes, one had better address them in detail somewhere (either in your cover letter or a supplementary document).

Job-market reporting thread (2018-19 season)

Each year, readers ask for threads for discussing and reporting news on the job-market. I just posted this season's discussion thread here. Please visit that thread if you are interested in discussing/commiserating about this year's market. The current thread (below) is for reporting news on the market (i.e. reporting interviews, flyouts, offers, hires, and so on). Although it should go without saying, commenters are asked to remember the Cocoon's supportive mission while reporting. 

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

Job-market discussion thread (2018-19 season)

Each year, readers have asked for place to discuss and commiserate about the job-market. While I recognize it's early in the job-season, jobs are already starting to go up at philjobs. Given how active last year's discussion was, I figured I might as well open up a new thread. This is that thread.

In the comments section below, please feel free to engage in general job-market discussion, such as discussing particular job ads, applications, questions about your dossier materials, how the job-market looks in general, and more personal issues (such as personal worries, etc.). The only caveat is that readers should bear in mind the Cocoon's supportive mission. This is not a place to engage in gossip, who does or does not "deserve" a job, etc. This is intended to be a supportive place, not a place to cast aspersions or tear people down.

Please feel free to share this thread, which will be listed as a permalink on the right side-bar of the blog for the remainder of the job season. Also, please note that there is a separate job-reporting thread to list updates on the job-market, such as which departments have proceeded to first-round interviews, on-campus interviews, filled a given position, and so on.

Job-market series links

Seeing as the academic job-market will be ramping up over the next couple of months, I thought it might be helpful (especially to new readers of the blog) to link to the Cocoon's various job market series. Here they are!:

• Job-Market Boot Camp
• Notes from Both Sides of the Market
• Notes from Search Committee Members
• Secrets of Search Committee Members
• Long Job-Market Journeys
• Alt-Ac Workshop
• Full list of posts with job-market tag

Good luck to everyone this year, and please do let me know if there is anything new job-market related you'd like to see on the blog!

Query on interdisciplinary job-marketeering

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, VAP of X at a SLAC writes:

My PhD is in philosophy, but my background in cognate field X is sufficiently strong that I'm now a VAP of X at a SLAC. I expect that at a handful of schools, separate tenure-track jobs may be advertised this year in both philosophy and in X. I'd like to apply to both jobs when that occurs, but I can foresee upsides and downsides of that strategy, and I'd like advice on how to maximize the upsides and minimize the downsides.

The main upsides I see are that I can teach interdisciplinary courses, conduct research with faculty members and students across disciplines, and foster student and faculty dialogue across disciplines. The main downside I see is being perceived as a unique kind of flight risk. Philosophers might think that I'll either leave for a job in X or, worse yet, use up a line in their department while only really contributing to X. Members of the department of X might have the reciprocal thought.

Am I overthinking this, overlooking other concerns, or both? And do you have any advice on how to navigate this situation? Thanks!

Good questions. I'm not very sure on what the best answers to them might be, but here are a few thoughts...

Reader query on choosing a PhD program

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

When choosing which PhD program to attend, is it more advantageous to choose a program based on the reputation of one's (presumed) advisor, or based on the reputation of the program itself? That is, when considering future employment prospects, is it more important that one's advisor/letter writer is a "star" scholar in their specialty, or is it more important that the overall rank of the program where one receives one's PhD is high? I am a recent MA who is interested in some PhD programs in philosophy that boast "star" scholars but not high overall rank.

I think this is a great query, one many prospective PhD students are likely to have--and I am curious to hear what readers think. My own initial reaction, to be frank, is to question a presupposition the questions seem to be based on: namely, that reputation (of a program or advisor) is the best way for prospective students to think about which PhD program to enter or what their "future employment prospects" are. Allow me to explain, and then give a more direct answer to AnonMA's query.

Reader query on solving a two-body problem

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you? thread, 'Anonymous associate professor' writes:

I'm not sure this has come up yet on the blog. If so just ignore. I'm an associate professor, and have some name recognition in my AOS. 

After several years on the market, my partner is still struggling in VAPs, postdocs, adjunct positions and so forth. My school didn't offer a partner hire and as I am in the UK they don't have such a policy. There was the idea of a new tenure-track line opening a while back, when he was a temporary lecturer there, but now our school is facing drastic cuts including in admin and library support, and things are much likely to get worse. 

For these and other reasons, and also because our 2-body problem remains unsolved, I am looking to move, and am hoping that we can solve it this time (I would be looking to move in any case because of the financial difficulties our school faces). Any tips on how we can solve the 2 body problem best much appreciated. 

In particular:
- How do we look for jobs? Should he look for tenure-track jobs and should we then try to negotiate a tenured hire for me (I've been associate prof for 3 years, and quite frankly, would rather not restart the tenure clock). Or should I look for tenured jobs and try to negotiate a tenure track for him?
- There are right now 2 positions that are open rank and that fit our respective AOS. Should we somehow mention that in our letter? Or just apply and see what happens? (Without 2 positions we cannot realistically move there - the salary, even if I manage to negotiate the top of the salary band, is not good enough for a one-income family to survive on. I've made inquiries with people who live in the area and they told me this).

Great questions, ones I suspect many other people face in various guises (as I myself have known more than a few people with two-body issues). Unfortunately, I have to confess that Ireally have no clue on what the answers are.

Anyone with experience in these matters willing to weigh in?

Reader query on finding CC and foreign jobs

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

So, you've had posts on this before, but I would love it if we did it again:

Where, other than philjobs, should I go to look for philosophy jobs? More specifically:

o If I want to job at a community college, where do I find them advertised?
o If I want a job in Italy, where are those posted?
o How about it I want a job in India?
o etc.

Anyone who can answer any one of these questions will be doing us all a huge favor. Answers of the form `here is a link to several job descriptions' are also waaaaay more appreciated than answers of the form `you have to look hard', since having examples of what I'm looking for often helps making the search easier.

This is a really great query. I expect a fair number of candidates don't even apply to a lot of good community college and foreign jobs simply out of ignorance of their existence. And indeed, as a former job-candidate, I know I didn't apply for many of these jobs because I didn't know where they are advertised.

In reply to Tom's query, Nick Z. wrote:

Most community college jobs are posted on HigherEdJobs and the Chronicle. Even this late in the summer there are two full-time teaching positions posted at the former, one in Buffalo, NY, and the other in Plano, TX. (Both positions are made even more attractive by their proximity to the border, just in case the political, social, and economic conditions of the US get even crazier.) Philjobs rarely posts community college positions.

Nick Z.'s suggestions are helpful, but still, I wonder whether it is true that "most" CC job are advertised in those venues, and it's still unclear to me where most foreign jobs are advertised. Although I don't know for sure, I have to believe there are far more philosophy jobs in Continental Europe, South America, Asia, and elsewhere that aren't advertised on any of the above websites (I've recently met philosophers who work in places like Colombia, Spain, and Sweden, yet I don't recall seeing jobs in those places advertised on the above websites).

Anyone have any insight on these matters? Tom suggested that I might throw up another side-bar on the Cocoon where people could list jobs not advertised on philjobs, and I think this might be a good thing to do. But it would also be helpful, I think, if people just knew where to look for such jobs themselves!

Queries: going on the market from a TT job

UPDATED: comments now open!

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, two readers wrote in with slightly different questions about heading on the job-market when one already has a TT job. First, Tenure a-comin' wrote:

I go up for tenure this year, and am going on the job market because I'm pretty scared about the future of my current state university. I've heard some people say that you should make clear in your cover letter when applying to any TT job that you're willing to start over from scratch - but I'm not. I want my current pubs counted, and I want to cut at least several years off the tenure clock. Given that I'm not willing to start from scratch, should I address this in cover letters at all? What about when/if people ask about it in interviews?

Similarly, Anonymous TT prof wrote:

I too will be going on the market from a TT job. It would be great to have a thread with advice about how to carefully do this. As Tenure a-comin' asked, should I provide some sort of explanation in my cover letter as to why I am applying out? When (if at all) should I tell my colleagues? Have others had to manage being on the job market and a search committee at the same time?

Notice there's a difference between these two queries. The first reader is going on the market while coming up for tenure, whereas Anonymous TT prof didn't mention that. Let's assume for the sake of discussion, then, that Anon TT prof isn't coming up for tenure, but just wants to move from one TT post to another. Does this make a difference as to what one should do? I think it very well could...

Reader query on unconventional teaching practices

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" post, gradstudent14 writes:

I'm planning to go on the job market next year, and lately I've been thinking about my teaching statement. I know that it's often said to be a good thing to stand out here, to make sure that you don't sound like every other candidate. And I suspect that I do, indeed, stand out here. Yet I also worry whether some aspects of my teaching philosophy and pedagogy are simply *too* radical, such that they'll scare search committees off. For example, I don't require attendance in my classes, nor do I require that students do the suggested readings (I don't give reading quizzes or assign homework on the readings). Nor do my classes have any required papers or other assignments. Rather, students may turn in a variety of different kinds of work (papers, posts on the class blog, presentations, podcasts, an optional exam, etc.), and the number of points they get for a given submission depends on factors like the kind of work it is, how long it is, and its quality. A student's final grade for the course is based on how many points she's accumulated by the course's end. There's essentially only one due date for students' work, and it's at the very end of the course. Before that due date, there's no limit to the number of submissions a student can turn in.

There are of course other aspects I could mention, but the above should give a basic picture of the structure that I prefer in my courses. When I talk to others about this way of structuring a course, often the initial reaction is to think that I must be crazy. People seem to be particularly struck by the absence of an attendance requirement and of a requirement that students do the readings. The message I get is "In a class like that, no one's going to show up, no one's going to read any of the readings, and no one's going to do any work." (As a side-note, such predictions have not been borne out by my experience thus far. While I'm still in the middle of teaching my first class, so far I've been quite impressed with the level of initiative students have shown...)...

Once I get a chance to explain my rationale for structuring a course in this way, I've found that people's disbelief often becomes a bit more tempered. But it's the initial reaction, the moment of being taken aback, that worries me when it comes to search committees. I worry that my preferred pedagogy will make me seem too "weird," too much of a risk, and that it'll be difficult to give as full or convincing a justification of it within the confines of a teaching statement as I could in a longer document or in person. And so, not that I suspect the question has a simple or easy answer, but I thought I'd nevertheless ask: When it comes to a teaching statement, how radical is too radical?

This is a really great query! I am very curious to hear other readers' reactions, but here are my own, speaking as someone who has served on three search committees.

Reader query on editing a special issue

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

Is it worth to edit a special issue for a journal? I was accepted (I contacted the journal myself) to co-edit a special issue (with a more senior colleague) for good specialised journal. The topic is something I have myself published and reviewed for.

I assume there is quite a lot of work to do, but what are the potential benefits? Publishing is must to get a job (I have done that and continue doing it) peer-reviewing and writing book reviews, on the other hand, seem to have almost zero benefits in the job market. So what about co-editing a journal issue? Is it worth doing it? (I am doing it anyway because I think it is itself valuable thing to do and something I am very much looking forward to). But perhaps others have some ideas or experience regarding this.

Good question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. My own sense is that there is no simple answer to this question, and that it probably depends on the totality of one's situation. Allow me to explain.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees, part 23: Top 5 job-market tips

The Cocoon has now had several series offering job-market advice: a Job-Market Bootcamp, Notes from Both Sides of the Job-Market, and most recently the present series. I hope you have found these series helpful, and hope to continue to dedicate new series to the topic in the future. That being said, these series have offered a lot of advice, and I suppose it can be a bit overwhelming. Consequently, to simplify a bit, I thought it might be good to have a post discussing top-5 list(s) of job-market advice. I'll begin by offering (and explaining) my own top-5 list. Then I'll invite discussion of the list and also invite those of you who have experience on the market--either as job-candidates or search-committee members--to share your own lists. Here goes!

Although my list may or may not be correct, I found it surprisingly easy to put together. In my experience--as a many-year job-candidate, three-time search committee member, and given some empirical evidence I'll share below--the following tips are without a doubt my top 5:

Tip 1: if you want an R1 job, you had better come from a highly-ranked Leiter program. If you are not from a highly-ranked school, it can be incredibly difficult to publish your way into these jobs.

This tip isn't just my opinion. First, there is empirical evidence for it. In an article forthcoming in Ergo, our own Helen De Cruz found that, "There is a structural lack of upward social mobility in hiring practices: someone from a prestigious school may end up in a lower-ranked institution, but the reverse is unusual." (p. 4) Here is De Cruz's 'money chart':