The Philosophers' Cocoon

Dissertations: monographs or three articles?

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

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

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

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

Transitioning to one's first TT job

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

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

'Excited new prof' then added:

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

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

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

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

Query on SEP & Phil Compass articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “job market" doesn't start post-PhD

This is a guest post by John Protevi, Louisiana State University

This post has two sections. In the first, I take a wide view at employment practices in philosophy departments in American higher education. In the second, taking that analysis in hand, I offer some advice to people considering entering graduate school in philosophy.

When philosophers talk about "the job market," they presuppose that the job market in philosophy begins post-PhD, that it’s all about people looking for a TT job. 

I suggest that we change our frame of reference on these matters, and specify that when we talk about "the job market" in this way we are discussing only a small segment of the complete system of employment for philosophy instruction in institutions of higher education. So I'd like to suggest we call the analysis of the complete system "the political economy of philosophy instruction." 

When we change the frame of reference like that, we see the context for the (post-PhD) job market includes post-BA labor of graduate assistants (either as TAs in charge of sections, or in charge of discussion groups, or as graders of essays) as well as part-time and full-time instructors with BA, MA, or PhD, and post-docs with teaching duties. 

To put it in a formula that retains “job market”: the *real* job market for philosophy teachers begins post-BA, so that PhDs are not just competing against other PhDs but also against anyone else who teaches philosophy, holders of the BA and MA included. 

When we talk about the "political economy of philosophy instruction" we can then explicitly talk about several factors that are only implicit in the discussion of the (post-PhD) "job market."

First, we can see the role of university administrators, who are, after all, largely responsible for the shifts in employment patterns in philosophy instruction. 

To an administrator, a section of Logic or Intro to Phil or Intro to Ethics or ... taught by a BA or MA is a section taught, and taught at low cost. This focus on administrators enables us to connect "job market" discourse with the analyses of the "corporate university," the "privatization of the university," and like matters.

Moving from renewable lecturer to one-year VAP?

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

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

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

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

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

Evening the playing field

In the comments section of Helen's recent post in praise of ordinary academics, Derek Bowman wrote:

The problem is that even positions like these now require one to be - or at least to present oneself as - exceptional. How many of the many job market threads here at the Cocoon are about how to *stand out* rather than simply how to be a good teacher or a good philosopher?

NK then added:

To add to Derek's comment: It's long bothered me that so much of the discussion here is about how to stand out. To an extent, I get it. But telling everyone how to stand out arguably just intensifies the competition (and reinforces the background assumption of meritocracy) that's already making so many of us so miserable. I'm actually inclined to think that giving job-seekers advice about how to get a job is a lot like encouraging athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs (setting aside the fact that the latter are against the rules): if you give the advice to a few, and they take it, it will likely help them; but if you give it to everyone, and most of them take it, the result is that everyone is working harder (suffering, or taking the risk of suffering, the side-effects of the drugs) for basically the same chances of success. So the whole exercise seems pointless (irrational, even).

Helen then responded by saying, "The way I see my mission on The Cocoon and other forums is to help level the playing field...[by providing] free information...[that] helps to make it clearer what [kind of] candidate you are." However, NK wasn't persuaded that what we do helps to level the playing field.

Because these kinds of concerns have come up before (and I do understand where they are coming from) I'd like to try to clarify why I am still hopeful that the tips and information we've provided may help to level the playing field in good ways.

Reminder: it only takes one

Shay Logan (Macalester) writes in:

I have a job! Yay. But that’s not exactly why I’m writing. Mostly I’m writing because I think there’s something about my experience in four years on the market that might be valuable for your readers to know.

I’ve seen the “if you’re doing things right you’ll get a load of interviews” thing mentioned on your blog and heard it a ton elsewhere as well. But I think it’s wrong. It was definitely wrong for me. Chatting with other folks in niche fields, I get the following sense: if you’re not (a) working in moral/political or (b) from someplace fancy, then you will probably get very few interviews even if you’re doing everything right. 

Example: I never once had more than three interviews in a job season. Chatting with other folks in niche subfields leads me to believe this is a common experience. And, in case it matters, I (and many of the folks I chatted with) did the things you’re supposed to do (lots of outside vetting, hired a job consultant, went to career centers, published more, taught more, etc) and still never got more than three interviews in a season. This despite applying very broadly, to anything that I/they qualified for (sometimes 80+ jobs). 

This season, I had exactly one interview. They hired me. 

The moral of the story *isn’t* “don’t give up if you’re not getting many interviews”. By all means, give up when it makes sense to give up. Failing to get many interviews may be evidence to add to your “when does it make sense to give up” calculation. The moral is just that failing to get many interviews doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with your application. It’s just how things are out there for some (many?) of us. 

Thanks to Shay for writing in with this. I think it is a very good reminder that different subfields can be very different (in terms of interview numbers), and that it only takes one interview to work out! That being said, I still think it may make sense to evaluate whether to stay on the market depending on how many interviews one gets. For example, if you've been on the market for 5+ years but you are still getting one interview each season, it may make sense to consider how long one should keep at it given the chances (and other opportunity costs) involved. Still, Shay's comment seems to me very helpful, and I thank him for sharing it. And of course I congratulate you, Shay, on getting the job! :)

In praise of ordinary academics and their goodness

Averageness is a statistical concept, but often it becomes a normative one. Once you establish a bell curve, you can start looking for the exceptional and unusual, as for example Galton's quest for "nature's preeminently nobles" in eugenics, and this becomes the new norm. In academia, averageness is bad.  We all need to be exceptional: exceptionally productive researchers who publish in the right venues, gifted teachers. 

The drive for exceptionalism is toxic. People who go to graduate schools and write doctoral dissertations are already exceptional and gifted in academic talent, but if you find yourself in a pool of such people, it's hard to stand out. Eric Schliesser estimated in 2014 there are 44,000 philosophers alive worldwide. Yet just a few names keep on popping up.

We rely on heuristics and shortcuts to recognize brilliance, because it would be unfeasible to read everyone's work in detail. So we use prestige (as I've argued earlier, see also here) as a shortcut, or gender (although, I do have to say that situation has markedly improved over the years.) Still, even if somehow we had total gender parity and prestige bias could be mitigated the drive for exceptionalism remains. There are exceptional people deserving of recognition, of mention on blogs, of prizes, of symposia at the APA devoted to their books. And then there's all the rest. Whatever shortcuts we will use to gauge exceptionalism, as long as the drive for it persists (and given the job structure of academia, I do not see this change any time soon), that belief will remain.

Skype teaching demos, etc.

In our job-market discussion thread, K.A. writes:

Following up on an earlier conversation about teaching demos via Skype (and thanks to anon 3/12/2019 for their thoughts): does anyone have any advice on how to structure a 10 minute Skype teaching demo?

I don't have the topic yet, but my concerns so far are mostly structural: how should I place the camera, should I aim to write on the board, how should I be interactive with the group on the other side.

Anyone else have thoughts?

I've heard of more of this kind of thing occurring lately - including 15-20 minute Skype research talks. I actually think this may be a better way to interview (since, unlike traditional interviews, it actually has you simulate 'the job' a little bit!). But I have no experience with it myself, and doing this sort of thing online can have special challenges (especially, I imagine, if one uses powerpoint). 

Does anyone have any experience with these, and perhaps any tips to share? It might also be good to hear from search committee members who have held these types of interviews, to hear what works, what problems may have arisen for candidates, and so on!

 

Informing committees of job offers

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

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

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

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

Negotiating tips, especially w/unionized schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trends in philosophy jobs by AOS (2013-18)

In past years, I reported the distribution of academic jobs in philosophy by AOS. This year, the Aero Data Lab has done one better, providing a detailed report of jobs by AOS from 2013-2018. The graph they provide is very striking, and here are some of the main takeaways:

The most striking result here is probably the “ethic” category, which consistently sees 50+ opportunities both for tenure track and fixed term positions. “Politic” and “science” are also looking relatively strong, with 20-30 opportunities each year. So for new graduate students in search of a project that is likely to increase their job market desirability, working on the ethical, social, or political implications of science would seem like a safe bet.

In terms of trends over time, most of the AOS’s fluctuate between 5-15 jobs/year. There appears to be a slight downward trend for “ancient” and “mind,” and a recent uptick of interest in “race”. However, the lack of big changes over time is also interesting, and worth thinking about for new graduate students as they develop and shape their projects. For example, in the past 6 years, there have only ever been a handful of opportunities in math, medieval, and aesthetics—even for fixed term positions. So if your main area of interest is more niche, it may be prudent to think about building a connection to a higher demand AOS in order to increase your future academic job opportunities.

Addressing flight-risk in cover letters?

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

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

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

Using older teaching letters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparing for structured interviews

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

I have a practical question about interviews. It seems like there are two kinds of interviews--(a) those where the committee asks follow up questions, and (b) those where they don't. I assume (b) happens because of HR regulations, but I am really bad at these interviews. My answers tend to run short even when I have a lot to say. And that's bad, since a lot of fixed term lecturer jobs have (b) type interviews, and that's mostly what I'm competitive for right now. Should candidates plan responses to certain typical questions to fit a target time-length, so they don't run short? Or is it expected that this stuff happens? Is there some way to turn it into a conversation that I'm missing? There's often not even any nodding or eye contact during my answers, let alone follow-ups. Sometimes these interviewers skip important questions too, like "How would you teach Intro?" I'm pretty good at (a) type interviews, but utterly bewildered by (b).

This is an excellent query. My experience isn't that '(b) type' interviews tend to occur because of HR regulations. Rather, it is because science supports them. Allow me to explain, and then offer a few tips on preparing for such interviews.

VAPS vs. Lecturers: do search committees care?

Update: comments open now!

In our newest "how can we help you?" post, anon writes:

Is there a meaningful difference between going on the job market as a lecturer and a visiting assistant professor or are both viewed equally?

Obviously, the institution where you're employed and other details have to be considered, but all things being equal, will the title alone confer or convey any meaningful difference or are both viewed as what they are: temporary, contingent appointments?

I honestly don't know the answer. Because I know Lecturer positions in the UK are basically equivalent to Assistant Professor positions in the US, my sense is that search-committee members regard them as basically interchangeable titles for candidates from the UK. In the US, however, my understand is that Lecturer positions can be any one of many things.

Search-committee prejudices?

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

A few years ago, before I secured a permanent position, I applied for a tenure-track position at the institution where I was on a year-to-year fixed-term contract. Department members seemed favorably disposed to my teaching, service, and research. When a tenure-track position in my AOS was advertised at the institution, I jumped at the opportunity to apply.

One member of the department sent an email to other members of the department indicating he was against my candidacy for the tenure-track position. According to the email, which one member of the department forwarded to me, his reasons were that people who obtain fixed-term contracts shouldn't be hired at those institutions permanently and that people on fixed-term contracts were less talented than those who get a tenure-track position directly out of graduate school.

You've discussed the precarious relationship between permanent department members and fixed-term contractors on this blog, but what should we make of this professor's behavior? Is it prejudice? Or is it mere preference?

I basically agree with what Craig wrote later in the comment section ("That seems like a gross prejudice..."). I've known a lot of excellent philosophers--including ones with some pretty astounding publication records--who have been stuck in fixed-term positions for a long time. And I think it is terrible that some people evidently hold this against job-candidates. But, assuming this is a problematic prejudice, this raises two questions:

1. What can be done about it?
2. What other prejudices do search committee members sometimes have?

Leaving Academia: A Guide (guest post by Matt Drabek)

This is a guest post by Matt Drabek, which originally appeared here.

Source: Dnalor 01 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Dnalor_01)

Some of you probably know I have some experience with leaving academia. It’s a gradual process. I started having doubts about an academic career around 2010 or 2011. When I went on the job market in 2011 and 2012, I searched both academic and non-academic jobs.

I landed a non-academic job in early 2013. For a few years, I taught-part time as a Visiting Assistant Professor while working a non-academic job. My last paycheck from a university was in January 2016, and my most recent academic publication (which I’ve summarized) was in the summer of 2016.

So that’s my basic leaving academia narrative. I’ve also done a couple of interviews.

So much for the narrative. Here are some tips/lessons.

Tips for negotiating spousal hires?

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

Do folks have any tips for how to negotiate a spousal hire? I assume the right time to ask is at the offer stage, but after that I'm not sure. Do you ask for a TT line specifically, or just ask what can be done for them? Would it be helpful to hire someone like the Professor is In team to help with negotiations?

Great questions - ones that I'm sure more than a few job-candidates could use good answers to! Unfortunately, I don't know the answers. Do you any of you? It would be great to hear from people who have experience on either side of the matter, i.e. people who have negotiated spousal hires themselves, or who handled spousal hires on the hiring side of things (as search committee members, Dean, etc.). Anyone have any helpful tips to share?

Should you just be yourself in a job interview?

Lots of graduate students and other people on the job market are advised to not be themselves in a job interview. Yourself? God, no. Please.  The idea you could be yourself is a symptom of grad student naiveté, so the idea goes, quickly shed once you become more job market savvy. Job consultant Karen Kelsky calls the be yourself advice one of the most persistent academic myths, and writes ""yourself"  is the very last person you want to be."

The problem is, while Kelsky is not wrong about the reasons for why "just be yourself" is terrible advice, the advice not properly contextualized is confusing. It is confusing because it leaves the candidate wondering, "If not myself, who should I be?" And it seems the answers to that, which I've encountered as a mentor fall along the following lines.

Many job candidates mistakenly believe that because fit is so important (it is, as I'll go into in a bit) they need to pretend that they will perfectly fit the requirements of the position. Can you teach advanced logic? Sure I can! (problem: what if you only ever took one logic course, and that was in your by now nebulous undergraduate?). Can you teach medieval philosophy? Not a problem! We need someone who will work on classic epistemology, are you at all interested in that? Of course, I'll just drop all my interests in social epistemology and I will work on Gettier problems and Cartesian skepticism.

Candidates and SC-members with similar interests

In our ongoing job-market discussion thread, Cleverly Disguised Mule writes:

I have a job market question/issue that I suspect others have encountered as well. How should one approach an application--in particular, the cover letter--for a school that has people working on issues *very, very close* to one's own research?

So suppose I'm applying to an ethics job at Cocoon University and I work on, e.g., naturalism in meta-ethics. But Professor X at Cocoon U who works on that same topic. My hunch is that this makes me less desirable to that department; but maybe not. Given that I'm applying either way, what should I do to make myself look more desirable? Do I emphasize my interest in future collaborations/discussions with Professor X? (How presumptuous of me to assume that Professor X wants to collaborate with anyone! Plus, doesn't this risk emphasizing my overlap with what their department already does?) Or do I try to illustrate the way my project is different from Prof X's? (This might involve going far into the weeds in a cover letter, which might turn off other committee members.) Or do I emphasize my other projects and interests? (This might make me look less serious about my naturalism project, which might look odd to some readers.)

I'm guessing the best approach lies somewhere in between these, but I'm not really sure how to navigate what seems to me to be a possible minefield. If anyone has any specific ideas, I'd be very grateful.

This is a great query, as my own experience (having served on several search committees) is that it is minefield. Allow me to explain why, and then share a few thoughts on perhaps the best way for job-candidates to proceed.

Making the most out of visiting-positions

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

I'm a new PhD and a VAP at a teaching-focused, undergraduate institution. I find teaching meaningful, but I also found myself over-worked and under-stimulated. My students are great! But they're undergraduates. How do other people deal with this experience, particularly long term? Of course, more teaching experience/more experience with a heavier teaching load will, I'm sure, help - but I'm not sure how significant that help will be.

This is a great query. I was in VAP at my current institution for 6 years before being hired tenure-track, and I faced roughly the situation described here. In fact, I still face something like this situation now that I'm tenured--as I'm still a member of a very small (four-person) department at a school where most of the philosophical discussion I engage in is with undergraduates.

So let me offer a few suggestions on the basis of my own experience. I don't pretend that my strategies will work for everyone. But I hope they at least get a good discussion started, and I am curious to hear how others have handled similar situations!

Tips for good teaching demos?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, First time ABD writes:

I have had a few skype interviews now that have warned that if I were to get a fly out interview, I will have to do a teaching demonstration. So the more general question I have is, for those who have done a teaching demonstration, do you have any pragmatic tricks or tips to share, or experiences that you've learned from. For those on search committees, what exactly are you looking for in a teaching demonstration?

The more particular question I have is: I work hard, especially at the start of the year, in classes to structure my classes such that they will function optimally (for instance I make students sign up to email me reading responses the day before class which helps structure my lectures but also makes sure that I have 12/60 students ready to ask questions during the lecture). I feel like in a teaching demonstration, I'm being (unfairly?) parachuted down into a class where my structure is not there. Should I, as a part of my teaching demonstration, try to get the class structured, even just a little bit, to the specifications that I want? (I hope that second question made sense, it's a little vague)

This is a great query. I am curious to hear how people who have served on search-committees (or otherwise witnessed a teaching demo) respond. But here are a few quick thoughts of my own...

Tips for applying to US/UK jobs from abroad?

In our most recent "ask a search-committee member" thread, an academic abroad writes:

Perhaps someone can say a bit more about applications from those who have made a career abroad and are now applying in the US or UK? Our career trajectories tend to look a bit different, and sometimes the whole AOS/AOC thing doesn't apply as straightforwardly either. In some countries, lots of publications come through edited volumes, not journals, and sometimes we have publications in foreign languages.

Moreover, for those whose semesters are structured differently, or for universities in which student evals play less of a role, we might have different teaching materials. For example, my seminars meet only once/week over the course of 15 weeks...The focus here also tends to be on reading less and engaging more intensively with the material. This means my courses are structured differently, and my syllabi look different.

Where I'm at, institutions also place more emphasis on research-based teaching and less on "intro" or survey courses, since those tend to be taught as lectures by the full professors. We aren't in a liberal arts system either, so there are few "gen ed" courses and students to be offered. It's not that I can't teach such classes. (In fact, I love teaching these kinds of courses.) But there is little opportunity for me to do so.

Likewise, it seems like valuable application material space is often spent explaining these differences - and/or why one has made one's career abroad and why one wants to enter/return (in)to the US academic system, when it seems to me that space could be better spent motivating why one is an awesome scholar and a potentially good future colleague.

International scholars can bring lots of really good things to the table and can be really great additions to a department, but I feel like they are often overlooked unless they are senior scholars who have already made their careers, or unless they attended a US/UK institution and went straight from there to the US/UK job market.

Are departments less inclined to give interviews to international junior and mid-career scholars? Any tips for successful applications?

Answering the "how do you balance...?" question

In our job-market discussion thread, anon asks:

I have an interview question. What kind of answer is suitable to the question "how would you balance teaching, research, and service?". Is this a question about time-management, priorities, or something else? Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Good question! I'd be curious to hear search committee members weigh in, but here are a few quick thoughts...

Answering 'how would you teach intro?'

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

What do you do when you get the "how would you teach intro" question? I can see at least three ways of answering this:

1) give the "classic" intro syllabus, heavy on M+E and historical texts, with some value theory thrown in

2) an intro syllabus substantially based around your AOS/whatever teaching needs they have advertised

3) a bold thematic or topic-based course on something that you've been thinking about but isn't necessarily represented in your AOS/AOC. I'm thinking something that might be really cool but also might seem completely off-the-wall to some, e.g. an intro course that has a weekly viewing of a horror film and organizes readings and discussions around the themes of these films.

These aren't the only strategies, but these are the ones I'm considering (I'm not considering the horror film one seriously...yet.) There are benefits and drawbacks to each strategy it seems, and a lot will depend on who is interviewing you. But in any case: thoughts on what strategy is best? Experiences with the "intro question?" Or other thoughts about how to answer that question?

In response, Vampire Killer wrote:

Sissy Fuss,
At many places, your horror film suggestion would be the nail in your coffin. Some questions are asked during interviews that give unstable or ... candidates a chance to tip their hands. This saves the department from having to deny them tenure later.

I'll be curious to hear what readers think--but I can't help but wonder whether Sissy Fuss and Vampire Killer might both be thinking about this issue a bit too narrowly. Allow me to explain.

'Merit' and the job-market: skewed values?

By Sam Duncan (Tidewater Community College)

I’ve noticed in discussions here and elsewhere that many people react with a truly remarkable degree of outrage at the mere suggestion that publications, especially publications at elite journals could ever hurt a job applicant. I’ve seen people say that this is a conscious choice to hire an inferior candidate and that anyone who does so deliberately sabotages their own department and institution. I think this is wrong, but what interests me here is that these reactions reveal some value judgments that, while common in academia, are extremely dubious and harmful to both the people who hold them and to our profession. I hope that by getting clearer on these judgments and explaining why I find the values behind them dubious and harmful I might spur a larger discussion about what our values as a profession are and what they should be.

However, before beginning I want to clarify something. My intent in writing this post is not to blame struggling job-candidates for their predicament, or otherwise ‘punch down’ at vulnerable early-career people seeking permanent jobs. As someone who suffered on the job-market in non-tenure-stream positions myself, I know all too well how unfair the job-market is. My aim in this post is to merely to suggest that a certain set of values—values commonly conveyed in grad programs, and which job-candidates often appear to espouse themselves—are misguided and bad for candidates, by leading them to misunderstand the market. To put it another way, my aim in this post is to be helpful. I want to explain why I think grad students, job-candidates, and the people who mentor them should question certain types of value-judgments about ‘merit’ in philosophy—and how questioning these values might put help job-candidates put themselves in a better position to be successful on the market.

What is evidence of teaching effectiveness?

In our most recent 'Ask a Search-Committee Member' thread, Throwaway Name writes:

Could search committee members discuss their thinking when they evaluate, on paper, whether a candidate is a good teacher? Do they weigh certain application materials more than others (e.g. teaching statement, letters of recommendation, student evaluations, etc.)? In their own experience, are strong application materials of a certain kind correlated to strong teaching abilities? Are strong application materials of another kind not correlated to strong teaching abilities?

Anon added:

I very much second "Throwaway Name's" post. "Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness" is often a standard phrase for jobs, but how is that evaluated? How does that stand out? I really think this deserves a thread of its own.

I think this is a really good query, as I think how search committees think about the issue may be changing a bit. Allow me to explain.

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?