The Philosophers' Cocoon

How are different types of publications weighted?

Yesterday on social media I came across an interesting question: namely, how different types of publications are weighted, both on the job market and in tenure and promotion. Among other things, it was brought to my attention that different types of publications can be valued more in some countries than others. For example, I learned that in Germany, publications in edited volumes are looked upon very highly, but that in the UK, this may not be true (with exceptions, perhaps, for publications in volumes published by OUP or CUP). Similarly, I heard that public philosophy (i.e. publications in popular press such as Aeon, The New York Times, etc.) can be looked upon highly in the US, but not in other countries. I think it might be great to crowdsource more information about these differences in the comments section below.

I also think it might be good to hear people's thoughts on other particular issues, such as how it looks to a search committee  or tenure and promotion (T&P) committee when most of a candidate's publications are in edited volumes (as opposed to journals). For example, suppose someone has a publication or two in decent but not great journals, but a bunch of publications in edited volumes by top-ranked presses with influential editors. How do people think this looks on the job-market and in T&P? On the one hand, I imagine that it may look good to publish in volumes put together by big name editors for good presses. On the other hand, I've always wondered whether publishing primarily in edited volumes may raise the following concern: namely, that publishing in edited volumes is a more ambiguous measure of research quality than publishing in journals. After all, one of the key things about journal publishing--at least in the present system--is that peer-review is anonymized. In edited volumes, on the other hand, the editors know who you are and (depending on the review process) so too may any reviewers they send your chapter to. Because content for edited volumes isn't selected by a fully (double- or triple-) anonymized process, the worry is that readers (i.e. search committees or T&P committees) won't feel in a good position to know if the work was selected primarily on its merits or as a result of the person having 'good connections.'

For these reasons, I can't help but wonder--at least in terms of job-market success and eventual tenure decisions--whether candidates should focus primarily on journal publishing. Maybe I'm off on this--it's just something I've long wondered about, and figured it might be good to hear from more people about. Anyway, what do you all think, particularly those of you with good experience in these matters? How are different kinds of publications weighted on the job-market and T&P? How do things differ from country to country? And how do things differ with respect to department types (e.g. do R1 institutions weigh certain things more heavily than non-R1's)?

Visualizations of PhD program placement data

Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga) writes in:

I've been working on a project for some time now. I've downloaded placement and graduation data from Philjobs, cleaned it up, did some analyses, and visualized the findings. The result is a site where visitors can find job placement rates for PhD programs. There's also a searchable drill-down table where users can see where graduates of a program have historically placed. You can find it here: https://charleslassiter.weebly.com/placement-data.html

Lassiter adds, "This is an ongoing project and I plan to update every 6 months in September (for job seekers) and March (for students headed into PhD programs)." He also notes that, "The biggest issue is that the data is crowd-sourced from Philjobs' placement page as well as PhilPeople profiles."

Publishing outside one's AOS/AOC and the market

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

I am a grad student who has been fortunate enough to publish a few papers. But my publication record is peculiar: while I have one paper in an AOS in a top generalist journal, my other two papers are in areas I don't even list as an AOC. (One is in a specialist journal; the other is in a decent generalist journal.)

These latter two papers were the culminations of side projects. I am hesitant to list the relevant areas even as AOC's because I sincerely consider myself incompetent to, without very serious preparation, teach advanced undergraduate-level survey courses on them. Basically, in both areas, I found a niche question and completely ignored any literature that did not directly address it. I have no other background in these areas. Moreover, I do not expect to continue research in these areas. My current research lies within my AOS's.

I am curious how hiring committees would perceive such a publication record. In my own case, I do have at least a couple years before I go on the job market. So, if I am lucky, I might be able to get another publication or two squarely within my AOS's. But whether or not that happens, how would hiring committees view an applicant with several publications in areas that they do not list as either an AOC or AOS?

This query raises a few good questions:

1. What is enough background to list something as an AOC?
2. How do search committees think about candidates who publish outside of their AOS & AOC?

I'll be honest about #1: it's never been quite clear to me what is sufficient to claim something as an AOC. As this reader notes, the standard rule of thumb is whether you would be able to teach an advanced undergraduate course. However, as someone who has hired four times at a liberal arts university, this rule of thumb actually seems wrong to me. We normally have people only teach upper-division undergraduate courses in their AOS, and treat AOCs more like areas that a person would be well-prepared to teach lower-division courses. And so, in that regard, we're looking for things like 'enough graduate coursework' or teaching experience in the area to make us think that the candidate has a fairly good basic understanding of the area.

In terms of question 2, my guess here is that search committees think very differently here at R1 institutions as opposed to liberal arts universities. At R1's, my sense is that search-committees are primarily look for someone who is outstanding in their AOS--someone who is likely to 'make a name for themselves' and become a leading figure in their main research area. So, to this extent, my bet is that unless your publications outside of your AOS/AOC are in leading journals and you have a good track record publishing in top journals in your AOS, they may work against you, making you look like you lack focus. However, for liberal arts universities, my sense is that the opposite may be true: that publications outside of your AOS/AOC may make you look like a more attractive candidate--namely, as someone with broad research interests with the ability (at least in principle) to teach a wider variety of courses. 

But these are just my guesses. Anyone in the know care to weigh in on either or both questions?

Types of journals and the job market

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

I'm an upper-year PhD student whose looking to go on the job market in a year or two. My question: in deciding where to publish papers, how should I balance general prestige with area focus? My default view has always been to just publish in the best general journals possible. I guess my more specific question then is whether there is any special value in, for instance, publishing in a less prestigious ethics-focused journal as opposed to a general journal that might be more 'prestigious.' My thought has always been that people looking at a CV want the most prestigious journal possible, but I hear from some that there might be a value in going for an ethics-focused journal, at least at times.

I'm curious to hear from people in the know here. I would have thought that as far as R1 jobs are concerned, as long as you're publishing in top journals, you're good to go. I mean, is it really going to bother someone that you haven't published in an ethics journal if you've published in, say, Phil Review, Nous, and PPR? That just seems weird to me. And when it comes to non-R1/SLAC jobs, my sense is that venue doesn't tend to matter much in general. As long as you're publishing consistently in decent journals and your work is interesting, you're a good candidate. 

Am I missing something? Anyone in the know care to weigh in?

Job Market Reporting Thread (2020-21 season)

Each year, readers ask for threads for discussing and reporting news on the job-market. I recently 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 please remember the Cocoon's supportive mission while reporting. A link to this thread will remain on the blog's right sidebar for the remainder of the job season.

Flagging your career stage/situation in job apps?

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

I wonder how TT assistant professor folks can flag that they are in their first or second year when applying for TT positions? The worry is that folks on search committees may unwittingly favor assistant professors who are further along the tenure track because these folks will often have more publications and generally a more robust CV.

Two readers replied:

Your CV will do it, so long as you list employment and dates. - Submitted by TT

JuniorTT, it should come across clearly on your CV. That is, your employment history should make explicit when you got your PhD, when you started your job, etc., from which search committees shouldn't have to work too hard to figure out how far along on the tenure track you are. I also don't think there's anything wrong with a cover letter saying: "I'm in my second year of a TT position at X, but I'm interested in your job because Y..." - Submitted by Daniel

Let me add a couple of quick remarks here that I think job applicants in general might find helpful, and then add a question to follow up on Daniel's reply.

Listing pro-life publications on a CV?

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

Suppose you have 3 publications. 2 in one area, 1 in another area. But suppose that the 1 publication identifies you as being pro-life. Is it better to keep this publication on your CV, outing you as being pro-life, or is it better to leave it off, thereby looking less accomplished and depriving yourself of an area of specialization?

My concern here is that this position (pro-life) is not only unpopular, but appears to be frowned upon in lots of philosophy circles. For example, Elizabeth Harman recently said on the blog of the APA (!) that she considers most opposition to abortion *sexist*. So, if she knows someone is pro-life, this makes it pretty likely that that person's application will be thrown out. (Would you hire a sexist?) It seems that Harman's views aren't idiosyncratic. So, which strategy is more advantageous?

Interesting questions, and I'm not sure what the answers are. I tend to think that when you're on the j0b market, you should be honest, rolling with your actual accomplishments and who you really are. Sure, some people may not want to hire someone who's pro-life. But surely there are some people at some places (e.g. Christian universities) who do. Would you really want to work somewhere where people would discriminate against you, or where you feel like you need to hide your views? Suppose you do get hired. Sooner or later, people there are likely to find out about your pro-life views and work. What then? Wouldn't it be better for you to get a job at a university where people do value what you do? I understand the job market is awful and it's natural to want any job rather than no job at all. But I've also known people get jobs at universities they are miserable at and trying (mostly in vain) to leave. Better, I think, to get the right job to begin with.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Getting an academic job with an MA?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks: "Is it possible for one to have an academic job (eg. lecturer) with only an MA? How does one go about finding such jobs?" As a reader commented on to follow up, there are basically three ways to get an academic job with only an MA:

1. Part-time adjunct positions often only require an MA, but are low-paying without full-time benefits.
2. Some full-time lecturer positions at universities may only require an MA, but appear to be quite rare in philosophy.
3. Many permanent community college jobs appear to only require an MA.

I suspect that of these three options, the first is the most common (but least attractive of the three), and that if one wants full-time employment with an MA, the third option is probably one's best shot. But I don't know for sure. Anyone with experience on this care to weigh in? 

Getting a 2nd PhD to stay in philosophy?

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

I have a PhD in philosophy but haven't been able to get a TT job despite a few years on the market. I still want to be a professional philosopher.

My publication record is good enough for tenure at nearly any R1. But I came from a Leiter low-ranked school, and multiple search committee members have told me that this makes me unhireable.

Is it possible to get a second philosophy PhD, from a school like NYU or Princeton, to check the 'pedigree' and 'fancy advisor' boxes?

One reader responded as follows:

[N]o, that is not possible—no high-ranking program would accept someone who already had a PhD . Do you really have a tenure at an R1 profile? Like multiple articles a year + a book with a top-notch press, something like that? I do not think that what you propose is wise, even if it were possible. I would invest in conferencing (I know, Covid, but for the time being, online conferences)—if you become well-known in your sub discipline, you can get letters etc, to overcome the lack of “clout” of your home institution. it’s always a gamble, though. I know very smart accomplished people from high-ranked programs who have been shut out—no interviews, year after year. It sucks—you always think someone else has the golden ticket, truth is, there is no golden ticket.

While I think this reader is almost certainly right that a second philosophy PhD is out of the question, there's another fairly obvious possibility that I'm curious about readers' thoughts to: seeking a second PhD in another discipline. For example, suppose you work in moral or political philosophy. Although some philosophers (e.g. Scanlon) think empirical work is irrelevant to normative philosophical matters, there are those of who who deeply disagree--people who think that things like empirical psychology and political science are vital to draw on in moral and political theorizing. So, if moral or political is your philosophical focus and you really want to stay in academia, why not consider pursuing a second PhD in one of these areas? Doing so could not open up other job-markets to you (e.g. academic and industry jobs in psych and poli-sci), but also give you time to keep publishing in philosophy. Similarly, if the person works in logic, epistemology, or philosophy of science, there are all kinds of science-y PhDs they might pursue. 

If, as this reader claims, they really do have an R1-tenure-worthy publication record, then I have to imagine that someone in philosophy would eventually hire them if they stay on the market, particularly if they keep publishing at a good clip. Given how terrible the market is, it's all to easy to have an extended 'string of bad luck' (I spent 7 years on the market myself!). So, again, why not pursue a 2nd PhD in another field? Doing so, again, could enable this person to stay on the philosophy job-market while preparing them for additional job-markets. It would, of course, mean another 5-7+ years in a philosophy grad program. However, if they really don't want to leave academia, this seems to me a better option than, say, long-term adjunct work.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Putting Zoom talks to online groups on CVs?

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

People are forming all kinds of zoom groups. Suppose it’s wildly unlikely that you would have been brought out to a campus setting for some event but a group of people invited you to speak or present something to their department zoom group or these people are reading something of yours and they invite you join in that week. This doesn’t feel CV worthy to me but I also can’t see why not exactly... it’s a lot like a department or research group inviting you to their campus for a colloquium in a way... just no plane ticket. I’m tempted to add a “Covid/online activity” section to my cv. Any thoughts?

I haven't been a part of any of these groups, but I've heard a bit about them. People increasingly seem to be getting invited to provide guest-talks to other people's classes (including graduate seminars), as well as to reading groups of various sorts--some housed primarily within a department and others including scholars from other universities (particularly universities in the surrounding region). In response to this query, another reader ('Appearances') wrote:

You can put what you want on your cv. But the lower grade the stuff is that you list, the lower you are pitching yourself. I advised someone to take their computer skills off their cv...and then they got a permanent position. They were pitching themselves in a way that made them look like ...

This seems right to me. Appearances matter, and it seems to me that the more you include stuff like this, the more 'desperate' you may look. In addition to being quite a bit of a lottery, the academic job-market has always seemed to me a lot like dating: you want to look confident and accomplished rather than insecure and 'making up accomplishments' to pad your CV. While it may be tempting to think of being invited to present to one of these online groups as a genuine accomplishment, the real question here is how it is going to look. As 'Appearances' noted, they don't think it looks very good, and I suspect they are not alone. Might there be counterexamples? Suppose that some Famous Philosopher invites you to give a guest lecture to their grad seminar. Could that look good? I guess it could--but in that case, instead of creating a Covid/online activity' section, I'm inclined to think it may make more sense to just change the 'Invited Talks' section of your CV to something like 'Invited Talks and Guest Lectures', or some such. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Strange 'part-time' jobs this year?

A reader writes in:

I am on the market this year, and noticed quite a few “part time” jobs, e.g. “3 year, 80% time post” and “Assistant professor (50% +).” I am unfamiliar with such practices, so would like to know a) what is it like to be in such positions (I know experiences should differ from person to person), b) do people work de facto full time in these jobs, and c) will the part time nature make working visa applications more difficult.

Interesting query. I think I've seen a few jobs like this in the past, but suspect they may be more common this year for an obvious reason: universities looking to save money due to the pandemic. Does anyone have the inside scoop on these kinds of positions? I cannot help but have the suspicion that people in these positions may be expected to work de facto full-time job, in which case jobs like these could be a really underhanded way for universities to underpay the person hired. But maybe I'm wrong about this. In any case, what are these jobs like? Do they have any implications for visa applications?

Advice for people who start graduate school in the midst of a pandemic

(This is a talk I am giving to the incoming graduate students at my department).

Welcome, incoming graduate students; I am so pleased you are joining us. I'm excited to see what lies ahead for you. I'm your placement director, and was asked to give a brief talk to you via Zoom, as we are still in the midst of a pandemic. 

If I had spoken to you last year, I would've talked in detail about my journey into philosophy. Everyone's experience is different, but it's often helpful to hear from a diversity of experiences, particularly if they are from people who don't fit the archetype of a philosopher, for example, someone who is (like me) from a working-class immigrant background, who is not a white man, whose philosophical interests are unconventional, etc. 

My trajectory to become a philosophy professor was unusual. When I started my second postdoc in 2013 I wondered if I would ever be able to land a tenure-track job. I turned to various mentors, informal ones and even a job market consultant, to try to learn the secret to job market success in academia. I then discovered there are many donts. Don't co-author in philosophy, certainly not with your partner if you are a woman. Don't publish in non-philosophy journals. Don't blog or do public philosophy, that is for senior people with the security of tenure. There were also many dos. Always have at least three papers under review (I did that! Now I think, wow that's exhausting!). Write the sort of paper you see appear in Mind or Philosophical Review. Hang out with important people. 

I've since learned you can't just distill success in grad school and on the job market into some formula. I know lots of people who fit all the dos and dont, and who have at the time they finish the PhD job CVs that would suffice for tenure at a research-intensive school. Yet they do not receive any offers for tenure track jobs. And I also know people who flouted the rules and did well.

So, my advice back in 2019 would have been this, and I think this advice still applies. It's important to cultivate good habits that help you be productive and to get your work out there (see here for an excellent list of tips by Liz Jackson). But also, you must do so in such a way that you can grow authentically into the person that you want to be. 

Bringing up the authentic self in the context of job market advice may seem strange, because the advice of job market consultants, advisers and many placement directors seems to be that you should not be yourself. Rather, they argue you should become a narrowly specialized candidate who is well networked and who writes papers that appear in top journals. They think you should fit your professional persona to the demands of the job market.

However, people with long-term high job satisfaction as academics tend to be people who are able to live and work authentically, to do the work they love and value, and teach and do service in line with their values. Obviously, there is a lot of work that you might not love as a professor. Examples may include grading, committees, admin (in the UK), or teaching that intro course for the nth time. Still, it strikes me that professors who are enduringly happy are people who have somehow merged their professional persona with their values, and who are doing things they delight in.

What does this mean concretely? In research, it means that you should do work that excites you. Writing a dissertation is difficult and a lot of job market failure lies in people who do not complete their PhD. You are in it for the long haul, you will be with us for at least five years, and you need enough love for the topic to be able to complete it. You must not lose your love for reading or other things you valued. Don't be tempted into the trap of "I will focus everything on being an academic and will make time for the rest of my life once I have tenure". That is counterproductive and unsustainable.

We are now in the midst of a pandemic. Among its many ramifications is a likely deep economic crisis, the extent of which we don't yet know as we're still grappling with the virus. The effects will likely be bigger and longer-lasting than the 2008 financial crisis. The philosophy job market never recovered to pre-2008 levels after the previous crash, as can be seen in this figure from IHE. We are not even countenancing the beginning of an economic recovery yet from this pandemic (after all, it isn't over), and what shape that recovery will take is hard to predict. In the light of this crisis mode that higher education undeniably is in, my advice needs to be adapted.

Publishing fiction and the job-market?

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, an Author writes:

This might be a silly question but here goes. What would you think of a philosopher publishing fiction in addition to publishing philosophy? If their work has philosophical themes - if a character was a philosophy professor, or if characters explicitly discussed philosophers' work - would you think that was evidence of un-seriousness or lack of dedication to really doing philosophy? Would you assume the work was autobiographical? Would peers or mentors or hiring committees care? I studied creative writing in college and have been working on fiction projects in my spare time on and off since then and there's one I want to publish. But if there's even a little chance it would hurt my prospects in philosophy, forget it...

I don't think this is a silly question at all. On the contrary, I think it is a great set of questions, ones that draw attention to aspects of the profession and job-market that graduate students and job-candidates should be aware of and think about. Allow me to explain.

Job-market discussion thread (2020-21 season)

I know it's just the beginning of August and (sadly, but predictably) very few jobs advertisements have been posted over at PhilJobs and HigherEd Jobs. However, given that this job season is going to be unique--to say the least--and I expect there may be quite a few job-marketeers out there who already want to commiserate about how the market is already looking and how to prepare for it (including for Alt-Ac opportunities), I hereby open this job market discussion thread for the 2020-21 season.

Readers should feel free to discuss job-market matters in this post's comment section as they see fit, provided the discussion conforms to the blog's safe and supportive mission. As a rough rule of thumb, readers are expected to refrain from posting aggressive comments that can be reasonably interpreted as undermining a safe and supportive environment. As moderator, I will intervene if need be to let people know why I have elected not to approve their comments, so as to keep the discussion positive.

One other important thing. As in past years, the Cocoon will ultimately have two job-market threads this year:

1. A job-market discussion thread (the present thread): to commisserate about the market, discussing particular job ads, the market in general, questions about application materials, interviewing, alt-ac opportunities, and so on.
2. A job-market reporting thread: to post news about interviews, on-campus visits, offers, rejection notices, etc.

Because someone always asks, "Why two threads?", there are a couple of reasons for it. First, some people may want to discuss the market but not stress over daily news regarding which jobs they still do or don't have a chance for. Conversely, others may not want to discuss the market but just want news about the jobs they've applied for. Second, these threads can get very long already, so I think the best way for people to get the information they want in a well-ordered format is simply to have two threads.

A few final notes:

• Please reserve job-market news (i.e. interviews, on-campus visits, hires, etc.) for the job-market reporting thread, which I will open sometime in September.
• A 'permalink' to this thread will be on the upper right of blog's right sidebar. -->
• Because of Typepad's functionality limitations (which only permits 100 comments before starting a new comment page), readers may elect to bookmark each new page of comments (or update their previous bookmark) as each new page emerges. I recognize that is can be frustrating to scroll through page after page to get to new comments, and I think this is probably the best solution.

All that being said, this discussion thread is now open. 

Listing one's dissertation committee on the CV?

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

Should junior TT faculty, who are trying to do things such as get another TT job or secure a book contract with a good academic press, list their dissertation committee members on their CV?

Karen Kelsky advises against it because by her lights it makes one seem much more like a junior scholar or maybe even a graduate student.

But, on the other hand, both search committees and academic press suffer from prestige bias. So, one might think that if one's dissertation committee is very famous, one should include them on one's CV.

Interesting question! I would have thought the obvious answer here is, "Yes", for basically the prestige-related reasons (if you have particularly well-known committee members listed on the first page, that could catch someone's eye). But Kelsky's reasoning sort of makes sense as well, and I've heard similar things from others in the profession (i.e. you want to 'look like an equal' rather than someone who sees themselves still as a 'junior' scholar).

Any readers in the know have any thoughts on this?

Ageism on the academic job-market?

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

I am an older graduate student (circa 40) who, in the coming years, expects to go on the academic job market. In your experience, is it true that older candidates are often looked at less favorably than younger candidates? Is there some sense that, with a younger candidate, it is more likely that "her best work is ahead of her"? To the extent that this age bias is prevalent, are there ways for older candidates to mitigate its impact? More specifically, are there particular worries about older candidates that they might be able to address in their application materials?

These are important questions. We had a discussion about ageism and grad program admissions a while back. However, to my recollection we've never had a discussion about ageism and the job-market. On the one hand, I'm tempted to say--on the basis of our grad program discussion and my own experience on search committees--that I don't think ageism (particularly against someone in their 40s) is likely to be a big issue. On the other hand, ageism in job-markets in general is (sadly) well-established. Further, it would not surprise me much if age discrimination is highly implicit, with those who engage in it not able to reliably introspect their own motives. 

Anyway, I'm curious what readers think, both about the existence of ageism in academic job-markets and about what applicants might do to mitigate its potential impact. Anyone have any experience or insights here?

Must job-candidates list every publication?

In our job-market discussion board, a reader writes:

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I hope someone sees it. I have a somewhat sensitive question related to the philosophy job market. I have a masters in religion and am published in that field. I was wondering if committees typically require *all* publications to be disclosed, or whether it's my prerogative to include them or not in the job application. Which leads me to the more sensitive question: unlike other candidates who have an interdisciplinary background in science, math, etc., there may be departments where, though the candidate is strong in the area of philosophy, the department may be intentionally hostile or unwelcoming to candidates with religious backgrounds, particularly candidates who studied at conservative institutions within religious academia; the religious background offsets an otherwise strong or merely promising candidate. Though I have no examples in mind, I'm wondering how common or unheard of it is for departments to be, either openly or less transparently, inclined to reject a job candidate who discloses such a background on their CV. I would be sincerely grateful for honest answers. Thanks in advance!

One reader initial followed up, saying:

I think taking publications off your CV is totally your discretion. That said, I've noticed a few people in the past few years getting R1 jobs with papers on philosophy of religion (particularly philosophy of Christianity). So I'm not sure it would hurt you.

However, another reader then weighed in:

There is one big risk if you take things off your c.v., like publications. If a committee member happens to find things - through a google search - then you look really deceitful. No one wants you then - even if someone on the committee was backing you, they will drop you like a hot potato, on the risk that you are hiding more or are just a big fat liar. So I would be more forthright with where you are coming from. There are people who are anti-religious. That is the reality. But even if you were hired at a place with such people you would probably find it a very hostile place to work. I saw similar thing happen, but [with] respect to a political piece.

I'm inclined to think the second reader is right on both counts. First, search committees interested in a candidate are likely to do their homework, looking up the candidate online. If they find a candidate has publications they didn't report in the application, that could very much make the candidate look deceitful--which is really the last way you want to appear as a job-candidate. Second, do you really want to work at a place where your colleagues will discriminate against you on the basis of your religious identity or views? 

But these are just my thoughts, and they don't answer the original poster's main question: namely, how common is it for departments to either openly or less transparently reject a job candidate who discloses a religious background on their CV?

Mentoring program update (call for +mentors)

I just wanted to give readers a quick update on the Cocoon's job-market mentoring program. Helen and I have received a lot of signups thus far, both in terms of mentors and mentee applicants--which is really great, as it looks like we will be able to match many of the mentees who have signed up to this point. However, we could use some additional volunteers with the following backgrounds:

• LGBTQ+
• POC
• Philosophy of mind
• Metaphysics
• Latin American philosophy
• UK academic market
• Non-western/international background
• Social-political philosophy

Helen and I plant to begin setting up the first matches later today, and plan to move forward as quickly as we can. But in the meantime, we encourage mentees and mentors (particularly mentors with the above backgrounds) to continue signing up here!

Motivation for teaching and the market?

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

[A]m I the only one who isn't motivated by teaching? I try hard at it and treat it seriously, but there isn't really anything about teaching that I actively like or that motivates me to be in grad school or academia. (I don't dislike it either, it's kind of just a job.) I learned that I'm probably more of an exception in this regard, or else I'm one of the few willing to say that teaching doesn't motivate me. How should job applicants spin their relationship to teaching? Does it matter if we aren't passionate about it?

I too am curious to hear people's answers. By all accounts, being motivated by teaching matters very little for getting a job at a research institution. However, what about getting a job at a teaching institution? Here, it seems to clearly important to look as though one is passionate about teaching, and to be motivated enough to appear to be very good at it. However, as we all know from everyday life and Book II of The Republic, it's one thing to appear to be motivated by something, and another thing to actually be motivated by it!

So, then, how do readers actually feel about teaching--particularly those of you who have gotten jobs (and tenure?) at teaching-focused institutions? Are you actually motivated by or passionate about teaching? Or, is teaching 'just a job' for you that you've tried to be good enough at to get a job and tenure?

Stay in grad school or go on the market?

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

All things considered, is it better for your future academic job prospects to delay graduating and stay in graduate school or to graduate with a PhD in these Covid times? I have heard people in the profession talk about how extended "length of time to get your degree" can count against someone on the market. Alternatively, I have heard people talk about how having a "stale" PhD (i.e. your chances of getting a TT job decrease every year that you are on the market after you earned your PhD) can also count against you on the market (aka the "staying fresh" rule). I currently have completed my dissertation and am one of the older graduate students at my university (between 5-9 years in the program). I am not sure if it is better for my future academic employment to defend and graduate sooner rather than later. Everyone thinks that the job market in the Fall will be terrible. Some think that hiring committees in the future will be more understanding about getting your PhD in a post-Covid era, but I am not sure how sympathetic they will actually be. Any advice or insights are most welcome!

From my perspective, the answer here is clear: generally speaking (and within reason), it is far worse to come out of grad school too early and run the risk of 'going stale' than it is to stay in graduate school and look like you have a 'long time to completion'. Allow me to explain.

Can good publications offset grad program rank?

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

On the topic of "tippy top" schools, how much can good publications offset coming from a lower ranked school on the job market? I'm set to defend in the fall and my department isn't particularly notable. I have however been fortunate enough to get two publications in top tier journals. Should I keep aiming to publish at high ranked journals or I am better off submitting to mid-level journals where I may be more likely to accumulate publications?

I'd be very curious to hear what readers think, particularly those who have been involved in hiring. For my part, I have to sadly confess--as I have before--that I am skeptical that publishing in the highest ranked journals is a very good job-market strategy for candidates coming out of lower-ranked programs. Allow me to explain why.

Do awards matter on the market?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

Publishing advice for grad students?

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

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

'Current grad & incoming prof' then responded:

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

The original reader then responded:

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

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

Humanities for All - Project Director Position

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

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

What we do:

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

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

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

Interested readers can apply at the website linked to above!

Tips for moving academic jobs?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

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

Q: Tell me about the twists and turns.

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

.....

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

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

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

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

Job-Market Mentoring Program: Signups Open!

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

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

Program Description:

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

Having students write teaching letters?

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

I know of someone who asked one of their former undergraduate students to write them a letter of recommendation that focused on teaching. They'd use this letter rather than a teaching letter from a faculty member.

When I learned about this, it made a lot of sense. Often faculty really have no clue about your teaching and aren't terribly motivated to learn about it beyond being told about it during a 10 minute meeting. Students, by contrast, are well positioned to speak about your teaching. Using a letter like this might also appeal to places that value the outlook of undergraduates (e.g. places where undergraduates are involved in the hiring process).

All of that said, it is somewhat odd, though perhaps it is more common than I think.

Do people do this? Do people think it's a good idea?

Interesting questions! Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Be my colleague! (VAP in feminist philosophy)

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

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

The area of specialization (AOS) is FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY.

The area of concentration (AOC) is OPEN.

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

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

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

Prioritizing: dissertation or publishing?

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

I have seen some discussion online (Reddit) recently discussing the trade-off between focusing on a strong PhD thesis and focusing on publishing papers. The posters agreed that focusing on publishing papers and putting the thesis second (either by having it be a collection of papers or just putting significantly less effort into it and only aiming for a pass) is better in almost all disciplines, though a number of philosophers claimed that it was strictly inferior to do that in philosophy (citing reasons of book potential, hidden gem applicants, etc). I would love to hear input from someone with experience in hiring comment on this trade-off. Thanks!

Obviously, the ideal thing is to publish and have a great dissertation. But, if you have to make one or the other your higher priority, which one should you choose? I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.

40 ACLS Emerging Voices Fellowships

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

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

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

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

Brennan on two types of grad students

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

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

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

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

Tenure standards at state schools?

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

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

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

European candidates without student evaluations

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

Reading one of the recent posts, I came across something I have wondered quite often. 'Teaching evaluations' seem to be quite a standard thing in the US and I have seen them as a requirement on postdoc offerings as well, but at least from my experience, they aren't really a thing here in Europe. We do have evaluations but often they are not really anything that is shared. Any ideas on what to do if I don't have any teaching evaluations and my university won't supply them for whatever reason, but I have taught or tutored courses?

Another reader replied:

If you cannot get teaching evaluations, have a senior colleague write a teaching letter. Ideally, they have seen you teach. When I taught in North America, and was on the market, I routinely asked senior colleagues to sit in on a lecture. They then review your teaching materials, and write a letter based on that.

This seems to me a good suggestion. However, I am curious whether there's anything else the original commenter can do. Although teaching observation letters are helpful, and I've known search committee members who seem pretty skeptical of the value of student evaluations, my experience is that people at teaching-focused institutions can care a good deal about evaluations--or at least having some general idea of what your students think of your performance.

Is there any way for European candidates to get a hold of their evaluations, even if they are not normally shared? (As a side note, why are evaluations collected at all if they're not shared with the faculty member?). Alternatively, how about conducting one's own informal evaluations? Early in my career, I did some of these mid-semester to see how my students thought things were going--and I've heard of other people doing similar things. Could people in the original commenter's position carry out their own end-of-semester evaluations and then report them as such in their job-materials?

I'm just throwing ideas out there. What does everyone think?

Becoming a more competitive candidate while TT

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

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

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

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

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

Query: moving academic jobs during COVID

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

My friend is an academic but not a philosopher. He works in the social sciences. He is finishing up his fourth year as an assistant professor at a large state/regional university. His tenure odds look very promising. However, he applied to a few jobs this year because, (1) he wants to live closer to family, and,(2) he would rather work at a slac, his dream job is an elite slac.

Well, this year of all years, he was offered an interview, and then a job, at a research leaning slac that is a very good school, but not necessarily an elite slac. (it has an acceptance rate of about 30% .) This job is offering a 3/3 load and his current load is 4/4. The pay is about the same.

The "problem" he is having (I know, I know, cry him a river) is that with COVID, he is very hesitant to leave because, (1) for various reasons, his current school and department are in an unusually strong financial position, i.e., there are factors about his school and department that allowed them to manage the COVID crisis better than most. While he doesn't have any reason to believe that this other school is in financial trouble, they lack the special features of security that his current department has. He also is somewhat scared of even negotiating with his current department, insofar as they might (he imagines) be insulted that he isn't grateful for his job at a time like this, and he worries that maybe the administration will look happily upon any opportunity to get rid of a tenure track line. Lastly, he is not sure what his position will be re tenure at the other department. He is tempted to ask for a reduced tenure clock or even a tenured position, but supposing, say, they only give him two years off the tenure clock, what should he do? He is pretty sure that he would decline if they gave him no time toward tenure.

Any advice? He fears that if he takes the job, he will be throwing away too much security at a time where nothing is more valuable than security. On the other hand, if he declines, he risks throwing away a job that is pretty close to, and might be a great stepping stone toward, his dream job.

There has already been a fair amount of discussion in that thread, with a couple of commenters suggesting that it's a personal decision and that Amanda's friend should "ask a more senior person in his own department...who he trusts...for advice." However, I have to say that I'm much less sanguine. I've already seen at least one case in my social media feed of a  university that told their faculty 'everything's going to be okay', only to dramatically shift policy immediately after the end of the semester, furloughing faculty and staff, etc. Personally, I'd want to have a clear picture of the relative financial health of the two institutions before making any decision--and I would be very hesitant to leave a place I had good reason to believe to be financially stable over a place I had questions about.

In any case, before accepting a position, I would definitely want an answer to the 'tenure-clock' question, and make sure I get the answer down in writing in an official offer letter.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Dossier tips for the COVID-era job-market?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips for transitioning into tech industries?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

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

By Katharine Schweitzer 

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

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

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

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

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

Backup career paths in the COVID era?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the jobs were in 2019-20

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

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

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

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

TOTAL (junior-level) faculty jobs advertised = 468

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

Junior-level TT jobs advertised = 224

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

Junior-level Non-TT jobs advertised = 244

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOTAL (junior-level) faculty jobs advertised = 468

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

Junior-level TT jobs advertised = 224

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

Junior-level Non-TT jobs advertised = 244

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

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

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

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

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

Applying for postdoc grants

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

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

Euro responded:

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

Euro then also added:

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

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

How do co-authored empirical papers look?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

APA Grad Student Council (GSC) statement

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

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

By Samuel Kampa

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

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

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

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

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

My Alt-Ac Journey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, then, here's the tentative proposal:

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

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

Applying for TT jobs just after starting one?

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

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

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

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

What do people think?

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

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

Potentially deceptive CVs/publication lists

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

I've noticed that people sometimes omit to indicate that a publication was a discussion note/reply, on their CVs. This strikes me as at least slightly deceptive. Do readers share this impression? Impressive though an discussion piece in Mind or Ethics is, the designation 'original article' (along with a difference in reviewing policies) suggests that we recognize there to be a meaningful difference in weight between ('original') articles and discussion pieces/replies. One can of course find out whether some listed publication was a discussion piece, but one worry is that, when CVs are compared at a distance, philosophers being transparent (in designating a reply as such) may be disadvantaging themselves via their transparency. (Of course, when CVs are compared at a closer distance, the fact that a reply is not indicated as such might count as a strike against the 'non-transparent' philosophers.) Anyway, I'd be interested to hear whether others share my reaction, and think that the norm ought to be to list replies/discussion notes as such, at least when their titles don't make this fact obvious.

I share these impressions. In fact, I've seen even more deceptive cases, such as where people list book reviews under 'publications' without making it clear that they are reviews. I hope there aren't many candidates who do either sort of thing, but in any case my experience is that even if it's done unintentionally, it does come off as deceptive. Given how competitive the market is, one of the last things you want to do is to give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you are trying to pull a fast one on the committee. As a rule, be as perspicuous as you can on your CV. My CV lists "journal publications", and my two replies are clearly marked as such. I then have different categories for book chapters, book reviews, etc.

What does everyone else think? It might be good to hear from other people who have served on search committees here.

Time between PhD and getting paid?

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

I'll soon get my PhD and some of my senior coworkers have not found a postdoc yet, although they graduated quite a while ago. This raised the question, how long does it usually take between handing in your dissertation or getting your degree, and actually getting your first paycheck as a postdoc?

I realize that this depends on a lot of factors, but a rough average or some experiences would be great so as to not have an unrealistic idea.

Good question. I don't know the answer. I would have thought you first get paid two weeks after your contractual start-date, whatever that is (which at my uni is June 1, the beginning of our fiscal year). However, the more that I think about, I think I've heard that some universities don't actually start paying faculty until substantially later (in some cases, August). Am I misremembering? It might be good to hear from people who started new jobs in the past year. How long did it take you to first get paid?