The Philosophers' Cocoon

VAPS vs. Lecturers: do search committees care?

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

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

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

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

Search-committee prejudices?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tips for negotiating spousal hires?

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

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

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

Should you just be yourself in a job interview?

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

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

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

Candidates and SC-members with similar interests

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

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

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

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

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

Making the most out of visiting-positions

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

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

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

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

Tips for good teaching demos?

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

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

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

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

Tips for applying to US/UK jobs from abroad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In our job-market discussion thread, anon asks:

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

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

Answering 'how would you teach intro?'

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response, Vampire Killer wrote:

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

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

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

By Sam Duncan (Tidewater Community College)

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

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

What is evidence of teaching effectiveness?

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

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

Anon added:

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

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

Time to TT job (by Leiter rank)

[Updated w/second graph]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-standard publications and the market

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

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

The editors do come right out and say

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

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

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

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

Anonymous then chimed in as follows:

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

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

Publications undermining market competitiveness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice for applying to CC jobs?

In our job-market discussion thread, anon writes:

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

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

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

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

When to expect interview requests?

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

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

Interview practice and candidate rankings

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

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

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

Interview questions

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

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

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

Thank-you notes after interviews?

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

Applying to postdoc & TT in same dept?

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

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

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

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

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

Asking about spousal hires

A reader writes in:

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

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

Tailoring cover letters to schools

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

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

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

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

Relationship-status and the market

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

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

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

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

Published or unpublished writing samples?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search committees: do additional pedagogical training and research matter?

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

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

'junior faculty' then added:

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

Lauren offered up one answer:

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

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

Ask a search-committee member

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

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

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

Query on framing one's research

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

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

Here are some thoughts I have so far:

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

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

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

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

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

Query on diversity statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading job-market materials?

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

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

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

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

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

Longitudinal TT job data?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

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

An anonymous reader writes in:

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

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

Anyone have any helpful tips here? 

Query about tailoring cover letters

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

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

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

Query on junior scholars writing books

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

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

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

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

Tips for inside candidates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does the job-market look?

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

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

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

Query on grad program attrition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good open-access journals?

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

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

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

Anyone have any insight here?

Teaching videos for the job-market?

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

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

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

In response, another reader wrote:

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

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

Phasing out letters from dissertation committees?

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

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

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

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

Reader: what are teaching schools looking for?

In an email query this weekend, a reader asked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(UPDATE: comments now open!)

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

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

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

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

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

Research & teaching job markets: an important difference?

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

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

Query about canceling classes for campus visits

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

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

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

What's wrong with letters of recommendation

All of this.

Choosing PhD programs: further issues to consider

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

Query on submitting extra application materials

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

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

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

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

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