The Philosophers' Cocoon

Navigating 2-body problems in different markets?

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

What options are there for navigating the two-body problem for junior academics? Suppose the couple in question are both junior academics (less than 5 years out of PhD), both in analytic philosophy, but different areas of specialisation.

The most relevant job markets in my case are the UK and European ones. I've heard some rumours about things like joint hires, or job shares being a possibility, but I am unclear about the logistics of this. For example, would one apply for a single post, and then try to negotiate? If so, would this negotiation occur at interview or offer stage? Or would one be strictly limited to applying to job searches where there were at least two positions available? Thank you!

This is a great query, as a lot of philosophers (and academics more generally) face this kind of difficult situation. One reader submitted the following (disappointing) reply:

I work in Europe, and where I am it is almost wholly impossible to expect a second position for a partner. At best, where I am, you can get a three year contract position for your partner, and then hope a permanent position is opened in their area. But then they have to apply for it. My sense is that this sort of negotiating is easier in the US.

I'm curious to hear from other readers. What options are there for navigating two-body problems for junior academics? Obviously, it would be great to hear about the UK and European markets, since those are the ones the OP specifically asked about. But it would also be good to hear about other markets too, since this isn't just an issue that academics face in the UK and Europe. Any tips, experiences, or insights?

Salaries for TT & full time non-TT positions?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a 3rd year PhD student asks:

What are salaries like for tenure track positions? Full time non-TT positions? It occurred to me that in many cases, people might get super lucky to land a TT job and then get stuck with a mid range salary with nowhere to go. This thought makes it much easier for me to want to leave sooner than later.

These are great questions. We actually had a thread on this way back in 2013, but a lot could have changed between then and now, so I think discussing things again could be really helpful. Two readers submitted the following replies:

This is a good source for data on faculty salaries. You can also check out other higher ed pay: https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/ - Submitted by Casey

I've seen starting salaries (for assistant professors in philosophy) anywhere from in the low 40s in low cost of living areas, to 90k at relatively prestigious universities in high cost of living areas. I would guess that the average is around 65k. There is a lot of variation here—I would also guess that the standard deviation is high. - Submitted by Salaries

Given that the OP appears to not only be concerned with starting salaries, but also with the prospect for salary levels as one's career progresses (they're concerned about 'a mid range salary with nowhere to go'), I think it could be good to hear from readers at different job-levels (e.g. Lecturer, Assistant Prof, Associate Prof., Full Prof.) at different kinds of institutions (R1s, R2s, liberal arts colleges and universities, and community colleges). 

What salary did you start at, and what's your salary now? Readers should of course feel free to report anonymously, but I expect it would be helpful if, in addition to your salary and institution-type, you share some general details about location (e.g. major West-coast/East-coast city in the US, small college town in mid-America, etc.), as well as whether your institution is a private or public school. It would also be good to hear from readers about two things: your starting salary when you accepted your first position, and your salary now (at whatever academic level you are currently at). Finally, I think it would be great to hear from readers in different parts of the world (i.e. different countries and continents) so that we can get a picture of how salaries of academic philosophers compare across the world more broadly.

3 lecturer positions at Baylor

Paul Carron (Baylor) wrote in drawing my attention to the following ad for three interdisciplinary 1-year lecturer positions:

Baylor University - Interdisciplinary

• Full-Time Temporary Lectureship (1 year with the possibility of renewal) in Interdisciplinary Studies
• 3 faculty positions available in the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core, an academic program within the Honors College
• Teaching: 4/4. Interdisciplinary Studies. Teaching assignments could include courses within World Cultures, Natural World, Social World, and/or the World of Rhetoric sequences.
• The successful candidate will hold a terminal degree and have previous teaching experience in the teaching discipline of interest.
• Doctoral degrees in any field of the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities are encouraged to apply. We particularly encourage applications from the fields of Classics, History (especially non-Western), Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, and Biology.
• Strong candidates with a Ph.D in philosophy will have, for example, a background in the social or natural sciences, an AOS in a historical field with strong cultural knowledge of the historical period (non-Western fields especially encouraged), or experience teaching rhetoric, writing, and argumentation.
• Baylor is an “R2: Doctoral Universities – High research activity” University with a strong Christian commitment.
• Apply through Interfolio: https://apply.interfolio.com/84176
• Deadline: 24 May 2021 

Retaining motivation while on the market?

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

I have a question about motivation.

Some of you (those who run the Cocoon) have mentioned that you were on the market for years before getting your TT position. During that time, how did you maintain the motivation to continue publishing, continue working, despite multiple rejections.

For me, I'm struggling with finishing my book, completing some of my submissions because of the relentless pile-on of rejections, and the way that staying on the market via adjuncting might not be sustainable for me.

So, is there any advice for folks in my position?

This is a great query, and I'm curious to hear how readers answer. I definitely empathize, as I spent a long time (7 years post-PhD) on the market, and struggled with this myself. Allow me to briefly share my experience before opening up things for discussion.

Getting a job at a university that isn't hiring?

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

Is it ever feasible to try and get a job at a university that isn't hiring (sounds silly I know)? For example, suppose I really want to live in location y, but the only university in y is not hiring. Is it a total waste of time to approach the university and try to sell myself anyway? Has anyone ever gotten a job this way? I know this happens all the time in the private/non-academic world. I'm wondering if it ever happens in the academic world.

Interesting questions. I expect it could be possible, but only if you are a really in-demand candidate (i.e. a 'superstar'), and maybe then only if you're a tenured person who is a big name of sorts. But I don't really know. This is really just me speculating. I do know that, at universities like mine, approval of tenure-stream lines is a big process that has to go through the Dean, Provost, President, etc., so I think it's highly unlikely that approaching the university to try to sell yourself would work. At most, the university might approve a tenure-stream line the next year, and you'd have to apply like everyone else. Also, on that note, I don't know how other universities work, but mine seems to have a standing policy of making all hires international, open searches. I think there may even be equal opportunity laws that require this, but I'm not sure--as I do know that sometimes research universities just make offers to (usually senior) people without doing full searches. 

What do you all think? Anyone have any better inside information than me here?

How Long Should You Stay in the Game?

Recently, I’ve been contemplating a question that one of our readers asked a several weeks ago. The core of the question was this: at what point after beginning your job search does it become unrealistic to expect to land a tenure-track job? Marcus cited some data on this and some caveats with interpreting that data. (In a nutshell, your chances of getting a tenure-track job appear to drop off significantly after your second year on the market, but it’s hard to determine how much is attributable to lots of people quitting the job market after 2-3 unsuccessful years.) He also noted the importance of keeping one’s trajectory in mind.

I want to add a bit on this subject because it is a question I have considered often in the last few years. The moment when the question was most prominent in my mind was in April 2019. At that particular moment, I had submitted more than 100 job applications and gotten many interviews, but none of them had turned into an offer. So the immediate question was “What should I do if there’s no academic job waiting in the fall?” But there was also a further question: “Should I try again in the fall, or should I move on?” Now readers familiar with my posts over the years know that this bleak situation had a strangely happy ending. But that was far from guaranteed, and when I’m back on the market in the upcoming fall, there’s no certainty that a fortuitous outcome awaits. So I have already considered how much longer I’m willing to run the job market gauntlet. But I’ll admit that I’ve not developed a complete answer to that question yet.

Where the TT jobs were(n't) in 2020-21

I know that COVID-19 has upended everything, including the academic job market. However, every few years (including last year) 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. One quick note before proceeding: although I've done my best to collect the data in this post accurately, this is just an informal report, not a formal study, so if there are any errors, I apologize in advance (though, if there are any, I'm fairly certain they would be very, very minor).

Anyway, this year I've decided to break things up into two different posts: one on TT jobs (today), and another on non-TT jobs (hopefully next week). Today's post is based upon a PhilJobs search for 'tenure-track (or similar) jobs for ads posted between August 1st, 2020 and last Friday, April 9th. This is about a week-and-a-half less than last year's search (which I did from August 1 to April 21). But, given that very few TT ads are still coming out, this search seems to me to give a pretty good picture of what this year's TT market looked like. In any case, this year's search yielded 127 total ads. Because a few of the ads were for senior or open-rank positions--and jobs not obviously suitable for philosophers (one is a job in Art History)--the actual number of junior TT jobs in philosophy advertised this year on PhilJobs appears by my tally to be 118, down from 224 last year. So, unfortunately, compared to last year, junior TT jobs this year appear to be roughly half of what they were last year.

A few quick notes on methodology. 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, as noted above 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). 

In any case, here's a summary of what I found:

TOTAL (junior-level) TT jobs advertised in philosophy = 118

• Open AOS: 29 jobs (24.6% of all TT jobs advertised)
• 'Core areas' (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 7.5 jobs (6.4% of TT jobs)
• Value theory (ethics, social, political, law) = 51.6 jobs (37.8% of TT jobs) 
  • Ethics & Applied Ethics (biomedical, environmental, AI ethics, etc.): 38.25 (26.3%)  
  • Social, Political, Law, Econ: 12.13 jobs (10.3% of jobs)
• Science (including philosophy of technology & AI) = 13.8 jobs (11.7%)
  • Philosophy of Science: 4.2 jobs (3.6%)
  • Philosophy of Technology: 6.1 jobs (5.2%)
  • AI/machine learning: 1.25 jobs (1%)
  • History of life-sciences: 1 job (1%)
• History = 7.15 jobs (6.1%)
  • History (open): 2.75 jobs (2.3%)
  • 18th-19th Century: 1 job (1%)
  • Medieval: 1 job (1%)
  • Ancient: 2.4 jobs (2%)
• Social identity (race, gender, feminism) = 8 jobs (6.8%)
  • Feminism & gender: 3 jobs (2.5%)
  • Race & African-American philosophy: 5 jobs (4.2%)
• 'Non-western': 7.7 jobs (6.5%)
  • Non-western: 2.45 jobs (2.1%)
  • African philosophy: .5 (.5%)
  • Asian philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)
  • Buddhist philosophy: .5 jobs (.5%)
  • Caribbean philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)
  • Chinese philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)
  • Indigenous philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)
  • Islamic philosophy: 1 job (1%)
  • Latin American philosophy: 1 job (1%)
• Continental philosophy = 1.4 jobs (1.2%)
• Philosophy of Religion = 1.5 jobs (1.3%)
• Aesthetics = 0 jobs (1 job in Art History)

Some quick reactions:

1. This was a terrible year on the whole due to COVID - hopefully next year will be better.
2. Value theory jobs (particularly ethics) are dominating TT job ads more than ever (43.7% of all jobs are in Ethics/Political/etc.). If we add in Feminist Philosophy and Philosophy of Race (which don't only focus on value theory, but do so substantially), a full 50 44.6% of all TT job ads on PhilJobs this year were in areas that focus substantially on topics relating to ethics.
3. 'Non-Western' philosophy, philosophy of race, and philosophy of technology all had 'banner years', at least compared to previous years (though their absolute numbers are still relatively small compared).
4. 'Core areas' (metaphysics, epistemology, mind, logic, and language) are still on a downward trajectory (only 6.4% of TT jobs advertised, down from 8.3% last year, 13.1% in 2017, and 10% in 2016).
5. AOS: open remains a substantial proportion of TT jobs.

Anyway, as depressing as the overall TT jobs numbers have been this year, I hope some of you find this summary helpful. I hope to present this year's non-TT numbers in a week or two.

Approaching soft job market years in a postdoc

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

How should one think about soft job market years while on a postdoc? Should you take one every year, or relax if you've got a few years to go? How time consuming are they, and what other factors should be considered?

These are good questions, which apply equally well to VAPs (Visiting Assistant Professor positions), and I'm curious to hear how readers respond. I'm apt to think that because the market is in many ways a lottery--and you never know how your luck may play out year to year--it's probably a good idea to apply each year, all things being equal. Applying each year may simply be the best way to maximize your overall chances of getting a permanent job. Still, not all things may be equal. Let me explain.

Teaching portfolio syllabi: full or abridged?

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

I have a really small question about the sample syllabi one includes in a teaching portfoli. How full should these syllabi be? My full syllabi include all sorts of info about grading, course expectations, description, info about plagiarism and writing help resources, etc. Am I right to assume potential employers don't want to wade through all of this, and so I should strip down the versions in my teaching portfolio to the essentials (maybe reading list, course description...what else)? If so, what should I include and not? 

Good questions! I'm not sure on all of them, but I would think that info on grading and course expectations are good to include, as I've known search committee members who care a lot about how things are graded, how grading is distributed in the course (across different kinds of assignments), and so on. I'm not sure about other things, though, such as plagiarism policies, etc. What do you all think?

Tips regarding academic jobs in Italy?

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

Folks have asked about jobs in various European places before and the discussions are usually interesting. But on a quick search of the site I don’t see much about working in Italy. If anyone knows anything I’d love to hear it. Specific questions to get the ball rolling: how does the hiring process work? Are there job ads or do you just gotta have your ear to the ground? What’s pay like? What’s work like? Are professors respected in Italy? Stuff like that.

Great questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I'm Italian, working in another European country. All jobs are listed here: https://bandi.miur.it/ You have to search per area of specialisation, which are quite strict (Moral philosophy, Logic and Phil SC, etc). The majority of jobs will require proficiency in Italian and, I'd say, many jobs have internal candidates. For jobs that don't need Italian proficiency, you'll hear from the usual channels such as Philos, philjobs, etc. To be eligible to apply for Associate professorship, you need a national habilitation (called Abilitazione Nazionale). You need to meet some requirements in terms of publishing (most of the major philosophical journals are included in a list that a committee will consider) and service. For publishing, it's either a book or 10 articles/chapters in the past 5 years; a book and 3 articles from prestigious journals; or 10 articles/chapters and 3 articles from prestigious journals. Requirements of service are not really clear. There are also a few tenure track jobs: they are called 'ricercatore a tempo determinato b' (rtd b). When you get one of these jobs, you are promised a tenured position after 3 years, pending the achievement of the Abilitazione Nazionale. Pay is not very good, if compared to nearby countries such as Austria or Switzerland. Just anecdotally: when I was a VAP in the US, I made more money than an associate professor. However, unless you live in Rome or Milan, life is cheap and the quality of life is just great. Overall, I think that philosophers in Italy, if they are tenured, live a pleasant and intellectually stimulating life (at least the ones I know). They have tons of time for research and, in general, very few people cares about teaching (but that's something characterizing Europe overall). Moreover, I'd like to add that in my field (philosophy of science), there are great and competitive scholars.

This comment is really helpful, and enlightening to boot (as an outsider, it is always interesting to hear how things work in different countries!). Any other readers with experience in philosophy in Italy have any other helpful information to share?

Can one remain competitive while teaching K-12?

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

I have a question about "staleness" and the job market.

I just defended my dissertation. Last year I got a position as the Logic/Philosophy (and Latin) teacher at a middle/high school. My PhD was a major factor in my being hired, outweighing my lack of an Ed degree or significant K-12 experience. So I'm employed as a philosopher in a FT academic position, but not in a traditional way.

I love my job and at this point I feel like I could stay here forever. But I don't want to assume that's what's going to happen, and I could see myself wanting more time for research someday, so I continue to watch the market.

So suppose for the next several years I teach middle/high school philosophy, publish 1-2 articles a year (given I'm teaching 6-8 classes at a time and have a family), adjunct here and there, and then apply for TT positions. Would I be seen by committees as an early/mid-career philosopher making a lateral or upward move, or a "stale" PhD grad who never "made it"? Or how do I prepare and present myself so as to appear (as I actually would be) the former rather than the latter?

(FWIW The program here is pretty rigorous. Students take a year of informal logic and two years of formal logic in middle school, so once they reach high school they're better prepared for a philosophy class than the vast majority of college students I've taught.)

Great questions! I'm curious to hear what readers think. I'm inclined to think that if a person in this situation really does publish one or two articles per year while teaching K-12 and adjuncting at a university, then sure, they could remain competitive--at least for jobs at teaching focused universities and community colleges. Further, I can't help but wonder whether, if they found a way to publish in top-ranked journals, they might remain competitive for postdocs or research jobs. But I'm inclined to think that (A) a lot turns on whether they do in fact continue to publish (which might be difficult while teaching K-12), and (B) whether they keep adjuncting (as I expect universities will favor candidates who have more university-level teaching experience over candidates with less). 

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Criteria for hiring a VAP?

A reader writes in:

Maybe you've talked about this before, but I'm wanting to hear from those who have served on search committees who were hiring a one or two year VAP, and what particular dynamics are in play in this kind of search as opposed to a TT search. For instance, what are some of the criteria used to make a first big cut in this kind of search? Do they differ from other searches? Do those hiring for such positions, especially when they're just a sabbatical replacement, or where there's very little chance of extension, still look at one's publication record and weigh it heavier than teaching experience and performance? I'd assume teaching fit matters a lot here, but then again I'm not sure. I also wonder whether these kinds of positions often receive the same high number of apps as TT positions. 

Given that these positions look to be more prevalent (in fact, a decent amount or starting to trickle in now), I figured this might help more people than just me? 

Good questions! My own experience hiring VAP positions at a liberal arts university is that teaching is our #1 priority. But I wonder if the same is true at other universities, particularly R1s. Any readers with experience hiring for VAPs care to weigh in?

Joining editorial boards while non-TT?

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

I have a general question about joining editorial boards/working as a journal editor while one is in a postdoc or a non-TT position. In short, is it worth it? Does having something like that on your CV look pretty good, enough to offset the responsibilities that come with it? Or is it generally better to wait until one is securely employed (and maybe tenured) before taking on that level of service to the profession?

And here's another more narrow question: if you - a non-TT philosopher - do interdisciplinary work, and you get invited to join an editorial board for a (reputable) journal in another field, should you do it?

Interesting questions! I'm inclined to think that it depends a lot on the journal. If it's a prestigious journal, then I'm inclined to think it may look impressive - as it indicates that well-recognized people in the discipline think highly of you and consider you an expert in the area. However, how likely is it that you'll be approached to join an editorial board at a journal like that while you're in a non-TT job? It seems unlikely to me, and that the more likely case is that you may be approached to be on an editorial board of a less-prestigious journal. And in that case, I'm not sure it's worth it, in terms of 'looking good' for the job market and later tenure decisions if/when you get a TT job. By a similar token, I'm not sure joining the editorial board of a reputable (but not particularly prestigious) interdisciplinary journal is likely to help much on the philosophy job-market.

So, since editorial responsibilities can be time-consuming, and the primary things you'll be judged on while you're on the market or a tenure decision will be research and teaching, I'm inclined to think that in most cases, it's probably not worth joining an editorial board while non-TT. Indeed, I've known junior people who have worked for journals, and I've heard it can be a lot of work (without, again, a lot of 'upside'). For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that it's generally better to wait until tenure to join editorial boards - unless, of course again you're invited to join a particularly prestigious journal (in which case that is, I think, a different story).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

How does 'networking' help?

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

I've been inspired by the discussion about ways to flourish in the profession as an introvert.

While many people have mentioned the importance of networking, I am wondering if people can share some concrete examples of the benefits from networking, especially for graduate students and junior faculty members.

I can see that networking could help a person find external members for their committee and have letters for the job market (grad student) or for promotion (junior faculty). I have a hard time seeing other benefits besides abstract things like knowing your name and knowing your work. For example, do people get invited to apply for some jobs or get invited to submit to a journal because of networking? Any other concrete examples?

These are great questions! I'd love to hear concrete examples not only from grad students and junior faculty, but also from senior faculty, including (for example) those who have served on search committees, edited books or special journal issues, etc. If you're a grad student or faculty member, do you know of any concrete examples of how 'networking' helped you? And, if you're a senior faculty member, do you know of concrete examples where it helped junior folk? 

Contacting profs before applying to postdocs?

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

After washing out on the job market twice now, I'm contemplating a strategy for being a bit more proactive and selective in what I apply for, going forward.

I'm thinking about reaching out to professors (for European postdocs, where the norm is to be attached to a specific professor) in advance and just telling them a little about myself, and then asking them whether they think I might fit for the position they're looking to fill. This would be primarily to ascertain whether I should even bother applying. This could benefit both parties: me, because I could hopefully figure out quite cheaply whether to invest substantial time into the application itself; and them, because it would help them preemptively manage the pile of applications they'll receive. In this respect, it's a win-win.

However, I'm worried that, if this is just not really done, it might come off the wrong way. On the other hand, if a lot of these postdocs get filled through networks anyway (and I have some evidence, here and there, that that might be rather common), is this really problematic?

Can readers who have relevant experience in the European postdoc market weigh in?

Two readers submitted replies:

I work in Europe and I am familiar with the post-doc culture. I would NOT contact someone unless they have a post doc position advertised. I get contacted by two types of people about post doc positions: (i) those in foreign countries who want to get into a program with financial support (which I do not have, if there is no advertisement); and (ii) those in certain countries who may have funding from their home government and want to consider coming to work at my institution. Wait for an ad to be posted. Then contact the people. That is the normal way. - Submitted by Euro

It's a good idea, but the wrong method, I think. Conferences, seminars, and workshops are much better ways of finding out if more senior people are interested working with you. - Submitted by William Peden

I'm curious what other readers think. Euro seems to think it's fine to do after a job ad has been submitted. But I share the OP's and William Peden's concern that it could come off poorly. Then again, given how much time and effort it does take to apply to jobs, it also seems to me like a legitimate thing to do. It might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees (particularly for European postdocs), as well as from people who have either tried what the OP describes or who have been contacted by people in the OP's situation. What do you all think?

When to give up on the academic job market?

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

Here's a question that I could use an answer to. When is it time to give up on the tenure-track job hunt? I understand that in one way this depends on personal circumstances. That's not what I'm asking. I'm wondering at what point, after years of rejection, can you be reasonably confident that a tenure-track job is not going to happen.

I have a CV that's good enough for tenure at most R1s. At this point, will more books or articles or teaching experience help? I'm beginning to doubt it. I have gotten a lot of helpful feedback over the years, and the things I know would really help, like different demographics, I do not have control over.

These are good questions. As this philosophy job-placement graph illustrates, the job-market is basically a toss-up: depending on what kind of PhD program you graduate from, your overall chances of getting a tenure-track job are somewhere between 20-60%. Then there's the following graph, which I first posted about here: 

Ideal publication record for getting a non-R1 job?

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

What's an ideal publication record for someone who's not aiming to end up at an R1 institution?

Here's why I ask: I just defended, and I lucked out to get a one year postdoc that's research oriented. I've also been lucky, in that I've had success publishing (3 publications in journals that are top ranked in my field... however my PhD isn't from a notable department). I've got more papers I could send out to journals. However, my worry is that if I publish too much, too soon, I might make myself look unattractive for jobs that are teaching orientated (even though I've taught a fair amount too). Might I inadvertently give the impression to search committees at teaching schools that I'm only interested in research? Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy in a dept. without big research expectations - not to mention, because my PhD isn't from top tier department, it's really unlikely I'd ever be able to land anything close to an R1 job anyhow.

What's the best approach to take?

This is an excellent question - though I'm not sure there is anything remotely like a determinate answer to it. For example, the OP notes that they already have 3 publications in journals that are top-ranked in their field. While I suspect a publication record like this may already price the OP out of some jobs--specifically, jobs at small, non-elite SLACs whose focus is on teaching--I suspect there are plenty of other non-R1s where those kinds of publications are likely to be looked upon favorably. Indeed, my sense is that research expectations and norms can differ dramatically across non-R1 jobs. So, I'm not sure there's an 'ideal publication record' for getting a non-R1 job. Rather, I suspect that something like the following rule of thumb is the best way for candidates to think: the more highly-ranked publications you get, the less you may look like a good 'fit' for a non-R1; the more lower-ranked publications you get, the more you may look like a 'good fit' for non-R1 jobs. Here's some anecdotal data for thinking this is true, and it certainly fits with my experience on the market.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be especially good to hear from people who have served on hiring committees at non-R1's, as well as from people who got jobs at non-R1's on what their publication records were like at the time they were hired!

Being on the job market: some application statistics & takeaways (by Michael Walschots)

Hi Everyone,

My name is Michael Walschots and I’m a postdoc in philosophy currently at the University of Würzburg, Germany, working primarily in ethics and the history of philosophy (eighteenth-century philosophy, Kant). I’m participating in this year’s installment of the Cocoon mentoring program (which I’ve found to be extremely helpful) and Marcus has kindly invited me to share some information about my experience on the job market that has arisen from my chats with my mentor. One of the reasons I signed up for the mentoring program was to get an outside perspective on my profile as a job candidate to see if there are things I might do to improve my chances on the market and also to get general advice on whether there are things about my profile/my application documents that might be contributing to the relatively low success I’ve had so far. Something my mentor encouraged me to do right away was to take stock of my job application statistics (where I applied each year, what kind of jobs they were, whether I was successful or not, etc.) to get a sense of where I was having success and where I wasn’t, and thereby help me get a more realistic picture of the jobs that are within my reach, and which are not. It’s these statistics that I’d like to share with you in this guest post.

A few notes before I list the numbers:

1) My main purpose is not to complain or despair about the state of the market (despite my temptation to do so). Nor am I trying to throw a pity party. My main purpose is to provide a window into what the job market has been like for me so that: a) others with similar, or indeed different, profiles have a point of comparison, b) people who are earlier in their careers than I am can get a sense of what they might expect in the years to come, and c) so that those who are not currently on the market can see exactly what things are like for job candidates.

2) On the one hand, these numbers are really only relevant to me personally because they concern jobs that are relevant to my AOSs/AOCs (I’ve mainly applied for ethics/history jobs). And my relative success (or lack thereof) presumably has to do with my particular profile, at least in part (if you’d like to get a sense of my academic record, you’re welcome to visit my website: https://mhwalschots.wordpress.com/).* Someone at the same career stage with a more prestigious PhD, more publications in better places, etc. would of course have different results. On the other hand, I think there are a number of general lessons to be drawn from my experience and I hope that this can be helpful for others, if only it encourages them to take stock of their own application statistics themselves so that they, too, might get a realistic picture of their experience.

*I should also say that I have put in a considerable amount of effort to make sure that my application documents themselves are in the best possible shape. I’ve consulted with numerous colleagues and mentors to get feedback on my CV, cover letters, teaching dossier documents etc. I’m sure there is still room for improvement, but at this point it would shock me if these things alone have been a main contributing factor to my relatively low success.

Some things to note about how I’ve compiled the data:

1) Although this is probably self-explanatory, a job cycle approximately ranges from the fall of one year to late spring of the next year, for jobs starting the following fall. My Ph.D. was granted in Feb. 2016 and I first officially went on the market the fall before defending, so the first job cycle of my statistics is 2015-16.

2) I have classified the kinds of jobs I applied for somewhat artificially into 3 categories: TT (tenure-track) is any permanent job, so includes UK lecturerships; LTA (limited term appointment) are all contractually limited (often primary teaching) jobs; and Postdocs (which can range in number of years and teaching requirements, which I haven’t specified).

3) Sometimes postdocs are offered without interviews, in case you’re wondering why numbers in those categories don’t add up.

4) My application patterns change pretty drastically (as you might expect). Years when I have a secure position the following year, I rarely, if ever, apply for temporary positions for that following year and only apply for permanent jobs or longer-term postdocs.

5) It’s possible that I applied for even more positions than the ones documented here. I tend to keep good records, though, and these numbers represent the jobs I still have records for.

With this out of the way, here are the statistics from my experience on the job market over the last 6 job cycles (including this cycle).

Addressing a gap year due to COVID?

A reader writes in:

My guess is that many are in similar positions, so I’d like to ask:

I think I won’t get an academic job this round. So far I applied for 70+ jobs, got longlisted 4 times, and shortlisted once. I have an acceptable record, like 3 publications in Leiter’s top 20, and a decent amount of highly-rated teaching. I don’t think I’ll have more publications or teaching this year, as I don’t have time to do anything in academics given financial pressures since mid 2020, roughly when I received my degree.

Will the fact that circumstances prevent me from making my CV more attractive after one year of graduation put me at a huge disadvantage on the job market next round? Or will search committees take into consideration pandemic circumstances and not take a blank year on one’s CV as a bad signal? Should I say something about this on my cover letter? Or is that my record is simply not good enough, and there’s not much hope for me anyway, since the job market won’t get anywhere better?

These are really good questions. I'm not sure what the answers are. I do expect that search committee members will notice this kind of 'gap year' on your CV. What I'm not sure is how they will treat it, especially given the reality of COVID, or whether the OP should mention it in a cover letter. Personally, I'm inclined to think it is probably best to not draw any additional attention to the gap, as I'm not sure that it would help. I also think that search committees generally want to interview and hire the candidates they take to be best for the job. So, if (like the OP), you already have a strong publishing and teaching record, I'm not sure a gap year will hurt much. Each job market year is unique, and the OP could do better on the market next year than this year depending on how many jobs are advertised in their area. Indeed, given that the end of the pandemic appears to be in sight due to vaccines, it's entirely possible that there will be more jobs advertised in the OP's AOS/AOC next year than this year. So, who knows: maybe they'll have more luck next year. Their overall record sounds strong, and this was a uniquely terrible year. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Accept a postdoc or wait?

I don't normally post on the weekends, but in our newest "how can we help you?" a reader asks a time sensitive question:

I was luckily just offered a postdoc which I would be very happy to have, but I also have some outstanding (in the mundane sense of the word) applications to TT jobs which I would definitely take instead if offered them. What should I do here? Withdraw from those jobs and take the postdoc? Ask the post-doc people to wait who-knows-how-long? Take the postdoc and then on the off chance that I get an interview for one of the TT jobs take the interview and ultimately decline the postdoc if I were offered a job? Thanks everyone.

Another reader submitted the following response:

You take the post doc, and then deal with things if another job comes along. There is no need to tell the colleges where you applied anything. They have not offered you anything yet. And then if you are offered something else, write back to the Cocoon and I will give advice then. Look at it objectively. All you have is an offer of employment. And you need a job.

I entirely agree with this response. If my experience in life has taught me anything, it is that if you get offered something good, take it. Don't pass up a good opportunity in the mere hope that you'll get something better. I've seen people do that, end up with nothing, and never get an opportunity as good as the one they passed up. If you try to ask the postdoc people to wait, they could very well just offer the job to someone else. So, I wouldn't risk that. They're not hiring a tenure-track person after all. A postdoc is a temporary hire, so they probably don't have that much invested in you per se. In contrast, if you get offered a TT job after accepting the postdoc, then deal with that situation then. I've known many postdocs who were able to defer their TT start date for a year because of a postdoc. That happens all the time, and people hiring for a TT position have reason to want to hang onto you: they're interested in hiring you (potentially) for life.

Anyway, that's my advice. What's yours? 

Where things should go on CVs?

To follow up on Lewis Powell's CV guide (which I linked to yesterday), a reader in our newest "how can we help you?" thread writes:

I am currently co-editing a special issue of a (well-known) journal. I can't figure out where if anywhere it should "go" on my CV. Any advice really appreciated.

Another reader helpfully responded: 

List it at the very end of your list of publications, under a heading: Journal Editing (Guest editor) I have headings like the following: Books, Journal Articles, Book Chapters, Contributions to Handbooks and Companions Book Reviews, Other Publications Journal Editing (Guest editing).

This seems to me exactly right. But given how many of these issues often come up, I thought it could have an open thread on these issues. Do you have questions on how to organize your CV, and where/how to list different items? Ask away in the comment section below - and then, other readers, feel free to answer!

 

 

Choosing between US and UK jobs?

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

I have been lucky enough this year to get 2 job offers, one from a US university and the other from a UK university; both positions are for tenure track stream, and both universities are ranked in the top 30 universities in the world.

Now it comes the decision making part. I don't have any particular bonding to the two countries, I'm neither American no British, and I never lived in either of the two countries. I have informed myself about how to compare the two academic environments, life, Brexit-uncertainty. I will be very grateful that the folks here can inform me on how to think about this important decision.

Congrats on the offers, and thanks for such a great question! I'm really curious to hear how readers answer. Here a few quick thoughts of my own before I open up things for discussion.

Lewis Powell's (Buffalo) tips on CVs

Lewis Powell (University at Buffalo) posted this really helpful guide about how to put together a good CV over at his blog, The Horseless Telegraph. I think it's an invaluable service to early-career philosophers, so do check it out! Here's the introduction to the post:

Very often, I see people asking questions about their CVs—is it okay to list this thing I did on my CV? Does this important thing I did go under research or service, or somewhere else? Etc.—and one interesting feature of this is that the people I see asking are at all stages of their careers. I think this happens because one of the many things we don’t usually teach people how to do in our profession is construct a CV. That’s because constructing a CV isn’t doing philosophy, and we mostly like to focus on teaching people how to do philosophy (or sometimes the teaching part even drops out, and we just like to do philosophy). Also, for obvious reasons of recursion, the people doing the training often don’t really know how to teach people things like “how to make a CV” since they were only ever trained in how to do philosophy and, well, you see where this is going (I imagine that I am overgeneralizing a bit about the sociology of the discipline based on the parts I have been exposed to, and I am fortunate that we had some (extracurricular) training in my grad program from our diligent director of graduate studies about these thing).

Sometimes we tell people to go look at a handful of examples and then make a CV that looks sort of like that. This isn’t an entirely horrible way for people to start working out some of what works and doesn’t for themselves (it’s a slight improvement on everyone deducing CV-ology from first principles). Basically it is a haphazard way for people to observe and internalize some existing CV norms (presuming they looked at a fortunate sample of CVs), but it’s not a great process for understanding what we are doing or why, or helping us answer questions like “what do I do if I have an unusual item to include”?

So I am going to offer a more general account of CVs, which can help answer the specific questions from above. People in the comments and on twitter will, hopefully, let us all know if my perspective is wildly off base, but you should take it with a healthy quantity of salt regardless. I am, after all, just one person. This account will, ultimately make answering the questions above both easier and harder: Often you can make a lot of different choices, depending on what impression you want people to take away from reading your CV. This is because beyond a handful of specific genre conventions, the primary constraints are: clarity, accuracy, relevant completeness.

Weaknesses in recommendation letters?

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

For those who have read letters of reference for job market candidates (both research and teaching): What are some common weaknesses of reference letters? By 'weakness' here I am particularly interested in negative aspects of letters that the applicant might have worked to minimize the likelihood of. For instance, if a common weakness is that the letter doesn't reflect the applicant's research statement, or the letters disagree with each other, this is perhaps something that the applicant could minimize the likelihood of through early and regular communication.

Of course, those who write letters ultimately are responsible for them, and applicants can only do so much to nudge their committee in the 'right' direction. That said, I'd love to hear, from the perspective of the letter readers, what are some tips that might be helpful for applicants when asking their committee for letters.

This is an interesting question, and I'll leave it to readers to interpret in a broad sense. First, we might ask what makes for a weak reference letter in terms of the letter being poorly written, and so not very helpful to a candidate. Second, we might ask what makes for a weak reference letter in the sense of the letter being well-written but nevertheless containing negative information about the candidate. For search committee members: what kinds of 'weaknesses' of reference letters (in any relevant respect) have you commonly come across?

The Job Application Materials Arms Race (guest post by Shane Ralston)

Shane J. Ralston is currently the Dean of Wright College, Woolf University.  He was formerly the founding Human Resources Director at the American University of Malta and a tenured Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pennsylvania State University.

The Job Application Materials Arms Race

How many times have you read a job announcement, decided to apply, read the required application materials and then felt your heart drop with disappointment?  In the current job market, there is an arms race in required applications materials. (Besides an arms race, I’ve elsewhere called it a ‘paper chase’.)  Fail to submit one of these required items and you’re immediately eliminated from the candidate pool. 

One common complaint against application material inflation is that search committees and human resources professionals are insensitive to the applicant’s time. More time invested in assembling and submitting job applications means less time spent with family and friends, conducting research and prepping for courses.  Why don’t human resources departments or search committees cap the number of required materials in the job announcement?  Why not request the bulk of the materials only after the first or second round cuts?   

Here’s a list of materials typically required of applicants in the initial round approximately ten years ago. (I assembled this list from my own job applications when I was on the market in 2008-9.)

1. Cover letter (usually tailored to the institution and the position, explaining how your qualifications make you a good fit).
2. Unofficial transcripts
3. Teaching statement
4. Writing sample
5. List of references with contact information

Getting over the job-market hump?

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

I am consistently getting 1 or 2 interviews a year but I cannot seem to get over the hump, so to speak, to the on-campus phase. I am going on 3 years removed from PhD. I have a non-TT position that is fairly stable but somewhat unsatisfying. Does anyone else have this experience and if so, what would you recommend?

This is a very good question. I had a similar experience. My first three years or so on the job-market were similar. I got one or two TT interviews each year, but had trouble converting them into on-campus visits. I started to worry about 'going stale', and asked several senior mentors for advice. Their advice was to keep publishing and otherwise improving my CV (viz. teaching experience, service, etc.). It ended up working. My number of first-round interviews began climbing each year, as did my number of on-campus visits. I ultimately ended up getting a tenure-track job 7 years post-PhD, in what was likely my final year on the market (as my non-TT job at the time had a 7 year maximum). I'm not sure that sticking it out as long as I did is good advice for everyone, as it was a miserable seven years and I ended up lucking out at the last minute. But, for what it is worth, the advice I received worked: the more that I published, and the more than I improved my teaching and service record, the more interviews I got.

Second, although there can be all sorts of reasons why a candidate isn't converting first-round interviews into on-campus visits, it may be worth doing some mock interviews with friends or even hiring an interviewing coach--as there may be things about the way the OP interviews that come off poorly. As someone who is naturally shy and introverted (and who had a stutter as a child!), I struggle with interviews a lot. I can come across uncomfortable and nervous, and I practiced interviewing a lot with my spouse on improving. We'd do mock interviews while walking, and even by Zooming in different rooms. There are also interviewing consultants one can hire to help one improve. 

Finally, I expect quite a few readers may say that given how bad the job-market is, if the OP is in a fairly unsatisfying job, it may be worth exploring some plan Bs: that is, job opportunities outside of academia. Of course, the OP didn't mention whether they are at the point yet of seriously considering non-academic jobs. But if they are unsatisfied where they are, it could potentially be worth their while to begin exploring their other options. But these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

Checking in with search committees?

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

If two months or some long period of time has elapsed since a job posting's deadline, is it appropriate for a job applicant to reach out to the search chair or department to see if the search has been canceled?

Interesting question. One can always reach out to a search chair to inquire on the status of a search. However, I have a few thoughts here: (1) sometimes search committees are just super slow, and (2) if a few months have gone by and you haven't heard anything, the simplest explanation may be that they have moved forward with other candidates, and HR at the university requires the search committee to notify candidates only when the search is officially over (i.e. when a hire has been made or the search cancelled). So, while I don't think it's inappropriate to contact search committees for a status update, my general recommendation has always been to simply assume that you didn't get the job (or an interview) unless they contact you. But this is just my reaction, and I know people are different. What do you all think?

Postdocs, relocating, and the path to a FT job

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

I've been told that, in this market, even the most competitive candidates should expect to do post-docs before (having the hope of) obtaining something like full-time employment. I find this disheartening because, given personal factors, relocating for a post-doc and then soon again for a (possible) job would be quite the hardship.

One question is whether people agree that a post-doc is the most feasible way to eventually find oneself to a more regular job. More specifically, do post-docs themselves make candidates more competitive for jobs? If two candidates had similar records (i.e. one published in grad school and the other published in a post-doc), would the individual with a post-doc be seen as more competitive? If so, why?

My impression, unfortunately, is that it is very difficult to get a permanent, full-time job without moving around a bit, either for literal postdocs or Visiting Assistant Professor or lecturer positions--and that these kinds of jobs are indeed likely to make one more competitive. A little while back, it was found that the average time it takes to get a tenure-track job (for those who get them) is close to 2 years post-PhD. Assuming one is on the job-market for at least a couple of years (if not longer), then one needs to be doing something during that time: either in a full-time non-TT job (a postdoc, VAP, etc.), adjuncting, and so on. If you're not willing to move around, then one possibility discussed in the comments section here is to get perhaps getting a 'nominal'/unpaid title (such as Affiliate Researcher, Affiliated Faculty Member, etc.), though I'm not sure how that 'looks' to search committee members. Further, one additional issue with nominal titles is that you're not actually getting job experience (i.e. teaching experience) in those jobs. Then again, if you have a stellar publication record and are not looking for a job at a teaching focused institution, perhaps that does not matter too much.

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear both from job candidates (e.g. did getting a postdoc suddenly make you more competitive for permanent/TT jobs), as well as from search committee members!

Discussing leaving the market w/significant others

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

In conversations with a significant other who is not in academia, how do you help them understand that deciding to leave the academic job market is not 'giving up?'

More specifically, how might one communicate to their partner that their relatively stable non TT position is actually quite good, all things considered?

To an outsider, it seems as though someone who put in 7 years for a PhD only to decide they no longer want to pursue TT positions is somehow akin 'giving up on one's dream' and that remaining in a non-TT position is somehow just 'settling.' I struggle to help them understand that these kinds of phrases and this general framework are simply not as applicable here.

And I ask this sincerely, so responses like 'there's no jobs' or 'its soul-crushing' are not especially helpful.

So please, serious responses only.

These are really good questions. My spouse and I had a number of somewhat similar discussions during my time on the market. I didn't have the option of staying in a stable non-TT position, so in my case the discussions were about whether to leave academia altogether. But anyway, here are a few thoughts...

Tips applying to UK jobs?

A reader writes in:

I could use some help understanding how US citizens apply for jobs in the UK. I'm looking at an application, for instance, and I don't understand the difference between "secondary education" and "higher education." When filling out information for secondary education, what is a "level of qualification", and what is a "grade"? When filling out information for higher education, what is a "quantification result"? And what constitutes "training/development courses or qualifications" outside graduate work?

Good question! I always found these kinds of questions very confusing myself. In addition to hearing answers to them, it could be good to hear additional tips from people who have served on hiring committees at UK universities--especially when it comes to things that foreign (e.g. US) applicants might not know. Anyone willing and able to weigh in?

Is lack of affiliation a problem on the market?

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

I'm curious if anyone has thoughts about how important it is to have university affiliation (either as part of a graduate program or as a VAP, postdoc, etc) when you are on the job market.

Given that so many of us will be unemployed next year, and for a lot of us it's not practical/possible to stay in our PhD programs for another year, what should we do? If we can find a way to support ourselves (through non-academic work) without moving for the sake of a short-term position with a very high teaching load, that would free up a considerable amount of time and energy to make progress on research and hopefully be a more competitive candidate for the next round of applications. But if it would look terrible on a job application to have no current university affiliation, then it might just be a priority for those of us who want to apply again next year to do our best to get *something*.

What do others think?

This is a good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think it is undeniable that having an academic affiliation on the job market is a +. Consider this. There are 200 applicants for a job. 150 have an academic affiliation, and 50 do not. Isn't it likely that for every one of the 50 without who has three publications, and good teaching evaluations, etc. there are 3 in the pool of 150 who have one. So other things being equal, you will be setting yourself at a disadvantage.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think this is a bit strong. Yes, a search committee member may notice absence of current institutional affiliation. And yes, all things being equal, it could be a negative. But are search committee members so narrow-minded that they wouldn't bear the candidate's entire record in mind when evaluating this? I mean, suppose the candidate is otherwise excellent: they have good publications, a good teaching record, etc. I have to imagine that most search committee members would still seriously consider the person. We all know how bad the market is, and surely this would figure into most of our minds. 

So no, I don't think it would 'look terrible' to lack an academic affiliation for a year, and indeed, I seem to recall a few job-candidates who were out of academia for a year or two end up with good academic jobs--in large part, it seems, because they still published in good venues. The real issue, I expect, is how long one lacks an academic affiliation. A year seems fine to me. But beyond that, I expect it could begin to count as much more of a negative.

But these are really only some off-hand thoughts, and could be entirely idiosyncratic to me. What do the rest of you think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Applying in future years to jobs one didn't get?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Annie writes:

My questions concern applying for jobs in departments that one has in previous years been short-listed but ultimately rejected from. Is this something one should acknowledge in one's cover letter? Should one hedge by keeping the same materials like a writing sample (since they worked last time and they might not be remembered) or do something new (to show you've developed or something)? Anything else worth knowing? Thanks everyone

Interesting questions. My reaction here is pretty unequivocal: I don't think it is worth mentioning or doing anything special with one's application materials. Let me explain.

Which AOCs are good to develop?

On Twitter yesterday, an early-career philosopher asked:

I would like very much to develop teaching competence in Ancient Philosophy, including especially ancient science. It seems like this is a bad idea given this would be far off from what I would like to specialize in...I wonder how people navigate such thing. [A]ny Cocoon posts about things like this?

I think this is a great query, as it raises some important job-market issues that I suspect many graduate students and job-candidates might not know very much about. Indeed, far from it being a bad idea for this person to develop an AOC in Ancient, I think it is a great idea. Let me explain why.

Should grad students & job-candidates be open or silent on political issues?

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

I'm a graduate student who will soon go on the job market. My simple question is this: Can I, from a professional standpoint, stay completely silent on the various 'political' questions that are currently floating around the profession? Things related to Professor S*toc* come to mind, but that's likely not the full extent of it.

I have particular concern because, with some dedicated internet searching, it would be easy enough to figure out my political sympathies. I'm not ashamed of them (they are mine, after all), but I guess I'm curious as to whether that is something I should be willing to talk about in job interviews. To frame this as one last specific question: do you think it would be abnormal for search committees to inquire into her political views?

I know there has been some talk about whether a candidate would be judged harshly based on a pro-life stance, for instance, but I'm more concerned about being judged for my personal political work, which I'd rather keep to myself.

These are very good questions, and I'm curious what readers think. But here are a few of my thoughts:

1. I think there is no risk-free approach here. If you are open about your political views, then those views or your public declarations may turn off some search committees. On the other hand, if you are silent, you run two risks: (A) failing to stand out as a job-candidate, and (B) appearing silent on important political issues that some search committee members themselves think people should take public positions on rather than remaining silent. Bearing this in mind, I recall something my father told me as a child: "You'll never make everyone happy", the point being that everything you do runs a risk of turning this person or that person off. In terms of the job-market, the relevant thing to bear in mind here is that your task is not to get every search committee to like you (which is surely impossible). Your aim should be to get one department to like you so much that they want to hire you. And when it comes to this task, it is entirely unclear to me whether being open about one's political views or silent about them is a better approach. Some departments, after all, are plausibly comprised largely by political progressives; others by political conservatives; and others still by political moderates. As a job-candidate, openly espousing one set of views may turn off search committees in the other camps--but it may make you look attractive to search committees (or influential search committee members) who share your views. This isn't to say that I think politics should influence hiring like this. It is merely to note that this is probably how things work, given the way that human beings are.
2. Do you really want to work with people who will discriminate against you? This has come up on this blog before, but I think it's important. If you are hired into a job, at some point your political leanings are probably going to come out, or at least be suspected by colleagues interested in these things. And do you really want to work somewhere where you're going to have to worry that your colleagues might discriminate against you (or worse)?
3. Nothing is risk-free, but professionalism matters. My sense is that there is probably a huge difference between expressing your political views online, and doing so in a way that appears unprofessional (i.e. mocking people on Twitter, thread-jacking blog discussion boards, etc.). Faculty and administrators want to hire people who will reflect well on their university, not embarrass it (or worse).
4. Is it abnormal for search committees to ask about political views? I have no idea. But what I do know is that members of search committees can and sometimes do ask things that they shouldn't (indeed, even things are illegal to ask, such as one's relationship status). If I were asked about my political views during an interview, I'm not sure what I would do. I'd probably get uncomfortable. But then again, I'm not the best interviewee. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear both from search committee members and from current or former job-candidates what their experiences have been.

What should (not) be in a teaching portfolio?

In the comments section of Trevor's post on teaching portfolios vs. 'evidence of teaching effectiveness', a reader writes:

I'm dramatically downsizing my portfolio, since I've heard from folks now that search committees just don't care about seeing all your syllabi, or sifting through full evaluation sets. For me, this means I'm summarizing all of the data, whether quantitative or written comments, and including just two full syllabi, plus of course a statement. And that is that.

If a Department really wants to see full, unaltered evals, then their language should say exactly that. Or so it seems to me. If they don't ask for that, then they shouldn't expect more; nor should they let biases of cherry picking figure into their assessment if they're not asking for the full set.

But I'd like to hear from Trevor and Marcus on this.

Another commenter, Annie, responded as follows:

I would have thought that 'evidence of teaching excellence' means unaltered evaluations, awards, informal letters of support for students (if you opt to include that sort of thing), reports of teaching observation, etc. To my ear, a teaching statement and syllabi don't fit the bill.

Finally, in response to Annie's comment, another reader wrote in:

I had sort of been wondering about this, and now someone has responded in the post about 'evidence of teaching effectiveness' VS 'teaching portfolio' that the former might involve letters of reference written on your behalf by students. But is this something hiring committees actually like to see? It seems pretty strange to me.

All of these comments raise an interesting question: given that 'teaching portfolio' and 'evidence of teaching effectiveness' seem to be used interchangeably, what should and should not be included in a teaching portfolio?

Teaching Portfolio's vs. "Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness"

Just before the end of the year, I got an email from a former colleague of mine who is doing her first run on the job market. She asked if I had any input on the difference between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness." The latter phrase is commonly used on job ads these days as a required component of one's application, but it is often ambiguous as to what exactly should be included. Here's what I told her in my response:

When I was last on the job market, my teaching portfolio contained (1) my statement of teaching philosophy, (2) a brief summary of my student evaluations from the last several years, (3) two full sets of student evaluations from recent courses taught, (4) two full sample syllabi, and (5) two brief course proposals (with reading lists) for courses I was ready to teach but had never actually taught. When I was asked for evidence of teaching effectiveness, I usually included fewer materials -- the teaching statement, summary of evaluations, a single set of student evaluations, one sample syllabus, and sometimes one course proposal. If I could, I tailored these documents to the job ad. If I were expected to teach a course like Contemporary Moral Problems, for instance, then I'd be sure to include evaluations from that course, and if I were expected to teach a philosophy of technology course, then I'd slip in my course proposal for that class.

 

In my experience, asking for an entire teaching portfolio has become relatively rare. In my last job search, less than 15% of the jobs I applied for requested it. Requests for either "evidence of teaching effectiveness" or a specific list of teaching-related items appears to be the norm now. I suspect that this is because there are so many job applicants now that most committee members don't want to sift through a portfolio of 25-30 pages and have assumed that evidence of teaching effectiveness should be more focused and concise than a full portfolio. The institutions that requested full portfolios were, as you might expect, teaching focused schools, and I suspect that the portfolio was one of the weightiest parts of those application.

 

This, however, is only my impression of the difference, and I could be mistaken. Does anyone else have a take on the distinction between a teaching portfolio and "evidence of teaching effectiveness" who would like to weigh in?

Staying competitive in philosophy in a non-philosophy postdoc?

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

Question on doing interdisciplinary work. I've done empirically inspired philosophical work before, but am now taking on a postdoc in a non-philosophy project. This leads me to wondering how to ensure that I remain a competitive candidate within Philosophy. I assume I need to make sure I also publish my own, solo, philosophical work -- but I can't realistically do as much of it as someone doing a philosophy postdoc. Are there ways to help make the non-philosophical research help and not hinder future hires? Also, will recommendation letters from my non-philosopher supervisors in that postdoc count for anything? A further concern is that this is a research only position, which means it doesn't enable expanding my meager teaching portfolio. Should I try to adjunct a class or two on the side to make up for that?

These are interesting questions. This appears to me to be a serious issue for postdocs in Europe. In the United States, postdocs aren't hired to complete a particular project. But from what I can tell, in at least some places in Europe, that's exactly what postdocs are: one is hired (it seems) into a position funded by a particular grant or whatever, and your activities in the postdoc are supposed to be on the funded project, whatever it is. Assuming this is right, it seems to me to place postdocs in a terrible position in multiple respects. First, the postdoc may have to more or less give up on their own research program in favor of the grant-funded project. And second, as we see in the OP, the project may be largely empirical or not even in philosophy.

What should postdocs in this kind of position do? I think the OP is right that they should try to continue publishing solo philosophy work on the side. But aside from that, I'm not sure. I don't know how useful recommendation letters from non-philosophers will be for applying for jobs in philosophy. And given that postdocs like the one the OP described don't have teaching, the OP is in a triple-bind: they need to somehow spend most of their time working on their postdoc project, while also publishing solo work in philosophy and (ideally) getting some teaching experience. All things being equal, I think seeking out adjunct work would be a good idea--but, as we see here, all things aren't equal. I don't know how someone in their position can realistically do all of the above. So unfortunately, I have to confess that I don't know what to say here. It seems to me that postdoc practices like these place recent PhDs in an extremely difficult position, one that I don't have any clear views on how to best navigate (in large part because I've never been in the situation myself).

Do any readers out there have any better answers? Have any of you been in a similar position? If so, what would you suggest the OP do? If not, what do you think the OP should do, looking at it from an outside perspective?

Tech tips for interviews?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Jack writes:

I have a second query that I thought of while reading the replies, in particular some that mention lighting and headphones. I was under the impression that headphones look a little unprofessional but on reflection that seems silly. Perhaps we could have a dedicated thread on what equipment is good for zoom interviews and other tips about lighting, angles, etc?

One reader ('Newly TT') made a couple of suggestions in our thread on how to dress for Zoom interviews:

[I]nvest in a good webcam and microphone. I actually think it makes a big difference, since you come out in HD and with good sound quality instead of a pixelated mess with tinny audio. I bought a webcam and mic set for all of my Skype interviews last year, before COVID made Zoom a thing. It happened that I could repurpose the same camera and mic for online teaching nowadays, but I think that it's worth it regardless! It's like a $100 investment and if it makes a difference, it pays off big-time.

These are good suggestions, I think, but I also think it could be good to discuss Jack's original query in more detail. Indeed, I think it could be good to hear both from candidates about what has worked well (and not so well) for them, as well as from search committee members. So, here are a few questions directed toward each group:

For job candidates: which tech tips do you have for other job-candidates? Which kind of tech have you used that seems to be important and work well for you? On the flip side, what have you tried that hasn't worked so well? Do you use headphones? Artificial lighting? A professional mic? Wired (as opposed to wireless) internet access?

For search committee members: what have you seen that seems to work well or not so well for job-candidates? What sorts of things have you noticed that come across well or not so well? For example, do you think big headphones look weird or less-than-professional, or do you not care at all? Indeed, aside from being able to see and hear a candidate decently, do you think all of this talk about tech (e.g. lighting, etc.) is overblown?

For both groups: don't feel any need to be constrained by the questions suggested above. Feel free to share whatever thoughts you have on the general issue of tech in interviews!

An Inquiry about Writing One's Own Letters of Recommendation

I was recently reviewing Michael Huemer's arguments (from 2017) against the practice of soliciting letters of recommendation, and I recalled a phenomenon I learned about while in graduate school. Assuming these accounts were true, some faculty members in the profession are in the habit of making graduate students write their own letters of recommendation, which the faculty member then signs. (To be clear, no faculty members at my graduate program did this. These were accounts I heard from other early career members of the profession who I met at conferences or who visited my program as guest speakers.)

This practice, however common, has always struck me as problematic. First, it puts an even greater burden on graduate students in terms of job market preparation, and they are already going to commit hundreds of work hours to that task. Second, the faculty member is abdicating a professional responsibility that I think they're obligated to fulfill. Third, even if the faculty member reads the letter and signs off on it, it is unlikely that the ideas in the letter would be expressed in the same way and to the same degree as if the faculty member has written the letter themselves. Fourth, there will surely be cases where the faculty member will not read the letter carefully or will fail to raise criticisms of its content even when such criticisms would be appropriate, which means its content may not accurately reflect the faculty member's opinions.

However, it's been many years since I've heard any tales about this practice, and so far as I know, I have never worked with a faculty member who engaged in it. On that note, I want to ask the community two questions:

1. How common is this practice in 2020?
2. Is there some justification for doing this that I am unaware of?

How to dress for Zoom interviews?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Jack asks:

How should candidates dress for zoom interviews? I’m a man but I imagine other genders have this question too. Should I wear a suit and tie? On the one had that feels somehow a little silly but on the other hand i feel that it is better to be overdressed than underdressed. What if I have multiple interviews for the same uni over different days—should I change my outfit? Any other presentational tips I [might] not be aware of?

Good questions! My sense is that expectations and norms for dress tend to be more relaxed for Zoom, so I don't think a suit and tie is necessary for a first-round interview (or advisable for that matter, as you may look like you're interviewing for a corporate job). Indeed, my general sense is that people are probably not going to spend much time thinking about how you're dressed for a first-round interview on Zoom--provided you don't wear a t-shirt or something. 'Campus visits' via Zoom may be a bit of a different story, however, as you'll be meeting with administrators (e.g. the Dean, Provost, etc.). So, I would probably be sure to dress fairly formal for them, and probably also be sure to wear different things on different days. But I don't know for sure. What do you all think? It might be good to hear from search committee members! 

Must a writing sample fit the job?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Marian writes:

I have a sort of specific version of the question: How important is it that one's writing sample(s) fit the job specification? I applied for a TT position advertised as "field X with specialisation in subfield Y". I work in X and have strong interests in Y but haven't written much in it and the writing sample I submitted was only loosely connected to it. I received an email from the department asking for a second writing sample, and I'm wondering whether I should submit a better paper in field X that has almost nothing to do with sub-field Y, or else submit an inferior paper that has a little more to do with subfield Y. Thank you everyone.

This is an interesting question. I'm inclined to think that in general (though not always), it's probably vital for a writing sample to fit the job. I would also not be surprised at all if in Marian's case the request for a second writing sample is motivated specifically by the committee wanting to see if she really does serious (and good) work in the area, as requesting a second writing sample is a bit odd. The primary case in which it seems to me that 'fitting the job' might not be a huge priority is for R1 jobs, where a department might just want to hire the best researcher they can simpliciter. But these are just my thoughts, and Peter submitted an alternative perspective: 

@Marian: I don't have any experience being on search committees. But my knee jerk reaction is to always try to submit your best piece of writing. If it's not on subfield Y, then you can always talk up your connections to subfield Y if you make it to a round when they ask you about it. But if it's *bad* and it's on subfield Y, then it seems like you're passing up the best way to even make it to that next round.

These are good points. I tend to think it's best to roll with your best work, and agree that if one's work in Y really isn't very good, then it's probably not going to help one's case to submit it. But this just draws attention, I think, to the sense in which Marian is in between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Although again this is just speculation, it seems plausible to me that the reason the SC asked for a second sample from her is precisely because her first one wasn't squarely in Y, and they want to see what her work on Y is like. Then again, Marian can't know either way, at least not without asking. So, I dunno. Maybe the thing to do here is to actually ask? Marian could always email the search chair, asking something like, 'Is the committee looking for a paper specifically on Y, or is it fine if I submit on X?' But would this be a good idea, or a bad idea? I don't know! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What do you all think, particularly those of you who have been in a similar position or served on a search committee?

Should external letters be weighed more heavily?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a grad student writes:

I have a question about external letters of reference as part of one's application materials. Or maybe it's a comment.

I know the reasons why they're valued: this person is not personally invested in your success in the same way that your supervisor is, and hence they can (allegedly) speak more objectively to your work. Now I've been told, and have read people saying, that the external letter is the most important letter for a lot of places. This seems pretty unfair. For starters, it can be hard to get an external reader. You either need your supervisor to already be connected with them, or to meet them at a conference (which you likely had to get into), or some other way. Then of course you have to have the "right" external reader, i.e. someone from a top notch place doing top notch work. But how often do such people wind up in the circles of students not attending the Northeast East elite or the California elite programs? Pretty rarely, I'd guess.

I think what I am doing here is asking job committee members to rethink their bias towards the external letter. There's a lot of value to getting an external voice on one's committee, I think. And students should keep doing so. But it seems to me that, as hiring committee member, weighing that letter more heavily than the others is plainly unfair. I suppose this is part of the larger conversation I've seen floating on philosophy social media lately of whether or not letters of reference should be flat out abolished.

To make sure I get some kind of question in here, I am asking for a justification of the practice of weighing external letters heavier, which does seem to be rather prevalent (for the record, I've tried to secure one myself, because of what people tell me about their importance).

I'm actually very sympathetic with these concerns. As readers may recall, I'm not a fan of recommendation letters in general. The empirical evidence on them suggests they have little predictive value regarding future academic or work performance. This is for many reasons, not the least of which are selection bias:

Selection of writers is biased; usually, we don’t ask people who hate us to write letters for us.  Writers themselves are then biased; many won’t agree to write recommendation letters if the only letter they could write would be a weak one. Among those that do write letters, the personality of the letter-writer may play a more major role in the content than the ability level of the recommendee.

How often do interviews make a difference?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Mercado writes:

How often do first-round TT job candidates move up in the ranking as a result of their Zoom/Skype interview such that they make it to the second-round-on-campus visit?

Here I assume that SC members have a rough sense of who is favored for the job or at least who they would like to invite for a campus visit.

Great question! My experience, having served on four search committees, is as follows. First, the vast majority of interview performances are broadly indistinguishable from each other. Most interviewees perform pretty well, and so much of the time don't make a difference in terms of who to invite to campus. I'd say that out of every 10 interviews, 8 are pretty good, 1 is awful, and 1 is tremendous. Second, the primary times interviews cause significant changes in how a search committee thinks are (A) when someone at the top of the list heading into the interview gives a terrible interview, and (B) someone seriously in the running gives a tremendous interview. Terrible interviews really can knock someone out of a 'top position' (i.e. someone the committee expected to want to hire) and lead that person not to be invited to campus. Conversely, tremendous interviews can make a real difference in terms of getting an on-campus visit. However, tremendous interviews are pretty rare, and whether they result in an on-campus will still depend on how the committee judges the rest of the dossier. If someone is toward the 'bottom' of the committee's list (due e.g. to not having publications, etc.), then even a tremendous interview might not make a difference--as members of the committee might be skeptical of the value of interviews, and place more emphasis on tangible accomplishments and how well candidates fit the institution and the department's needs. The most likely case where a tremendous interview is going to make a difference, I think, is when a candidate is in the 'middle of pack' (as it were) prior to the interview.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Submitting extra recommendation letters?

In our December "how can we help you?" thread, Overthinker writes:

I have been wondering how committees might feel about getting more letters of recommendation than usual from an applicant. I don't have any worries about getting good letters from my advisory committee, one of whom is from an outside institution. But I think I could get letters from a couple professors who can speak to my non-research work in the department, like my teaching, service, and good relationships with the faculty. Are letters that emphasize those sorts of things overkill or even irrelevant, so that it would be more of a waste of time for the letter writers?

Good question. I'm not sure what the answer is. I personally don't focus very much on letters as a search committee member, and in fact I'm pretty opposed to them being used in job applications for these reasons. However, I do know search committee members who take them pretty seriously, especially teaching letters if you are applying to a job at a teaching focused university (indeed, not including one for a job like that might send the wrong message: that you see yourself primarily as a researcher and don't fit the job or culture well). So I'm not sure. One reader submitted the following response:

That is overkill. It will never come down to two candidates with good research letters, and then the scale is tipped by an extra letter that says you are one of the first to bring a tasty casserole to a department party.

Fair enough. But what about if you have been involved in significant service to the department? At my university, service is taken very seriously (it's a central part of the job, on a par with research in terms of how much of our time we are supposed to apportion to it). So, if a candidate does serious service and is a good colleague, might a letter on this stuff help? Maybe, I'm not sure. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have actually served on search committees? (It might be helpful to note what kind of university you work at in answering, to give your answer some context). 

Interview: ‘How to Shawshank your way out of academia’

I came across this very interesting interview yesterday with Aaron Kagan, who received his PhD in philosophy at Fordham and now works at Google. The interview not only covers his own path out of academia. Kagan also gives a ton of helpful tips on how to do so, including things to do during grad school, how to network, how write a good non-academic resume (1 page only!) and cover letter, how interviews differ, and how to present oneself to a non-academic audience--to name just a few. It is a great interview, almost certainly the best that I have come across on this topic. Here are just a few choice snippets (not in the same order as in the interview), and again, there's a ton of other good stuff:

Did you have to deal with feelings of grief or anything else surrounding leaving academia? Did you find there were other consequences of making that choice?
I beat myself up pretty badly at first. However, once I ‘left’ (i.e., started working somewhere that wasn’t academia) I was so happy. People cared about the work I did, more than 3 people actually read stuff I put together, people depended on me for things, and I was a part of a team, plus I got paid like real (livable) money.

If I think back to my decision, the grief associated with it was largely internal (e.g., how I felt about myself), and a bit of vanity (e.g., not telling people I’m a professor, that I’m not sure what I’m doing, that I’m a “Junior XYZ” at some corporate so and so). But once I got a job this all instantly vanished, I had a massive community of people, co-workers, teams, and others in the industry that also worked as a ___.

What should someone thinking about leaving academia do to figure out what kind of career they would enjoy?
Talk to as many people as you can outside academia and ask them all kinds of questions about their life and their job(s). We have a tendency to get tunnel vision in the ivory tower and only surround ourselves with academic perspectives. Most of the world is not academia, so cast a wide net.

Research non-academic stuff…
This is a lot easier than the kind of research work you’re probably used to. It consists largely of looking through the morass of information on different job roles. There’s loads of free information and training out there.

Try your hand at a bunch of different stuff…
If you’re a business owner and someone comes along and says “Hi, I’m a functioning adult and would like to work for you for free”, you’ll probably get their attention if you’re not totally off putting. There are plenty of opportunities to try your hand at a variety of jobs. In all likelihood, you’d very quickly start to discover the kinds of things you like and don’t like.

What kinds of resources did you utilize to help transition out of academia? Are there resources you see available now to job applicants that you wish you had been able to access?
I wish I had forged even more connections outside academia without the guilt that I was somehow “cheating” on my academic career. There are so many resources nowadays with respect to ‘free education’ on pretty much any topic. I think I could have chased down a lot of dead ends much faster, for example.

Most of the resources I utilized I mentioned above–viz. reading a lot of non-academic stuff, talking to people outside of academia, and sweat equity (i.e., free work for experience of trying your hand at something).

 

Should websites be 'purely professional'?

In our ongoing discussion of whether job-candidates should have professional websites, a reader ('designer') wrote:

My issue is that people's webpages are often quite unprofessional. They often have a lot of nonsense on them. Some people, for example, post a lot of pictures of themselves milling about at conferences with famous philosophers. Or they post pictures of themselves on holidays in exotic places. Of course, one can post what one wants to, but it is no longer a professional webpage.

Several readers responded to this comment. Francois wrote:

I have a photo of my cat on my website, just so the impression I give off is a *little* lighthearted rather than totally stodgy. Is this objectionably unprofessional?

Then 'R' wrote:

For what it's worth, to me it still seems quite unfair, if not a bit mean, to judge people for having a personal website. Most of us are not professional designers and at least during graduate school cannot afford to pay a professional designer for our website, but as the OP indicates there is some pressure to have a personal website. I would (still) recommend to cranky and designer that they avoid personal websites rather than holding it against candidates that they have one.

Finally, an anonymous postdoc wrote:

It's less off-putting than standard personal websites, which always gives me a narcissistic vibe. However, I come from a less individualistic and assertive culture than the US, so I might be unrepresentative of how most academics think...

I try hard to stop a personal website being a negative in assessing candidates, but it's definitely not a positive for me. I'm sure that, for others, it's the other way around.

This conversation raises a bunch of important issues in my mind. First, do personal/professional websites come off poorly or narcissistic to most people? I have no idea, and I'm really curious to hear what readers think. I will say that I've come across some that came across that way to me, but that most of the websites that I've come across don't bother me at all. Am I an outlier? Second, given that different people can respond very differently to websites (some very negatively like 'designer', some more positively), what should candidates do? Here are a few quick thoughts...

Do job candidates need a website?

In our November "how can we help you?" thread, Bram Vaasen writes:

Do I need a personal website?

I'm a currently a postdoc and I keep my PhilPeople profile up to date. I.e. recent CV, PDF:s of penultimate drafts and my thesis, a picture in which I look like a normal person, and a short blurb about me and my philosophical interests.

Consequently, I wonder whether there is any advantage in having a personal website that I have to maintain separately. It might look a tad more professional to have one, but only a tad. And even that tad is arguably a case of LOOKING more professional rather than being more professional.

Looking forward to input.

(I'm mostly interested in jobs in Europe, but interested in hearing perspectives from US job experts as well.)

Good question. I'm really not sure, but if it were me, I think I would err on the side of having a nice professional website. As Vaasen notes, it is arguably a case of looking professional. While one may of course think that the important thing is to actually be professional (viz. publishing, teaching, etc.), let's be honest: both of these things (looking as well as being professional) are plausibly advantages on the job-market. Is a personal/professional website likely to be a 'difference maker' in terms of getting interviewed or hired? My guess is probably not. But notice: this is merely a guess--and as thread after thread on this blog has revealed, search committee members can care about all kinds of strange things. We also had a recent discussion of whether search committee members look at candidate websites, and a few chimed in saying they do, noting that they look for things that aren't necessarily on PhilPeople (e.g. teaching documents, etc.). So again, if it were me, I'd err on the side of having a website.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Good jobs not on PhilJobs?

A reader writes in:

There are jobs out there for philosophers that do not get advertised on Phil jobs. Here are two in applied political philosophy that came my way recently. Perhaps it is worth posting about these particular ones and about the general problem: where do we find jobs that would love to hire philosophers but that are not advertised on philjobs?

Open-rank faculty - Hobby School of Public Affairs, University of Houston

Assistant Professor of Policy & Governance - University of Washington

Good question! When I was still on the job market, I followed three different job boards: PhilJobs, along with the philosophy and political science listings on HigherEdJobs. I see that the first job this reader linked to (at Houston) is listed in the HigherEdJobs philosophy page, but I don't see the second job anywhere.

Do any readers know of any other good places to follow to find potentially viable jobs for philosophers? The reader who wrote in found the first job at ZipRecruiter, so perhaps that is a board to follow. But I suspect there are other boards as well. Indeed, how about boards for philosophy jobs outside of the United States (i.e. Europe, South America, Africa, Asia, etc.)? It might be good to try to crowdsource resources in the comments section below!

Grappling with the COVID-era job market

In the comment thread on my post on publishing advice for grad students and other early career people, a grad student writes:

As a graduate student, I do appreciate the time and effort made to help us figure out how to best go about trying to publish papers. My biggest concern is that such posts utterly fail to take into account the current moment. Maybe such advice will be applicable in the future (we can hope!), but for right now, I'd love to see advice that explicitly takes into account the fact that the academic job market has simply collapsed.

This is a great point, and I'd love to offer more posts and discussion how to grapple effectively with the post-COVID reality. I just haven't been quite sure how to do so. I'm definitely open to suggestions! One graduate student planning on defending their dissertation made one suggestion, namely:

I just mean it could also be good to talk about the nuts and bolts of building a plan B.

For example: if I have to devote half my working hours now to developing a set of skills for plan B, as I in fact am, which of the more purely academic skills should get cut first, that are also the least likely to just totally tank my prospects (however antecedently dim) of getting a job in academia?

For me, I've basically leaned into the research and forsaken any hope of developing a compelling teaching portfolio.

My research habits have also changed. I've gone more in the direction of, write and try to publish papers I'm excited to write, don't worry about the bigger picture or how this stuff hangs together. Because all indications are that I've got maybe 18 months left in this profession, and none of that big picture stuff will pan out.

You can hopefully see how serious, and scary, these sorts of decisions can be.

I wonder what readers think: first, on the nuts and bolts of preparing for a plan B, but also, second, on whether this person's decisions are good ones.

I myself don't have any advice on the nuts and bolts of building a plan B. But I have a few thoughts on the other issue. Personally, I think the decision to focus on publishing stuff you're excited about is a great one. It's more or less the strategy that I adopted when my time on the job market looked like it was running out--and it not only made philosophy again; I started publishing a lot more than I ever did before. My rationale was basically this: "If I'm going to flunk out of this profession, I might as well go down doing work that I enjoy and believe in." It was pretty transformative, and I've never looked back.

On the other hand, I'm a bit less sure about this individual's decision to lean into research and forsake any hope of developing a teaching portfolio. I think whether this is a good decision probably depends on three things:

1. Whether the academic job market is likely to be equally catastrophic in future years.
2. Whether this person is willing to stay on the market beyond this year.
3. Whether they are interested in community college jobs.

On (1) & (2): given that effective vaccines seem to be on the horizon, and people are likely to be vaccinated en masse, it seems to me highly likely that the academic job market will recover. Of course, this job market was already brutal before COVID, but that's a different story. The point is, the market seems to me like it is likely to recover pretty significantly--so if this individual's decisions are predicated upon the assumption that the market is going to be consistently like it is this year, I think that may be a bad bet (one anecdote: it looks like my department will probably hire a tenure-track person once COVID is resolved--and I expect many other universities are waiting to do hires as well). So, it seems to me, if this person is willing to stick on the academic market for at least a couple of years after their defense, the drastic decisions they are making now (focusing on research rather than developing their teaching portfolio) might be really short-sighted.

On that note, it's worth thinking about (3): community college jobs. As this discussion revealed, community college jobs can be really great; you just need a wealth of teaching experience (and ideally, experience teaching at a community college) to be competitive. I personally know a few full-time tenure-track faculty at community colleges, and they love their jobs (seemingly more, in fact, than some of the faculty I know at 4-year universities). Moreover, from what I have heard, community colleges are expected to flourish post-COVID. During times of economic uncertainty, people seem to flee 4-year universities for community colleges, and so the latter are likely to need more faculty, not fewer (indeed, I've already seen some of my own students say they are taking time away from university during COVID to take community college classes for economic reasons). So, it seems to me, if this reader is seriously interested in an academic job and they might be happy with a CC job, their decision to lean into research at the detriment of developing their teaching portfolio seems like it could be doubly short-sighted (though, of course, they might not want a teaching-heavy CC job).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Also, if any readers have any suggestions for other topics the Cocoon might cover to address the first reader's concerns (how to better help early-career people in the post-COVID reality), I'm all ears!

Addressing ability to attract outside funding?

In our November "how can we help you?" thread, Mary writes:

Writing applications now, [currently a] post doc, second year on the market [applying for TT jobs]. I think I finally have a handle on how to address what hiring committees are looking for with one big exception: evidence of ability to attract funding. I see this frequently in Europeans jobs (yea I’m including the UK in that). Not only am I confused what exactly they are looking for and why, but I simply don’t have anything that can be squished until it kind of looks like evidence for external funding when you squint. It’s just not something that ever came up for me (or anyone in my cohort), I didn’t even know it was a thing until I started seeing it on job ads to be honest. My ideal is a European job so I would really appreciate any advice how to address this.

This is a great query. When I was on the market, I was very interested in European jobs. However, I had no idea how to address this kind of issue, as external funding isn't something that grad students early-career philosophers in the United States are generally expected or encouraged to obtain. Is this something that can be overcome, or is a lack of a track record of obtaining external funding basically a disqualifier for obtaining a job in European countries where this sort of thing is expected? If not, what is the best thing for a candidate like Mary to do in her application materials?