The Philosophers' Cocoon

Listing a course one has taught as an AOC?

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

i am an abd grad student. I thought I had my AOS/AOCs figured out, but my department threw me a curveball and is having me teach a class that is outside of those areas. i'm not really worried about teaching the class and i am interested in the material, but i don't research this stuff at all. i fear that adding it as an AOC will look a little strange, both because there are now too many and because it doesn't really 'fit' with the rest, but i also don't want to undersell my capabilities when the ability to teach a wide range of classes is valued. if anyone has faced this situation, or evaluated someone like this from a committee perspective, i would be interested to know what you think.

This is a good query, as people always seem to have questions about what constitutes a 'legitimate AOC.' My understanding has always been that an AOC is supposed to be something that one would be able and qualified to teach an advanced undergraduate course in, even if it isn't an area that one does active research (i.e. publishing) in. So, I would think, at a minimum, an AOC should be something that one either has graduate coursework training in, and/or something one has cultivated some advanced competence in by some other means (such as by teaching lower-division courses in the area regularly and developing a more advanced background in by reading more widely in that area).

Consequently, my sense is that it is probably not a good idea to list a course that one has merely taught a couple of times in grad school as an AOC. Fortunately, in many cases, I don't think that much is likely to turn on this for a job-candidate. If a department otherwise likes you, they want/need someone to teach X, and you have taught X before, then that's likely to be a mark in your favor, AOC or no.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from readers in general, but particularly from members of search committees!

Going on the market just after starting a job?

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

Two questions about job market etiquette:

1) Is it considered "rude," "in poor taste," or in violation of relevant norms to leave a job after only one year? One the one hand, I believe in employee freedom in a labor market; on the other, I get that people might be offended by this.

2) Is is a valid worry that your current employer might find out that you're on the market? I would hope that application materials are confidential, but I also imagine that philosophers, like the rest of humankind, like to gossip. Does anyone have experience of their employers retaliating in any sort of way after finding out they were applying out?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:

I had a colleague who we hired leave after one year. I did not consider her rude ... I understood her motives quite well. But I am sure some of my colleagues absolutely hated her. We spent a lot of time doing the search, time we did not have. And then we choose her from among a number of fully qualified candidates - she deserved the job, but others were deserving as well. And then when she left we did not get the line renewed. It was lost ... for good! So do not expect your colleagues to be endeared to you if they find out you are on the market.

This sounds right to me, but here are my hot takes:

1. Sure, people will probably get upset if you leave after a year, as they hired you hoping and expecting you'd stay. But you have a right to leave for another job at any time (though if they asked during the hiring process whether you'd stay if hired and you were dishonest, then that seems bad, right?).
2. It's a worry for sure, but a "valid" one? I have no idea. I've never heard of employers finding out about this kind of stuff through the proverbial grape-vine, and think it would be an enormous wrong for anyone to compromise the confidentiality of a job application. Does it ever happen? I have no idea.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people who have some experience with this kind of scenario, both on the job-candidate and hiring sides of things.

Why hire new PhDs over VAPs with better publication records?

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

In response to the VAP Treadmill thread, Patrick said the following:

In addition, based on anecdotal evidence as well as comments I've read elsewhere on this issue: being a VAP and having a decent publication record doesn't always trump a freshly minted PhD with a proportionate publication record. Ex. a VAP with 4 years post-PhD and 4-5 articles, in many cases, isn't going to be appear exceptional compared to a new PhD from a ranked program who has just one publication. To be sure, some institutions value a seasoned junior person with bona fide teaching experience but this is definitely not the case everywhere.

I am glad Patrick said this, because it speaks to an impression I have had, which is that for whatever reason a VAP one, two, three years removed from the PhD, who has been able to publish while teaching what is likely a heavy-load, nevertheless does not look as shiny ('exceptional', promising) as the graduate student with fewer publications (maybe none) and less teaching experience (again, maybe none). What is making them shiny then, other than that they haven't yet come out of the wrapper? It's almost like the fact that one is not yet in a job counts in favor of people, whereas it counts against some (e.g. VAPs, lecturers, etc.).

The help I am requesting is for a good explanation of this phenomenon, which appears to me to be utterly biased and irrational (like so much of this process), and what a VAP is supposed to do keep their shine on, if, as Patrick says, apparently publishing isn't going to do the trick.

Good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

Here's just my guess as a person who got nothing the first year out, a teaching-intensive job in the second round, and a permanent one in the third round. One can publish a lot based on one’s dissertation. I have published 4 papers based on it. But at some point felt that I’m getting close to milking my dissertation dry. So I started another research project and published a paper from the new research project, and have one completed draft under review and several other papers to be written. I think this speaks to future publication potential, which is good for the prospects of tenure or this thing called REF. My guess is thus the worry about having published most of one’s dissertation but having less clear evidence for the potential of future publications would make one look less competitive compared to someone who seems to have a publishable but unpublished dissertation.

While I do think it's a good idea to develop a research program beyond the dissertation if you are out a few years (and that this can indeed help one get a job), my sense is that this probably isn't the best explanation of what is going on here. The most common explanation that I've heard of why some departments hire people just out of grad school with few (or no) publications is this. Top research departments (e.g. at R1's) may be the most interested in one's overall "promise" as a researcher, and whether one might be "the next big star." Whereas candidates who are a few years out may have fine publication records, a "shiny new PhD" just out of a top program is less of a known quantity and thus "might be the next big thing." In this regard, the phenomenon seems not all that unlike drafting top sports prospects out of college programs. Although even the best college athletes drafted have never played a single pro game (and many of them fail!), teams still draft them out of the mere hope (and possibility) that they will turn out to be a big star.

Now, I personally don't think this is a good line of reasoning. As another reader wrote:

I was on a series of VAPs. And I was passed over a number of times. I had papers in PhilSci and Synthese and PSA. In one case, they were interviewing someone from an elite school who had been out two years with NO pubs ... ZERO! In another case, someone was offered the job before me ... now two decades later I have over 11 times the number of citations as this person. It is a sorry world. I have had a good career, but it has been hard all the way.

Fortunately, if there are any silver linings here, they are these. First, even though some programs hire people just out of grad school with few publications, other departments really want to see a robust publishing record. Second, my experience is that jobs at teaching-focused institutions care a great deal about teaching experience, and thus, all things being equal, are likely to prefer VAPs over new PhDs. Finally, in my experience there are many people just like this last commenter: job candidates who were passed over for new PhDs, but who ended up getting a good job and succeeding in the end. In fact, speaking from personal experience here, I think that as horrible as it was at the time, my long time on the job market was a bit of a blessing in disguise. If I had gotten a TT job right out of grad school, I think I probably would have failed. I didn't know how to publish, nor did I really know how to teach all that well--let alone do both effectively at the same time. So, while it does indeed seem profoundly unfair, I'd just say to the OP: keep fighting the good fight. There are no guarantees in this unfair world, and there is a ton of luck involved on the academic market, but if you publish and teach well, good things can happen.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be good, in particular, to hear from people on the hiring side of things.

Tips for asking for a retention raise?

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

I am curious about the mechanics and strategy of asking for a retention raise. I am a TT assistant professor. I might receive a job offer soon for another TT position. I would be willing to take the new job, but I would prefer my current position if my salary increased. How would I go about asking for a retention raise? Whom should I ask--my chair or the dean? Any other advice?

Fair questions! I've heard anecdotally that some institutions don't negotiate these sorts of things at all (they will say in essence, "good luck to you at your new job"), but if you are willing to take the new job, what's the harm simply telling your institution that you have an outside offer but would prefer to stay if they'd be willing to raise your salary $X? If you really are willing to take the other job, the worst that they can say is 'no.' In any case, my sense is that one should only do this if one actually has an outside offer and you're willing to accept it.

In terms of the mechanics, one reader submitted the following reply:

go to the Dean (at least) Every campus is different, and campuses even change over time. I worked at a place where you went to the Provost. I liked it. You had to have some gumption to think they would even meet with you, but if you did, and you made a case for yourself, she was a generous and appreciative leader.

This seems right to me. Go first to your Dean. Then, depending on what they say, maybe go to the Provost. But it would be great to hear from other readers here, particularly readers who have tried to negotiate a raise like this. What was the process like, and how successful (or not) were you?

Tips for on-campus visit meetings with deans?

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

Oh gosh this one is a bit time sensitive so I am not even sure it's worth posting but just in case: how should you prepare to meet with a dean at a flyout? What is going on in these meetings? What is the dean's role re: your prospects of getting an offer? Any advice at all about this would be so very appreciated.

Good questions! Unfortunately, it's been almost 10 years since I did one of these and I have terrible episodic memory, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. One reader submitted the following reply:

This really is a simple part of the process. The dean meets with you to sell you her institution. So do not be stressed. It is a chance to ask about the institution, the place of philosophy at the institution, etc. They will want to impress upon you things about the broader community - what a great place it is to live (it is quite unlikely that they will be a philosopher). In one case, though, I did ask the dean why they did an external chair search (where I am from, such searches usually signal that the department is a little fucked up).

I'm curious to hear from other readers: is this right? Are these dean meetings things not to be stressed over too much, or do deans sometimes play important roles in the hiring process that can make these meetings more important than this response makes them sound?

Any readers have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share? 

Job market 'waiting-game' tips?

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

Any advice for coping with the interminable periods of waiting to hear back about job applications? How do you stay focused while navigating the emotional ups and downs? Do you have any strategies for maintaining focus, or for resetting when you find yourself distracted? It's my first year and I am struggling. Some days are fine...and other days I feel like a wreck with no self-control, opening zillow and refreshing my inbox, wondering and worrying, and not writing.

Excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers. I have to confess that when I was on the market, I didn't have any special strategies for handling this stuff. I was pretty much stressed and preoccupied all of the time. But I've always been able to focus on work, so during work hours, that's more or less what I did: bury my head in writing, teaching, grading, etc. I also went for a lot of long walks and runs with my dog, listening to music--things which have always been calming for me. But again, I really struggled, as I suspect most job marketeers do.

Any of you have any helpful tips for the OP?

(How) do 'little things' make a difference on the job market?

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

In the post about the VAP treadmill, a commenter said the following:

"In my experience in our searches, probably the top 20-50% of the applicant pool would be successful in the job and be an adequate fit for the specific role. The differences between the person who gets the job and the person who is 15th on the list are often small and hard to characterize."

I would love to hear from people who have been on search committees (or ppl who were told by someone on the search committee why they were hired) some examples of the tiny little things that ended up making one candidate get the job over the other equally-qualified candidates.

If these reasons are silly or arbitrary (e.g., this person just "seemed cooler" or had one more publication than someone else), all the better, since it helps us to remember just how much randomness there is. If some of the things are tiny things that others (like myself) can somehow imitate, then that is great too!

This is a great query, and I'd love to hear those who are in the know weigh in. One reader submitted the following reply:

Not a really practical advice, but making one's CV and/or cover letter unforgettable in the right way helps. According to my future employer (I've explicitly asked why they decided to hire me), apart from a promising research project (from their point of view) and institutional fitness (which played a central role in the final decision), I received a prestigious prize during my phd candidature and this really helped me get into the interview stage. Judging from other people who got a job, prizes help. At least everyone I know who got a prestigious prize (like from a journal or from some philosophical association) eventually got a TT or permanent job.

And another reader submitted this:

[H]ere is a tiny thing that might matter - imagine a position is advertised for Business Ethics, with an AOC in history of philosophy. The two finalists are matched on Business ethics, but the one has a broader range of history competence (early modern AND 19 C); or the one has early modern and 20th Continental and the other has early modern and 19 C. - and you think, a course on Nietzsche will fill seats, let's go for that one. These are small things that cannot be anticipated, and when a decision for ONE and only one candidate is required they become the difference maker.

Any other readers have good examples of 'little things' making a difference in the hiring process?

The VAP treadmill?

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

I wanted to bump something to here that 'visiting treadmill' posted in the job market discussion thread, as I think it would be good to hear from folks on what they were saying, but no one responded there. I hope they don't mind!

visiting treadmill: Unsurprisingly, I feel a bit perplexed by the market. This is my fifth year on the market but I’ve held a visiting position every year. On the VAP market last year I had four interviews and two offers. I thought that maybe the VAP market buzz I experienced might be some evidence that I would have better luck on the TT market this year. But so far on the permanent market this year I’ve only had one first round zoom interview, which did not advance. It looks like that’s all I’m going to get, which needless to say is really disappointing. Anyone else have a similar experience? Is there such a thing as a VAP treadmill? Why would multiple departments (and I’m not talking R1 here) see a candidate as good enough for a visiting position but not a permanent position? Also, what’s the number to that truck-driving school again?

Good questions--it would be great to hear from other job candidates, as well as from search committee members. Do job candidates in visiting positions get pigeon-holed as good enough for visiting positions but not for permanent ones?

'Getting to know' departments when applying for jobs?

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

One piece of advice I often see for job seekers is to "get to know the department to which you are applying." This is great advice! I'd love to know how other people go about researching a department, its needs, its interests, and its preferences. It would be great if at least some of this advice did not involve tapping one's personal network, as many grad students/job seekers may not have networks that are similarly robust or knowledgeable about the ins and outs of other departments.

Interesting query. I'm not sure I think it is a great idea to try to research a department's "needs", "interests", and "preferences", as in my experience different members of the same department may have very different (and often deeply incompatible) visions about what these things should be. My sense instead is the "get to know the department to which you are applying" advice is to research and develop familiarity with what the people in the department work on and teach, features of the program (e.g. major coursework and minors offered), and features of the college or university (e.g., new initiatives, etc.). And I'm not inclined to think that one need tap one's personal network to get know these kinds of things.

Basically, my sense is that when people say, "get to know the department to which you are applying", they are saying this because it can be important to search committees to come across like you've at least done some research on the place you're applying to and the people who work there. For example, if you're on a campus visit, it surely looks far better to say to a member of a department, "I checked out your paper on X and thought it is interesting" rather than "What do you work on?", or "I know your department offers a minor in Y" rather than "What minors does your department offer?"

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. It would be great to hear from search committee members what they think about these matters, as well as from anyone else who may be in the know and have any helpful advice for the OP!

Lateral Assistant Professor moves and the tenure process: what can you negotiate?

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

How common is it for a lateral move at the Assistant level to have to 'start again' with respect to publishing for tenure? In other words, if you make a lateral move at the Assistant level is it common to negotiate that some of your current publications will count for tenure (perhaps with an advanced tenure clock)? Or is this really uncommon? I realize experiences will vary widely across different jobs and institutions but I'm particularly curious to know if folks are ever able to successfully negotiate previous publications counting for tenure at their new job.

Good questions. My sense, from what I have heard from friends, is that it is common to negotiate all of these things. I know some people who were able to negotiate a shorter tenure clock (e.g. 3 or 4 years instead of 6), and others who were able to get previous publications to count. But I also know of people at some institutions that as a matter of standing policy only consider publications for tenure that occurred while at their institution. So, it seems to me, negotiating these things is common, but as the OP notes, such things may vary greatly according to institution.

It would be great to hear from readers who have made lateral junior moves. What were you able (or not able) to negotiate with respect to the tenure process?

Adjuncting in grad school & the job market

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

I'm on the market for the first time. I have a good bit of teaching experience, but more and more I'm adjuncting at local colleges and not where I'm earning my PhD. Two questions. (1) How should one list adjuncting positions? I have a 'Teaching Experience' section of my cv that lists the courses and institutions I've taught at. But would it be good to also list 'adjunct instructor' under an 'Employment' section? My worry with this is that it'll just look cheesy or forced. (2) Will having adjuncted at a handful of schools hurt my prospects for a permanent position? My thought is that some search committees might look at my cv and think, 'Oh, nice PhD, nice publications, but this is just some professional adjunct.'

Fair questions, and I'm not entirely sure what the answers are for the job market as a whole. But I will say this: having worked and hired many times at a teaching-focused institution, I think the OP's experience adjuncting while in grad school will only help them (and may even help them significantly) when applying for positions at schools like mine.

In my experience, one of the biggest problems that new job candidates who are ABD or just out of grad school can have for jobs like these is simply not having enough solo teaching experience (particularly experience teaching multiple classes at the same time, which is much more difficult than just teaching one, as one typically does in grad school). The OP's experience adjuncting is likely to not only demonstrate greater experience in teaching, but also suggest to hiring committees that they value teaching (as they have chosen to pursue teaching opportunities rather than focus solely or primarily on research). Both of these things are likely to look good to hiring committees at teaching-focused institutions. So, if I were the OP and applying to jobs at SLACs or community colleges, I would by all means list their adjunct work under Employment, but list Employment beneath Education--as that will highlight the fact that they are still in grad school and adjuncting at the same time (which, again, I think is likely to look great for teaching-focused jobs).

What the OP should do for jobs at research institutions, on the other hand, is not as obvious to me. Should they list their adjunct work under 'Employment', or simply indicate it in the teaching experience section of the CV? I tend to think that CVs should be as perspicuous as possible (and that since adjunct work is employment, it should be listed as such), but then again, maybe that would "send the wrong message" to hiring committees at research institutions? I have no idea (maybe teaching experience will look good to them too!).

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Anyone else with suitable experience with these matters (particularly those who have served on search committees) care to weigh in?

Working at an R1 with an MA (but no PhD) program?

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

I'd be really curious to hear from those who teach at R1s without doctoral programs. In particular, I feel like the vast majority of scholars I know (and hear about) are at schools with PhD programs or those with no graduate students at all. I'd love to know the ways in which having a Masters program is and is not similar to having a PhD program and is and is not similar to not having grad students at all.

[A]nything that people might offer on teaching with a masters program (as compared to other setups) would be most appreciated!

Interesting query--any readers have any helpful insights?

Is being an international job-candidate a disadvantage?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an Australian PhD asks:

Just out of curiosity. I applied for many jobs. My estimation is that more than half of the jobs I applied for are in North America. Three years on the job market and I've been through 17 interviews. 5 are for North American jobs. (All first round, no final round compared to all other interviews being for final rounds.) So basically my interview rate for North American jobs are much lower than that of for Uk, European, Australian, New Zealand, and Middle Eastern jobs. Is this a common experience for those who got their degrees not in North America?

Fair question, though I have to say that this person's three years on the job market seem pretty spectacular to me (17 interviews is quite a lot!). It would be great to hear from other job candidates, as well as from search committee members. Is being an international candidate a disadvantage on the US market?

Peer review and special journal issues: should early-career people publish in them?

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

When a journal does a topical special issue volume with guest editors, do those editors tend to do R&Rs like an ordinary journal submission, or are they more likely to simply accept or reject? I realize this will probably differ depending on the SI in question, but I am just trying to get a sense of what the process is like before I submit to one for the first time. Do acceptances/rejections tend to happen faster than the usual rate at that journal? Or are they slower/the same?

Relatedly, as an early career person with a real need for more publications, how do special issue pubs look on a CV to search committees? I take it that they aren't as highly valued as ordinary journal publications, but how much lower are we talking? Is it even worth submitting to them if you're early career with minimal publications?

These are all excellent questions. I don't know all that much about exactly how much the peer-review process for special journal issues differs from standard journal submissions, including whether acceptances/rejections tend to happen more quickly for the former. However, I do know that R&Rs happen (I've had some myself), and my (admittedly anecdotal) sense is that when it comes to invited submissions to special issues or edited volumes, there may be some presumption in favor of publication (whereas there is no such presumption for normal, non-invited submissions), and of course the editor for the special issue will know who you are, so the peer-review process won't be triple-anonymized.

In terms of how publications in special issues look to search committees, this is a tough one. A big part of the problem is that a search committee really doesn't know exactly what (or how rigorous) the peer-review process was. My sense is that (rightly or wrongly) some people may suspect that inclusion in a special issue may be at least as much about having good professional connections as it is about the quality of one's work--and this concern might be especially salient if it's an early-career person (and job candidate) who hasn't otherwise published much via the standard in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, I've definitely heard this kind of concern voiced before: that it's hard to know what to make of a candidate with a bunch of invited/special publications but few (or no) standard journal publications.

So, my sense (though it could be wrong) is that if you've published fairly well in peer-reviewed journals already the standard way, then publishing in special issues is probably just fine (and perhaps even a positive)--but that if you have "minimal publications" (like OP states), then submitting to special issues may not be the best way to go. It may make more sense to build up your CV with standard journal publications first.

Then again, perhaps a lot depends on the quality of the journal (e.g. is a special issue of Mind?), and perhaps I'm wrong and  special issue publications look good to some search committees (perhaps at institutions where perceived reputation matters?). Anyway, not sure. What do you all think? It would be great to hear more both about the publication process for special issues, as well as how search committees perceive/weigh such publications.

Fashion advice for campus visits?

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

Maybe this has been asked before and I'm just having trouble finding it on the blog, but I would love some fashion advice about what to wear for a fly-out as a lady.

We actually had a discussion thread on dressing for campus-visits back in 2021, where someone linked to this thread on advice for women candidates. But I know norms are constantly changing, and if anyone has any helpful tips (particularly past job candidates and members of hiring committees!), please do feel free to weigh in!

Tips/norms for solving a two-body problem?

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

I am sure that this has been discussed here before, but what are the norms about going on the job market in order to solve a two-body problem? Do you raise that issue in a cover letter? In the interview process? After an offer? What do you say when people ask why you are looking for another job?

These are excellent questions. We actually have had a couple of threads on this before, but I think it's always helpful to receive more information and answers to these types of questions.

Anyone with any experience in these matters have any helpful tips? It would be great to hear both from people on the hiring side of things, as well as from candidates who were able to navigate a two-body problem successfully.

Reputational effects of a university's social/political/theological leanings?

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

If you accept a position at a school that, for political, social, or theological reasons, has a reputation for being a certain way, does the stench of their leanings follow you for the rest of your career, if you were to eventually apply elsewhere? Would people assume that you shared their leanings?

These are interesting questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

On the one hand, I suspect that there is probably a natural tendency to associate a candidate with the kind of places they've worked at. For example, in his recent post on his five years on the job-market, Jeremy Davis (University of Georgia) notes that once he was hired into non-TT jobs at a military college, most of his interviews were at other military institutions.

On the other hand, I also suspect that the nature of one's work can probably outweigh such associations. For example, if someone looking at your CV and research statement finds that your publications and research program don't really fall in line with the leanings of the institution you worked out, they might very well infer that you probably don't share the place's leanings.

But all of this is really just speculation on my part. It would be great to hear from search committee members, as well as from people who have worked for a time at places whose social/political/theological leanings they didn't exactly share. What evidence is there (one way or another) that an institution's leanings will "follow a job candidate around"?

Tips for applying to full-time NTT "teaching positions"?

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

I love teaching philosophy, but I'm not too fired up about going on the job market in search of a TT job. Where I'm getting my PhD, we have "Lecturers" (pure adjuncts) and "Instructors," who have longer-term contracts and get somewhat better pay. Instructors are NTT and have no research expectations; they are on the faculty, though, and I believe they have service duties. Does anyone have a sense of how common this intermediate category is across the board? I get the sense that some large departments have folks in this category, and some don't. Also, any tips on getting such a job, besides general advice for applying to any teaching-focused position?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks. My sense is that an increasing number of colleges and universities do indeed have these types of renewable full-time, non-TT positions. In fact, my university is one of them.

Here's a bit of context: for a number of years, members of our Faculty Senate pushed for the creation of more full-time positions, out of concern about reliance on adjunct labor. Then, a handful of years ago, they finally passed a resolution to create these types of positions--with the support of the university's administration. While the change has by no means eliminated reliance on adjunct labor, it has significantly reduced it (cutting my department's reliance on adjuncts by close to 30%). And my sense is that these changes are becoming more common at other colleges and universities too, as over the past several years I've seen what appear to be far more jobs like "Teaching Assistant Professors" on PhilJobs.

The reasons why these positions are becoming more common are, I think, complex and not without costs (viz. potentially shifting the overall balance of full-time TT vs. non-TT positions)--but, on the whole, I think it is good that more full-time academic jobs with benefits and prospects for relatively secure employment are being created, as the adjunctification of higher education is an ongoing moral scandal that should be fought in whatever ways are available.

Do other readers share my sense of these matters, and/or have any tips for the OP on how to successfully apply for such positions? Given that my department is doing a search for one of these positions right now, out of fairness to applicants, I won't share any tips openly here right now (though I may share some anonymously). But I am curious to hear the inside scoop from search committee members that might help the OP!

Are hiring departments still doing Zoom "flyouts"?

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

Are hiring departments conducting finalist interviews face-to-face or via Zoom this year? Or, rather, are any departments conducting finalist (day+ long, short-listed candidates) interviews via Zoom?

I ask because my department is considering doing 4-5 finalist interviews via Zoom, then flying out the candidate(s) to whom we make offers. The thinking is that we can conduct more finalist interviews, with less department stress and expense, this way. Normally, we are limited to 2 on-campus interviews.

Interesting questions, and I'd be curious to hear the answers. Personally, I'm inclined to think that face-to-face on campus visits are superior for various reasons (performing over Zoom is very different than performing in person, candidates who visit campus can spend more unscripted time with students, faculty, and staff, etc.). But I can of course understand various rationales for holding finalist interviews by Zoom, including the one the OP mentions.

Anyway, I'm curious too. What are departments doing for finalists these days, and why?

Holiday stressors & the job market

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

Here's one concerning holiday stressors, which is not so much a question as it is a request for the opportunity to vent and/or swap stories of frustration during this time of the year.

I am an early-career person with a large publication output and a series of decent postdoc and VAP-type jobs at good institutions, but no TT job. It turns out that, to my friends and family (nearly all of whom are non-academics), such a career profile makes me indistinguishable from someone who has spent the last many years living in the basement and playing video games.

I've just spent a mentally exhausting few days "back home" among these people for the holidays. It quickly became clear to me that they cannot parse my efforts as successful given that I'm still on the job market.

Some annoyingly ignorant questions I got include, "When do you get to start teaching your own classes?" (I've been teaching my own classes for nine years, five as a PhD student and four as an early-career non-TT prof); "Is the reason you don't have tenure because you don't publish?" (which especially smarts given how aggressive I've been with publishing my research compared to my peers), "How's life as a philosophy major?", and, perhaps most annoyingly, "How's school?" (clearly implying the inability to distinguish between being a professor and being a student). Given the stressors of the job market, etc., dealing with the alienation that follows from friends and family members who cannot see one's hard work and instead read one as a slacker who needs to "work harder" to get that job is especially mentally taxing.

In posting this, I'm not really asking for advice. The rational part of me knows that I should assess myself through the evaluation of my peers (who are experts), not laypeople who do not understand my field; that I cannot expect friends and family to understand my field; that I should remember that I don't even really understand what *they* do for a living; etc. But nevertheless, I would benefit from the opportunity to vent about this, and imagine others might be able to relate.

As someone who spent many years on the job market, I deeply empathize with the OP. Given that they did not ask for advice, I won't attempt to provide any. But, if you are a job marketeer, please do feel free to use this thread to commiserate about these issues--and if you would like to ask for some advice for how to handle these kinds of stressors, please do feel free to ask for some in the thread. As always, the Cocoon is here to help in any way that we can. 

Campus visit tips?

I've noticed on our job market reporting thread that a few hiring committees have already proceeded to invite candidates for campus visits (not many so far, but a few). Given that campus visits will increase in frequency over the coming weeks and months, and some job candidates may be doing campus visits for the very first time, I thought it might be good to run an open thread on campus visit tips.

It would be great to hear tips from past job-candidates, as well as from search committee members. Are there particular "do's and don'ts" for campus visits that you think job candidates should be aware of? Do have any helpful tips for common or unexpected situations that candidates might encounter during a visit?

Are new hires expected to do graduate mentoring?

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

I have seen several job adverts recently for Assistant Professor roles that seem to request graduate mentoring. Are new Assistant Professors actually expected to mentor graduates from day one, or is this listed as something that will be expected in the future? Or am I misunderstanding and they do not mean PhD dissertation supervision but something else by graduate mentoring in the US? It seems like a lot to ask recent PhDs to mentor graduates.

My experience, from what I have seen and heard second-hand, is that new hires in graduate programs are absolutely expected to do graduate mentoring from day 1. Are recent PhDs well-prepared to this? My sense is: probably not--which, personally, is why I think it may be better for people to be not to be hired into these kinds of TT jobs right out of graduate school. Postdocs and/or a VAP or two can greatly help one find one's footing, as it were, and for my part I recall feeling profoundly unprepared for a tenure-track job when I got my first VAP (in retrospect, I'm profoundly thankful that I did not get a TT job right out of the gate; I think I probably would have failed in one!).

But anyway, maybe I'm wrong about the expectations here. Any readers care to weigh in?

Can paid work count as 'service'?

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

Can I include paid work under 'service' on my CV? I'm doing some copy-editing for a journal. Or is service supposed to be volunteer?

Fair questions, and I'm not sure what the answers are. I suppose you could always list it in your CV under "service", but maybe it should be noted parenthetically as "(remunerated)"? What do you all think?

Fewer jobs at SLACs?

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

Anyone (or Marcus?) affiliated with SLACs care to weigh-in as to the dearth of job postings at such places this year? It's a real bummer for those from the SLAC system who would ideally love to teach & work at that kind of institution. Or maybe my perception is off? But it seems like there haven't been many postings at SLACs.

I hadn't noticed this, so I'm curious whether other job seekers share the OP's sense. If it is a real phenomenon, it could just be a statistical blip--but I suspect one thing that could be going on is this: there have for a few years now been warnings about an enrollment cliff in higher education, where college enrollments are expected to decline by 15+% beginning in 2025.

The impact is in turn expected to have different effects regionally (see below):

Moreover, there have already been some significant declines in enrollment, particularly since COVID. And unfortunately, my understanding is that these trends are the most likely to impact small colleges and universities the most. I work at a SLAC (or rather, we've grown into a mid-sized liberal arts university) in a desirable location, and we've been growing every year. But I have friends that work at ones in other places that are already really struggling financially, and in fact sadly I know of at least one person in recent years who accepted a tenure-track job at a SLAC only to be let go a year or two into the job due to downsizing. 

Anyway, this might be going on with the SLAC job market. I think it would be great to hear from people who actually work at SLACs whether they think there's anything to this explanation, or whether something else is up.

Five years on the academic job market (Jeremy Davis)

Jeremy Davis (Georgia) has a nice piece over on Substack detailing his five years on the academic job market in philosophy. It's a very insightful read, and worth checking out by anyone currently on the market or due to head out on it in the future. A few excerpts:

[I]t is not my aim in this post to wax poetic about this journey, what I’ve learned about myself and my profession, and so on. My goal here is rather to illuminate some of the more specific elements of my job search that, in my experience, remain relatively opaque to those who haven’t already experienced it—particularly, graduate students who are planning to enter the profession. In my case, while I knew that finding a job in academia would be hard, I didn’t have a clear enough sense of just how hard it would be—and what, specifically, my own trajectory might look like.

....

I had one first-round interview for a VAP in ethics, which yielded a fly-out, which yielded an offer. This was for a 3-year position at West Point, which I accepted—though I only ended up staying for two years (which, of course, is normal and expected for these types of jobs).

I should note here, in case you’re reading this and don’t know me personally: I don’t have military experience; I’ve never even so much as held a gun. West Point hires civilian instructors regularly. (I find some people mistake my working at West Point as an indication that I’ve served, but I want to be clear that I haven’t.)

...

I asked (as one does) during my fly-out at West Point whether there were any concerns about my candidacy. I was told that there was some concern about my comparative lack of teaching experience. (Remember: I had taught two courses on my own, and had a wealth of TA experience at that point.) It obviously didn’t prevent me from getting the job, but in a different candidate pool, it could have been a significant barrier.

(How) do jobs prioritize domestic candidates?

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

Can someone working at a Canadian institution, and preferably someone who has been part of hiring committees, speak to the typical 'Canadians will be given priority' line in most job ads at Canadian universities. It would be helpful to know how this is actually put in practice when it comes to selecting candidates. What I am most curious about is whether it is already effective at the interview stage, or whether it is more of a tiebreaker.

This would be very helpful for more than one of us, I assume.

Good question. A couple of readers submitted helpful responses. One writes:

I am on the job market now (non-Canadian but have a Canadian degree). The priority has been real for me. I have watched two recent searches at two different Canadian universities. The total 7 candidates who were invited to Campus were all Canadians. (You can tell by looking at the places where they got their bachelor's degrees.) It's only two incidents, but I believe many Canadian institutions just go for Canadian candidates (anyway, there are plenty of good candidates!)

And another writes:

I can speak to this. I am a Canadian, and I have worked in the USA and Europe. The Canadian law is interpreted the same way the equivalent US law is. The US schools are less explicit about advertising it ... but it is more or less the same. The very competitive schools have ways of working around things, such that they can hire who they want without difficulty (they also have legal departments to take care of this). The smaller schools - or ones outside the more competitive rank - tend to not have resources to hire foreigners. There is paperwork involved - costly paperwork. When I was hired by a state college, they needed to apply for a labor certificate saying I was the most qualified candidate, and there was not a qualified American. I know at least one of my competitors - and they were no match for me. But smaller schools do not want to do this, and then have you leave after a year or so. I did not leave so quickly! They got more than their money's worth from me.

It would be great to hear from other readers who are in the know, both in Canada (as this is what the OP asked about), but also in other countries (such as, but not limited to, the US). To what extent do/must hiring departments prioritize domestic over foreign job candidates? 

Unusual Interview Questions

By Trevor Hedberg

Later this week, I will be helping with a workshop designed to help ABD grad students prepare for job interviews. There are some questions that are asked in almost every job interview, but almost all the ones I've done have also featured at least one rather unusual or idiosyncratic question. Here are a few such questions that struck me as odd when I was asked them:

• What does "social justice" mean to you?
• Wouldn't you agree that the way you described [a specific study mentioned in my writing sample] was inaccurate? (I reread the study after the interview and discovered that, as I suspected, I had not described it inaccurately, but I didn't feel comfortable saying that so straightforwardly in the interview.)
• When I teach [subject in the job ad], I teach it through [modality A], [modality B], and [modality C]. What different modalities do you use to teach that subject? (Given how the faculty member described them, the "modalities" were sort of like different disciplinary perspectives, but the course under discussion was common philosophy course.)

These are relatively mild compared to some of the stories I've been told, however. I was hoping that some of you might have particularly rare or unusual interview questions that you are willing to share so that I could give workshop attendees some examples. If you have an example of an unusual interview question that you were once asked, please post it as a comment.

Addressing peer-review bottlenecks in job apps?

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

I am a postdoc on the job market and I only have minor publications on my CV. I currently have three publications under review; one of this paper has been reviewed for a year at a highly-regarded journal in my main AOS and another is stuck in a third R&R round since May. The difficulty for finding reviewers may be explained by the fact that I use an unusual empirically-informed methodology in philosophy.

Would it be a good idea to address the impact of the reviewing bottleneck on my research in my job documents? And if so, how? Instead of directly addressing this situation in my cover letter, a way to hint at this situation could be to add on my CV and/or research statement the dates since my papers have been under review or through R&R. Or, would it be better to have my letter writers addressing this situation in their letters?

These are good questions, but although I could be wrong, I unfortunately suspect that addressing these issues in job-market materials (either in a cover letter or letters of recommendation) is unlikely to help very much. From a hiring perspective, search committees have incentives to hire people who publish enough--and publish quickly enough--to get tenure. They also typically have hundreds of candidates, many of whom have robust publishing records, and who they may favor for that reason alone.

Fortunately, I think, all is not lost. Search committees, at least in my experience, also care a great deal about the nature and quality of a person's work and will sometimes hire someone with few publications because their research is particularly unique and exciting. My department hired someone like that a few years back--someone whose research was so different than everyone else in our pile that we just had to interview her, and she knocked our socks off and we ended up hiring her.

Postdocs requiring projects beyond the dissertation?

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

This question might be too specific, especially given the UK focus, but I think there is no harm in asking.

I am looking to apply for a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship and one of the criteria is that "the project put forward should therefore not be a reworking or mere extension of the candidate’s doctoral research project". I was wondering if anyone had a sense of how distinct a project has to be in these sorts of circumstances?

For instance, suppose my doctoral thesis was on distributive justice, would another project on distributive justice but in a different domain be considered an extension of the project?

Or suppose my thesis was fairly theoretical, but I now want to explore similar questions in applied/practical philosophy, but informed by my previous work. Would this be considered sufficiently different?

More broadly, do people have a sense about the merits of this kind of project versus one on a very different subject but still in ones broad research specialism?

These are fair questions, and not too specific at all! I'm not all that well-placed to answer the questions, as I've never applied to let alone hired for postdoc positions like this. However, I suspect that "[exploring] similar questions in applied/practical philosophy, but informed by my previous work" would almost certainly run afoul of the requirement, as it sounds like a clear extension of one's dissertation project. I'm less sure about whether "another project on distributive justice but in a different domain [would] be considered an extension of the project", and suspect that the answer is probably something like, "Well, it depends on how similar that project is, albeit in a different domain." 

But again, I'm not at all sure about any of this. It would be great to hear some answers from people who are more in-the-know!

Postdoc application tips?

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

I find postdocs to be the most opaque jobs to apply for in terms of what criteria might be used to assess my application. I’m specifically talking about postdocs, fellow, or JRF-type jobs that are not focused on a specific/defined research project. Often, these job ads are very short and the department websites can be more undergrad-focused, which makes saying anything about working there or what I would bring to the table speculative and genera at best.

Are there any specific things that committees look for? Any things you would include or mention in those applications’ cover letters or research statements? (To clarify, I don’t have publications to highlight yet. So, I know that would be an obvious thing to highlight. I’m looking for less obvious things to mention.) Does having fewer research programs discussed in more depth the way to go or is it better to have many projects? (The second strategy may increase one’s chances of having something catch a committee’s eye. But, the first strategy could be better in many other ways.)

It would be very helpful to hear tips and advice from people who were successful in landing postdocs like this (e.g., Society of Fellows, MIT’s Stalnaker postdoc, etc.). Also, if any search committees have any suggestions for applicants (or their pet peeves to signal *what not to do*), that would be great too!

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

You absolutely have to have publications for post docs, and especially the Society of Fellows, etc. Alternatively you have to come from an Ivey league school - Harvard, Princeton, Yale. You are not competitive for these elite post docs without a great track record upon graduation.

Maybe this is true, though I guess I'm doubtful that flat generalizations like these tend to be true. Anyway, it might be helpful to hear from others, particularly those who (as the OP notes) have been successful in landing postdocs, but also from people who hire postdocs. Any helpful tips for the OP and others in their position?

Why require writing samples?

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

If a candidate has a number of papers that are available on the inter webs, what is the function of the writing sample? Assuming that I would choose one of those publications, it seems to me that I'm not exactly giving them something they don't already have.

Maybe it's a way of pointing to the paper I like the most? Is most representative of where I've been/where I want to go?

The answer to these questions is, I think, much simpler than this. Another reader submitted the following reply:

[D]o you really think that when faced with literally hundreds of applications people have the time to google somebody, find their website or philpapers, pick a paper to read, etc.? I (and many people!) look at writing samples pre-first-cut (not read them carefully, but browse through them and read some of them when they catch my eye), and if I had to do my own internet research on each candidate to do so it would take... way, way more time than the already way too much time it takes to be on a search committee.

Indeed. Most jobs not only receive hundreds of candidates, but each of those candidates' application materials contain a half-dozen documents, ranging from cover letters to CVs, teaching portfolios, research statements, and letters of recommendation. People on hiring committees have to sift through all of these materials in addition to otherwise working in a full-time job (teaching full course loads, research, mentoring, etc.). While we very may well check out other work of candidates we are interested in, it just isn't viable, time-wise for search committee members to go through this for every candidate. Hence, writing samples.

Still, I think there's a perhaps a better question implicit in the OP's query: namely, what a candidate's choice of writing sample says (or should say) about them. For example, in discussions here and elsewhere, it's often said that candidates should "submit their best work." But is that all? What if their best work is a small self-contained piece that doesn't bear much relation to their broader research agenda? Would it be better to submit a piece of work that shows "where their research is heading"?

I'm curious to hear what readers think!

NTT job at The University of Tampa (AOS: environmental)

Readers of the Cocoon who are the job-market this year may have noticed that my department is looking to hire a full-time, non-tenure-track Teaching Assistant Professor, AOS: Environmental Ethics/Environmental Philosophy. As there are a couple of potentially confusing things about our ad on PhilJobs, I thought that I would clarify a couple of things:

1. The "full consideration deadline" in the ad was November 1st, but the ad also lists a hard deadline of November 14th and says that "applications will be reviewed until the position is filled." We are thus currently considering applications, but if you have not applied already and plan to apply, please do apply by November 14th.
2. Although the position is non-tenure-track, it is in principle a 'permanent' and promotable position (there are three Teaching Assistant Professor levels at my university analogous to Associate and full Professor, and the position is renewable in perpetuity).

So, if you are a job candidate interested in a stable, full-time, promotable job in environmental ethics (and willing to live in Florida), please do consider applying if you haven't already!

Publishing in special issues of lower-ranked journals, or not all?

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

If you have an article/paper/chapter that you are never going to publish elsewhere, is it better to publish it in a special issue of a lower-ranking journal than not publishing it at all? I've heard mixed advice on this.

For context, I'm thinking of special issues of journals most people haven't heard of, but that semi well-known philosophers have published in, or will also be publishing in in the special issue.

I'm thinking well-known philosophers being in the special issue (or in previous issues) kind of "legitimizes" the journal, but when looking at a CV, you don't get to see that, which can potentially be seen as a negative by search committees.

This question is also applicable to "non-elite" edited books (e.g., not Cambridge Companions).

This is a good question. My attitude on this is: if you think it's good work, publish it. There are several reasons why I think this:

1. Empirical evidence suggests that search committees actually look favorably on a CV with 'weak' publications, provided the candidate also has good publications. 
2. My own informal data collection on the job market years ago coheres with this, as did my own experience as a job candidate--particularly for jobs at 'teaching schools', which in my experience care far less about where you publish and more about how consistently you do. In fact, nothing in my experience as a job candidate or thereafter supported the advice that I too was given in grad school to "avoid publishing in bad journals." The more publications in lower-ranked journals I got, the more interviews I got. They also helped me to get tenure, and since getting tenure, I've been able to publish more consistently in better journals.
3. In addition to probably helping rather than hurting job candidates, publishing in lower-ranked journals can build confidence. They certainly did for me. It feels good to get work out there rather than have one's hard work stuck unpublished in a computer folder.
4. Recent evidence suggests that articles in lower-ranked journals are cited quite a bit, which can only help on the market and in a tenure and/or promotion case. Here again, this coheres with my experience. Some of my most-cited work is in lower-ranked journals.
5. It's your damn work! If you think it's good, get it out there. If it is good, then good, openminded philosophers will notice and not care about where it's published. :)

But, of course, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

When to move on from grad program letters?

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

When is it OK (or even a good idea) to stop using recommendation letters from your PhD advisor in job applications? My former advisor is great, we have a good relationship, and I have every reason to think their letters for me are strong. But as a postdoc who's several years out from their PhD, it's starting to feel weird to rely on the testimony of someone who's sort of professionally obligated to say nice things about me. (I have good letters from others outside my PhD program I could use instead.)

On the other hand, I've heard it said that search committees might interpret it as a sign of bad blood or other weird dynamics if a pre-TT person doesn't submit a letter from their advisor. That's a false impression I'd like to avoid giving.

This is a good question, and I think it probably pertains not only to your grad advisor but also to other well-known people in your grad program (such as the rest of your dissertation committee).

My honest answer is: I'm not sure. I continued to use letters from my advisor and dissertation committee for the entire seven or so years that I was on the tenure-track market--one rationale being that it would indeed probably look weird not to have letters by them (hiring committees might wonder, "Do they no longer support him?"). On the other hand, recognizing that it would probably also look weird to only have letters by my committee, I eventually expanded my batch of letters to include three or four outside letters. The only issue with that was that many jobs only allow 3 letters, so I often found myself having to choose which ones to include (and hope that the hiring committee would see in my CV that I had other recommenders as well).

Anyway, I'm not sure what to advise. It would be good to hear from others 'in the know' here, particularly search committee members!

Moving away from one's dissertation area on the market?

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

I'm a senior grad student finishing up my thesis. I'm finding that there's not much more to say within my thesis research area, and I've also recently found new interest in a different and less studied area of philosophy. Would there be problems when it comes to trying to get a job that I no longer want to work on my original area of specialization and want to switch tracks on to a new topic that would require me to start almost from scratch?

This seems to me like it would be probably be a big mistake for a grad student just heading out on the market. Although I moved into a number of different research areas myself while on the market--and it seemed to help me on the market in due time--it also took me a number of years to do so. I also didn't give up on my dissertation project, but instead took time to publish articles based on it while publishing in different areas.

My worry is that if the OP simply moves away from their dissertation, they will look they either can't stick with a project or like their dissertation project was not a fruitful one. Hiring committees want a clear sense of who you are and why you're likely to publish well (e.g. for tenure, etc.), and for someone coming out of grad school a dissertation is supposed to be a major piece of this picture. Again, I don't think there would be anything wrong with the OP beginning to branch out into other areas--but abandoning one's dissertation area for a new area altogether seems to me to be incredibly risky. Then again, if the new research program is super, who knows?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Cover letters for junior vs. senior jobs?

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

What, if any, differences should there be between cover letters for associate professor positions and assistant professor positions?

I'm not sure - I'd be curious to hear answers from people in the know!

When to let your school know of a potential lateral move?

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

Suppose you are in a TT position and you are shortlisted for another. Assuming that you would remain in your current school if they offered you more, when should you talk with the head of your department? Once you have been shortlisted (offering not to go to the interview)? Once you have been selected?

Good questions. My sense is that you should only let your department chair/school know once you have an actual outside offer in hand. Up until that point, you don't actually have any bargaining power, and if you go to your department head any earlier, there's a risk that you could alienate people at your university but end up stuck there anyway (if, for example, they know that you want to leave but you don't get any offers). In fact, I was always told that you should only let an employer know about an outside offer if you would be willing to accept the offer and actually leave--as there is always some risk that if you let your employer know, your employer will say (in essence), "Goodbye and good luck!" And indeed, I know of some universities that basically don't make counteroffers in cases like these to retain people. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Should job applicants always submit teaching letters?

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

A question about teaching letters (i.e. letters of recommendation speaking to your teaching abilities). I've not seen any job ad specifically asking for a teaching letter, but for something like 3 letters of recommendation. Is it just expected that applicants submit a teaching letters along with their other letters?

I'm very curious to hear what other readers, but my impression is that in general, yes, applicants are standardly expected to submit at least one teaching letter, and that it would look very strange not to. Now, perhaps there are some exceptions to this (postdoc positions without teaching expectations, etc.), but in most jobs one will be expected to teach--and my experience is that some search committee members think that teaching letters provide vital information about what a job applicant is actually like in the classroom. After all, student evaluations can be misleading, and--absent teaching letters by other faculty describing the applicant's performance in the classroom--all that a hiring committee otherwise has to go on is the applicant's own teaching materials.

So, I think that in most (if not all) cases, it would be a huge mistake not to include a teaching letter when applying for jobs. However, when I think back to my time on the job market, I also recall that this can generate something of a conundrum. Suppose that one has, say, 5 letters in total--maybe 4 'research' letters and 1 'teaching letter.' In my experience, many job application portals only permit an applicant to upload three letters. This means that an applicant in the position just described has to (somehow!) send their teaching letter along with only 2 research letters. But, how in the world is one supposed to decide which research letters to send? Obviously, one might worry that leaving out not one but two of one's research letters might put one at a disadvantage (at least compared to how competitive one might be if one were able to send all of one's letters). So, this might lead one to wonder: should I perhaps leave out my teaching letter so that I can at least submit one more of my research letters?

Perhaps this is the situation the OP is in--I don't know. But what should applicants do in these kinds of situations? Is it possible to ask search committee chairs to submit additional letters? Or, perhaps, if the job is at an R1, might it be advisable to ask the search chair whether it would be better to submit 3 research letters (leaving out the teaching letter)? I'm curious to hear what readers in the know think!

Should job candidates update their letters?

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

I'm on the job market for the second time this year, and I'm wondering if I should ask all of my letter writers to update their letters. My advisor is updating his to reflect new publications and awards, but do the others need to? I'm especially curious if it's recommended to ask the writer of the teaching letter of rec to update their letter, since I've taught several new classes and won a teaching award since last year.

Good question. I think an updated teaching letter might help. However, my sense is that the most important thing in a teaching letter tends to be the letter-writer providing a detailed account of a teaching observation--that is, of their experience of you actually teaching in the classroom. This, in my experience, is the real value of teaching letters: they describe what the rest of a candidate's teaching portfolio cannot--what someone else's experience of their classroom performance is like.

Consequently, if the author of the OP's teaching letter has anything to add in that regard since last year (i.e. if they have observed you teach since last year), then updating the teaching letter might make a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure that updating it otherwise will really make a difference (i.e. simply because you've won a teaching award and taught more courses). Then again, updating the letter probably can't hurt--and it could help, right?

Similarly, in terms of whether candidates should update all of their letters each year, again I'm not sure. But I suppose it probably can't hurt, and could help--particularly if you've accomplished things that might lead to stronger letters. So why not ask? 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What do you all think? It might be helpful to hear from search committee members!

Good questions for job applicants to ask?

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

Could those who have served on hiring committees say what are some important questions they would expect job applicants to ask the hiring committee members during an interview?

Good question! ;) I suspect this is something that many job-applicants have puzzled over, as indeed I did when I was an applicant. Any search committee members care to weigh in on the kinds of questions that might come across well (or poorly)?

How are pieces in pop culture volumes viewed?

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

How do people (especially those on hiring committees, tenure committees, etc.) view publications in special volumes on pop cultural topics? E.g., Philosophy and Dragons, The Ethics of Middle-earth? Is there any professional value? Does it leave a negative impression?

Good questions. My sense is that the answers to them may depend a lot on the kind of college or university in question. One reader submitted the following reply:

I was editing a volume for a leading press, and one of the referees objected to the inclusion of a paper by an author of one of these popular pieces - this is merely a correlation. They never explicitly mentioned the publications. But I doubt this helped the person.

It's honestly a bit shocking to me that someone would object to including an author in an edited volume simply because the author published a pop culture piece. Then again, the longer that I've been in academia, the fewer things surprise me. There are always naysayers, and I have little doubt that some people may look down on these kinds of publications. On the other hand, I know someone at a teaching-focused university whose pop culture piece was one of the main things their tenure committee focused on in favor of tenure. They loved it, as apparently did the university's administrators. 

I'm curious to hear what other people think, particularly people who have served on hiring or tenure committees. I've written two pieces for pop culture volumes, and frankly I don't care what anyone thinks of it! I doubt they've had much (if any) "professional value" for me, but I've enjoyed writing them tremendously and think philosophy as a discipline can only benefit from this kind of stuff.

How do search committees handle unresponsive references?

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

In cases where job applications just ask for the contact details of reference writers, rather than require them to upload their letter: what happens when a reference is slow or even fails to respond when they are eventually contacted? I have a very unresponsive reference and if it's a matter of them uploading their letter by a certain deadline I can pester them until they've done it, but if they will be contacted by the search committee at some unknown time there is less I can do. Would the search committee in such a case tell the candidate that they cannot get hold of one of their references, so that I could then try to contact them myself? Or does it just mean that they won't have the reference letter and which potentially harms the application.

Two readers submitted similar follow-ups. A postdoc writes:

Interfolio is great for this situation. For each application, you can use an email generated by Interfolio and connected to your reference, so an Interfolio employee can upload this letter on behalf of your reference. See: https://product-help.interfolio.com/en_US/managing-letters-and-requests/upload-a-confidential-letter-to-an-online-application-system

And a previous job candidate of many years writes:

if you are using interfolio, supply the interfolio email address for your referees instead of their personal emails. (Everyone should be doing this anyway!) Then, so long as the letter gets uploaded to interfolio, interfolio will automatically send it in response. (You should also put your references' actual email addresses somewhere prominent, e.g. your c.v., in case anything goes wrong.) I advise my students to list references on a cv with first a line that says "to request reference: INSERT INTERFOLIO EMAIL" and then a second line with their actual email. Some HR people and departments don't understand that interfolio has this function, so they may tell you that you can't use it if you ask. That's annoying since in typical cases they are wrong--interfolio can do a lot of things!--but I guess in that case you just need to hope for the best. (Though I would still make sure the interfolio addresses are listed on your cv in case they decide to try.)

This is how I handled the issue too. But, supposing the OP hasn't done this, how would you answer their questions? That is, how do search committees handle this kind of situation?

Do search committees see voluntary demographic info?

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

Is it really the case that search committees do not have access to the "voluntary self-identification" of race, gender, etc? I know there are other ways of ascertaining this information, but I wonder how much of the confidentiality of this information is BS.

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I worked at a university in the US - faculty members NEVER have access to the voluntary self-identification information on race, gender, etc. From my experience, it works in your favour to file out the form in the USA if you are from a protected class. Someone's status as a veteran, for example, may affect their prospects of moving forward in a search.

Any other search committee members care to weigh in?

Becoming competitive for lateral moves?

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

Given the structure of the market these days, it seems almost impossible to wait for the right fit when applying for one's first job. My question is slightly different, however: what ought one do at one's first job to be appealing to jobs where one wants to lateral? Is there anything unique that would be beneficial (travel, presentations, networking) that applies less for seeking the first job than for seeking the lateral to the right fit?

I know this is a touchy conversation, but it's also a very real and necessary one.

These are good questions, and I confess that don't know the answers. It would be great to hear from people who have made lateral moves, as well as from people who have been on the hiring side of things!

Should research statements be interconnected?

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

Say you have two separate research projects, one in each of your areas of specialization. From the hiring committee side, do you want to see how these two projects are connected, even if the narrative the persons tells to do so seems a bit, shall we say, fluffed up? I think this is especially tricky for someone who justifiably claims an AOS in a historical area + a standard area (epistemology, ethics). If I wrote a dissertation on Spinoza theory of action and also work on forgiveness, should I really be trying to say something about their connection?

Where I am coming from is that I've seen research statements written as what amounts to a standalone essay on one's research that brings in past and future projects, and I've seen research statements that begin with a basic overview paragraph and then just describe papers and monographs on their own, leaving it to the reader to find the connections. I could see the person I describe above opting for the latter, but then someone thinking: What's the connection between this ethics stuff and the Spinoza?

It just seems right to me that not all of one's research need be so connected. Our actual philosophical interests often don't often fall into AOS categories, and when they don't, why bother trying to find some story that unifies them instead of just saying: I like X; and I like Y?

But if the answer is that hiring committees like that, then I'm willing to play ball.

These are good questions, and my answer is: I'm not sure. My sense is that search committees probably care more about how interesting they find your research and how fruitful and well-developed your research program(s) are (does it look likely that you will be able to publish consistently beyond your dissertation and a few papers?). But maybe some people do want to see interconnections between different research programs. I don't know. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from some hiring committee members!

Updating apps for jobs interviewed for before?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a non-TT faculty member asks:

I got into the final stage interview last round somewhere. I plan to apply for that place again for virtually the same position. Should I highlight in the cover letter the differences in my publication, teaching experience, research proposal etc.?

Good question. I wouldn't highlight the differences, at least not in the sense of explicitly saying things like "I published X, Y, and Z since interviewing for your position last year." Instead, I would just update your materials (and cover letter) to reflect your current accomplishments, as you would for any other job. Chances are, if you interviewed or were a finalist for the department's position previously, they think very highly of you (the only caveat being that if your on-campus interview did not go well, they might have been turned off). You never know whether you'll be interviewed again, as every applicant pool is different. But I think, all things being equal, if you're a better candidate than you were before, that should come across in your materials regardless.

Then again, this is just my reaction. What's your? It would be great to hear from search committee members!

What is a 'short writing sample'?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a philosopher on the job market asks:

What is a 'short writing sample?'

I've seen a couple of jobs ads posted where what is requested is a 'short writing sample'. What does that mean? Does it mean under 20 pages? Under 10? Any guesses from those with experience?

I have a conference paper that I've presented once and that I am revising into something larger, and I'm wondering if that would be appropriate (I think it might be of interest for this particular job too). But then I always assumed, rightly I think, that conference papers should not be used as writing samples.

I have to confess that when I was on the market, I wondered about this too. I also found it rather frustrating, as I've always thought that most of my best work is pretty long. So, sometimes I wondered whether I should just submit an abridged version of an article. But that also seemed to me to be risky, so I never quite knew what to do here.

Another reader submitted the following reply to the OP:

It probably varies. I'd just ask the person listed in the ad. If you have only one paper that qualifies as even close to short, send it.

Fair enough, but given how common these types of ads can be, it might be helpful to get a general picture from search committees about what they have in mind when they ask for a 'short' sample. Any search committee members willing to chime in?

Competing for jobs w/o solo teaching experience?

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

Can my publication record and overall fit for the job outweigh a lack of solo teaching experience? I have plenty of teaching assistant experience, but have no solo experience yet. I'm nearing the end of my PhD program and have found a job to apply for that's perfect for me.

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

I would imagine that this very much depends on the kind of job you're applying to. Postdoc? Yes, your publication record and fit can probably outweigh your lack of teaching experience. TT position at an R1? Possibly. TT position in a teaching-focused institution? Almost certainly not.

This reply seems broadly right to me, though perhaps a bit overstated. Insofar as R1 departments care most about research, I have to imagine that a stellar researcher who's a good fit for a position would be very competitive. As for jobs at teaching-focused schools, lack of solo teaching experience is definitely a negative. Hiring committees not only want to know whether you can teach well on your own. They also want to know whether you can do so with a full course load, as it's one thing to teach one course well at a time, another thing entirely to teach 3 or 4 courses well at the same time (as in a job with a 3/3 or 4/4 teaching load). Insofar as you'll be going up against other job candidates who do have solo teaching experience (and a strong record of solo teaching), being competitive for a job at a teaching school is likely to be an uphill battle. Still, it's not impossible, and if you are a stellar candidate who knocks the committee's socks off in various ways, then you very well might be competitive--at least to get an interview, and if the interview goes well, an on-campus, etc. Anything, as they say, is possible. So why not apply?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be good to hear from search committee members, as well as from current or previous job candidates who went on the market without solo teaching experience!

Applying to jobs just after starting a TT job?

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

Is it frowned upon to have a new tenure-track position, and to be applying out to a different one? For various reasons, it is already clear that this place is not a good fit for my family. But it feels bad to be applying out, especially since the department invested in me and may not get a replacement line.

Good question. Two readers submitted helpful replies. One reader writes:

You do what you gotta do. If your family is terribly unhappy, then you have got to look into other options. Of course the people who hired you will be disappointed ... but they have their lives, and you have yours.

And Bill Vanderburgh adds:

It may be smart to keep your search confidential until you get an on-campus interview. But a job is just a job: you owe no special responsibilities beyond doing what you are paid to do, and you can quit anytime for any reason you like. Moving on from a tenure-track job is not unusual. Sure it costs the university something, but that is not your problem--it is just an ordinary cost of running a university. You certainly aren't required to commit your family to indefinite misery just because you accepted a job. If there is something the university could reasonably do to make the situation better (a job for your spouse, online teaching so you can live a bit farther from campus, or something like that), it might be worth asking the dean. But don't make it sound like an ultimatum (do this or I'll leave) unless you have an offer already in hand.

I agree. It may stink to the department that hired you to lose you, but no one is entitled to have you work for them! Would it be 'frowned upon' if the department you are in found out you're applying out? Almost certainly. But you are under no obligation to let them know, and I do not know of any cases of departments being 'tipped off' that one of their members is applying elsewhere. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear from people who have been in the OP's position!

Job market numbers update

At the beginning of this month, I published a post noting that this year's academic job market in philosophy appeared to be off to a hot start. However, in mid-September, several readers in our job-market discussion thread noted that it seemed like there were fewer jobs this cycle than last year. I promised to follow up on this, so I took a look today at different types of job ads on PhilJobs this year (from August 1 - September 30th) in comparison to the past 10 years to see how things are going.

Here is what I found:

Total Job Ads on PhilJobs

• 2022: 174 ads
• 2021: 133
• 2020: 65
• 2019: 146
• 2018: 156
• 2017: 135
• 2016: 155
• 2015: 136
• 2014: 149
• 2013: 163
• 2012: 252

Long story short: at least so far, taking all job ads on PhilJobs into account, this does appear to be the best academic job market in philosophy since 2012 (though not by a tremendous margin; 10-year mean = 151; median = 149).

Still, because general numbers can be a bit misleading, I took a little bit of a deeper dive, looking into numbers for different types of jobs. It would be nice if PhilJobs had a search function narrowly tailored to specific types of jobs (such as VAPs, non-tenure-track Lecturers and Teaching Professors, etc.), but it has the next best thing--namely: 

So, I tried searching by some of these terms (not all of which were useful or informative), and here's what I found:

Junior faculty (tenure track or similar)

2022: 96 ads

2021: 73

2020: 21

2019: 75

2018: 101

2017: 81

2016: 89

2015: 84

2014: 95

2013: 111

2012: 108

 

Quick takeaway: the number of junior TT job ads this year seems to be a little above average (the mean number of junior TT job ads over the past 10 years is 85; if we subtract out the COVID year 2020, the mean is 91. The median number over the past 10 years is 89).

 

Junior (Postdocs or similar, 'fixed term')

2022: 39

2021: 34

2020: 30

2019: 46

2018: 28

2017: 37

2016: 42

2015: 20

2014: 33

2013: 31

2012: 87

 

Quick takeaway: this year is 'a little above average' (mean over the past 10 years = 39, but this is skewed by 2012's extreme outlier. The median is more representative and = 34).

 

Junior (Visiting Fellowship / Professorship, 'fixed term')

2022: 12

2021: 14

2020: 9

2019: 18

2018: 8

2017: 11

2016: 21

2015: 11

2014: 15

2013: 21

2012: 60

 

Quick takeaway: broadly in line with last 9 years, 2012 is an extreme outlier.

 

Senior faculty (tenure track or similar)

2022: 31

2021: 32

2020: 11

2019: 24

2018: 35

2017: 25

2016: 34

2015: 29

2014: 43

2013: 45

2012: 45

 

Quick takeaway: the number of senior tenure-track jobs is broadly in line with the past 8 years, but there were a lot more senior TT jobs in 2012-2014. So again, about 'average' this year, though the number of these jobs advertised each year is about 33% less than in 2012-2014.

 

Senior faculty (Tenured, continuing or permanent)

2022: 13

2021: 14

2020: 8

2019: 13

2018: 13

2017: 8

2016: 21

2015: 19

2014: 21

2013: 19

2012: 33

 

Quick takeaway: 'about average' compared to the last five years, but there were significantly more senior/tenured jobs from 2012-2016. This and the last category may suggest that colleges and universities are not filling senior retirements with senior positions as much as in the past, but instead more junior positions.

 

So, is this year's philosophy job market good or bad so far? My hot take: it's complicated. It's a little better in some ways than recent markets (junior TT jobs & postdocs), but on the whole, still pretty bad (much as it has been for decades now)...