The Philosophers' Cocoon

Crowdsourcing job ads thread

A reader writes in:

I wonder how you felt about having a post about job ads. I was thinking even one that might have a pinned link on the side. Many of the jobs are posted on PhilJobs, but there are plenty that are not. UK jobs and postdocs are sometimes only on jobs.ac.uk; European jobs are in other places sometimes as well; society of fellows things, who knows where those are; etc. This seems like a great occasion for crowd sourcing. I’ve been placement director at [redacted] for a while and each year I have to ask the students if they found things in unexpected places. Anyway, I thought it would be a handy resource for people on the market. What do you think? 

I think this is a fantastic idea. It could be cool not to only crowdsource academic job ads in unexpected places, but non-academic ('alt-ac') job ads too. So, that's what I propose we devote this thread to, which I will pin on the right side-bar of the blog in perpetuity (or at least until the comment thread gets so long that it makes sense to start a new one). So, please do feel free to use the comment thread below to draw attention to job ads (academic or non-academic) that philosophers might be competitive for that are not PhilJobs or HigherEd Jobs!

Job market 'branding'?

A reader writes in:

[I] have all kinds of questions about the job market. One of them is related to a conversation that was trending online about a week or so ago concerning “brands”; namely, whether job candidates need to have a defined one these days. Is there already a Cocoon thread on this topic?

I don't believe we've ever discussed this issue before, and I'm curious to hear from readers. Should job-marketeers try to "brand" themselves? If so, what does that involve? As someone who has served on a number of hiring committees at a mid-sized liberal arts university that values research, my sense is that at many jobs, hiring committees probably care most about whether you have a clear area of specialization, do interesting work, and can teach in areas the department needs. However, I do wonder whether "branding" might be more important for R1 jobs somehow, where they might be looking to hire a "trailblazer", so to speak. Do any readers have any tips or insights on this?

Courtesy appointments & affiliated faculty posts

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

I'm curious about "courtesy appointments" and "affiliated faculty" positions. How do they come about? And what do they typically involve? Are there advantageous to them? Are there steps to take if you're interested in one?

All good questions! Any readers have any tips or insights? Do you have a courtesy appointment or affiliated position? How did you get them? What do they involve? Any tips for getting one?

The crisis in aesthetics

In the comments section of my post on this year's tenure-track jobs, Cassandra writes:

As per your posts on previous years (which show that there has been practically zero jobs in Aes/Art), it seems important to evidence and report the crisis in Aes/Art (and it is a crisis). If this isn't evidenced and reported, then there'll be less pressure on the APA, BPA and other philosophy associations, as well as the learned societies for Aes/Art (such as the American Society of Aesthetics, British Society of Aesthetics, European Society of Aesthetics, etc.) to try to tackle the fact that one of the main (and oldest) subdisciplines of philosophy will likely die out if something isn't done about this.

There is already a tendency towards aesthetics-erasure -- such as seeing job ads that say "Value Theory, broadly construed (i.e. ethics, social and political philosophy)" and senior aes/phils of art needing to openly advise junior aes/phils of art to hide the fact that they are "card-carrying" aes/phils of art on the job market. So it'd be super helpful if the Cocoon could help cast light on the problem by including Aes/Art.

This wouldn't just help job candidates with an AoS in Aes/Art, but could also help institutions in deciding where to hire. Due to the dearth of jobs in Aes/Art, there are a glut of really excellent early-career Aes/Art. So, why look for an ethicist or epistemology, and end up with a good one (or at least an unproven entity), when you could have an outstanding (and proven) aesthetician or philosopher of art?

I think it's clear that there is a crisis here, as there appear to be virtually no aesthetics jobs year after year (at least in the Anglophone world). So, I do think it is worth bringing this to greater attention and discussing what might be done. But, what I don't know is how the discipline (including the APA and other associations) might do to tackle it. Do readers have any thoughts/ideas here?

Where the TT jobs were(n't) in 2021-22

Updated 4/28

Longtime readers may recall that most of the past handful of years, I've done informal data-collection on PhilJobs to see what the year's academic job market has been like (here are the numbers for 2020-21, 2019-20, 2017-18, and 2016-17). Anyway, 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). Here is my spreadsheet, if anyone would like to triple-check things (you can also take a deeper dive than the numbers below to see how many jobs were advertised this year in particular AOS sub-categories, e.g., mind, metaphysics, philosophy of race, etc.). I'm more than happy to correct any errors and update this post if any are found.

Like last year, I've decided to break things up into two different posts: one on TT jobs (today), and another on non-TT jobs (a few weeks from now). Today's post is based upon a PhilJobs search for 'tenure-track (or similar)' job ad posted between August 1st, 2021 and Friday, April 8th, 2022. 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). 

Anyway, here are the numbers I compiled for this year, along with a few graphs for comparisons to past years:

Total (junior-level) TT jobs advertised in 2021-22: 201

• 2020-21: 118
• 2019-20: 224
• 2017-18: 228
• 2016-17: 231

TT jobs advertised by AOS:

Open AOS: 36.68 jobs (18.24% of jobs advertised)

2016-17	17%
2017-18	17.8%
2019-20	20.5%
2020-21	24.6%
2021-22	18.2%

'Core areas' (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic): 24.3 jobs (12.1% of TT jobs advertised)

2016-17	10%
2017-18	13.1%
2019-20	8.3%
2020-21	6.4%
2021-22	12.1%

Philosophy of Science (including cog sci, philosophy of technology, & AI): 14.34 jobs (7.1% of TT job ads)

2016-17	7.8%
2017-18	6.5%
2019-20	10.9%
2020-21	11.7%
2021-22	7.1%

Ethics: 47.18 jobs (23.5% of TT job ads)

2016-17	21.6%
2017-18	22.6%
2019-20	23%
2020-21	26.3%
2021-22	23.5%

Social and Political Philosophy: 24.79 jobs (12.3% of TT job ads)

2016-17	12%
2017-18	11.8%
2019-20	8%
2020-21	10.3%
2021-22	12.3%

History of Philosophy: 19.43 jobs (9.6% of TT job ads)

2016-17	13%
2017-18	11.2%
2019-20	12.3%
2020-21	6.1%
2021-22	9.7%

Philosophy of marginalized identities (race, gender, disability, etc.): 17.08 jobs (8.5% of TT job ads)

2016-17	6.7%
2017-18	4.7%
2019-20	5.2%
2020-21	6.8%
2021-22	8.5%

'Non-Western' Philosophies: 11.74 jobs (5.8% of TT job ads)

2016-17	5.2
2017-18	4.7
2019-20	5.2
2020-21	6.5
2021-22	5.8

Continental philosophy (& phenomenology): 2 jobs

Philosophy of Religion: 1.83 jobs

Here are some graphical comparisons over time:

As you can see, each job season Ethics has far and away advertised the highest number/percentage of TT jobs, followed by Open AOS. If (as in some of my previous report posts) one combines Ethics and Social-Political into a single category ('value theory'), the number of total Value Theory jobs is vastly higher than any other area of TT jobs advertised. Because AOS's lower down on this graph are messy and hard to parse out because of how the graph compresses things, here's the same graph subtracting out Ethics and Open AOS:

As you can see, things are pretty 'noisy' here. It is hard to make out any clear trends, though History of Philosophy TT jobs seem to have declined some over the past two years, whereas TT jobs in Philosophies of Marginalized identities appear to have increased modestly over the past five years. Notably, however, these changes generally pretty small--just a few percentage points here and there.

So, I guess my takeaways are these:

• This season's TT job was vastly better than last year's COVID-impacted season, but still not quite up to the level of TT job ads pre-COVID.
• Ethics and Open AOS continue to dominate other AOS's in terms of TT jobs advertised.
  • Update/note: a full 67.5% of TT jobs in Ethics were in applied ethics fields this year (47.18 jobs in Ethics, 31.86 of which were applied areas).
• It's hard to make out clear trends regarding other AOS's, all of which seem to fluctuate markedly over time--though History of Philosophy appears to have declined somewhat over time whereas Marginalized Identity jobs appear to have modestly increased the past few years.
• I also noticed (merely anecdotally) that philosophies of marginalized identities and non-Western philosophies appears to occur relatively often this year in AOS categories (though I was not able to do comparisons to past years, as I have not in general compiled AOC numbers):
  
  • # of TT jobs w/philosophies of marginalized identities AOC's: 22 jobs (10.9%)
  • # of TT jobs w/non-Western philosophy AOC's: 12 jobs (6%)

Update (4/28/2022): 2 Aesthetics jobs were advertised this year and accidentally omitted from the spreadsheet. I missed them both because one of them (Uppsala) was listed as "Associate Lecturer" (which I didn't identify as tenure track) and the other (Amsterdam) was listed as "tenured or permanent" (rather than tenure-track).

Informing other search committees of offers?

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

Let's say you have an offer on the table.

But you also just had a first round interview for another place.

If you're waiting to hear back after the first round from the second place, is it appropriate to reach out with this information to see if you can get a response sooner or would just imprudent or unwise?

This is a good question. My sense is that if you're still in the running for other positions you want, it's always a good idea to let them know that you have an offer. If the search committee really wants you, this could motivate them to move quickly with you. However, my sense is also that, a lot of times, this just isn't possible. For example, if (as in the OP's) case you only just finished a first-round interview, it seems unlikely that the department could move quickly enough before the offer you currently have expires. Most job offers these days have fairly quick deadlines (1 to 2 weeks), and the second department may be required to do fly-outs (with multiple candidates) before they can even extend an offer. But, I think, it's always worth a try to see what can happen.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be good, obviously, to hear from candidates who have done this, as well as from search committees (to hear what is and what is not possible on their end)!

What do job titles mean abroad?

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

There was recently some very enlightening back-and-forth in another thread ("Tenure track faculty getting TT jobs?") about the meanings of academic job titles in Scandinavia. For example, it was revealed that it is not unusual for an 'associate professorship' to be taken up by a postdoc. I think I and many readers would benefit a lot from a general explanation of these titles, whether their meanings vary across Scandinavia, and what kinds of applicants will and won't be competitive for them!

This is a great query, and I think it would be great to not only hear about Scandinavia but other countries as well. What do job titles in your country mean? Who is eligible for them, and what does it take to be competitive for them? Does anyone have any helpful insights?

From a top-5 PhD program to teaching job?

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

How can those at top universities be competitive for teaching-focused jobs, especially at non-prestigious schools?

I'm at a top 5 PGR-ranked university and almost everyone ends up at a research-focused job (typically at R1s or prestigious SLACs). I'm told that I will seem like a flight risk for teaching-focused jobs and at non-prestigious schools. But I don't care about prestige and I think I enjoy teaching more than research. So, I like to be competitive for teaching-focused jobs, even at non-prestigious schools. Any advice would help.

This is an excellent question, and I'm really curious to hear what everyone thinks. Here are three things that I think are likely to help based on my experience:

1. A significant amount of solo teaching experience (either in grad school, a community college, VAP, etc.).
2. A publishing record, but not a bunch of publications in top-ranked journals.
3. A teaching portfolio that shows that you have thought a lot about pedagogy and do more than 'chalk and talk' teaching/traditional Socratic discussion.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people who work at and/or have hired at the kinds of institutions the OP asks about!

What matters most to search committees?

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

Hi, is it possible to start a thread asking the reader what is the most important thing when we apply a job? Is it "publication", where we come from, or recommendations letter?

It would be interesting to hear from search committee members, but here's my bet: there is no "most important thing." I've heard that search committees at R1's tend to care most about a person's grad program, writing sample, recommendation letters, and (to a lesser extent?) publication record. At SLACs, on the other hand, I've heard that grad program rank, recommendations, and writing samples matter far less, and what matters most is whether you publish fairly consistently, look like someone who cares about and innovates in teaching, and fits the department's needs. Which is why, as a one-time job-candidate, I just tried to make my dossier as a whole the best that I could.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be good to hear from search committee members. What kind of university are you at, what matters most to you in a candidate, and what have you seen your search committee(s) care most about?

Tenure track faculty getting TT jobs?

In our ongoing job-market reporting board, a reader writes:

This year I was both a finalist for several jobs and served on a search committee. I'm also connected enough to know who else was a finalist in those job searches where I was also finalist. For every one these searches, most of the candidates already had TT jobs. I was a kind of shocked what I realized this. Has anyone else noticed something similar? Is this year an anomaly?

Another reader suggested it might be good to have a discussion thread on this, and I agree. One other reader added:

Small data point. I’m tenure track. I applied to eight jobs this year, most of which were junior, some open rank. Got exactly zero interviews. I only applied to attractive places and I’m no superstar, but at the same time I was coming up for tenure (and just got it, yay) and some of these jobs were really good fits. I surmise being up for tenure might have played against me (I didn’t hide it) at places trying to recruit fresh blood. And I suspect being TT only plays in your favor if you’re already at a relatively reputable place, coming from a top program or really well connected. Otherwise it’s not clear that it helps much if you’re trying to move up. But that’s just my impression.

It might be good to hear from other readers, both search committee members and tenure-track faculty:

1. If you were on a search committee, did you see an inordinate number of tenure-track faculty applying for tenure-track jobs this year, or is it pretty routine for tenure-track people to apply.
2. If you were a tenure-track faculty member on the market, why did you go on the market again? To move to a more desirable institution? Solve a 'two-body problem'? And how competitive on the market were you? More than before you had a TT job, or less?

Trapped 'in the middle' on the market?

In our ongoing job-market discussion thread, a reader writes:

Every year I go on the market I get a few interviews for TT jobs at very good places that don't pan out, and I get interviews nowhere else. I worry I am caught in a trap: my profile is not strong enough for top places to hire me, but too strong for other places to hire me because they don't think I would come or stay. Any advice on how to get out of this trap?

This is indeed a tough position to be in, and I'm very curious to hear what everyone thinks. One reader responded:

I do not think you are as trapped as you think. When I worked at a 4 year state college, we took every application seriously. The only ones that we passed over who had strong research profiles were people who had no sense of what kind of job they were applying for. This was evident, not from their pedigree, but because their application package (eg. teaching materials) was completely unsuited to our students and our institution. We did not need someone who was keen to teaching a course on grounding, or philosophy of physics. What we needed was people who were prepared to teach our general education courses - which all of us taught. These included: history of ancient, history of early modern, intro. epistemology, ethics ...

And another reader responded:

You write that your "profile is not strong enough for top places to hire" you, but that seems untrue if you're getting these interviews in the first place. I doubt many (or, honestly, any) committees are interviewing you with no interest in advancing your candidacy, so it seems totally within your power to land one of those jobs. Maybe it's just terrible luck, but maybe it's an issue of doing more research on the departments and interviewers, and practicing your interview skills in order to present yourself as being the right "fit" (that most elusive but important of hiring committee criteria). I know for a fact that my (well-regarded R1) department has passed over otherwise excellent candidates on those kinds of grounds.

I think both of these responses are insightful, so here are my two cents. It's never a bad idea as a job-candidate to tailor your approach to the job market to the evidence you are receiving. In this case, the OP notes that every year they get TT interviews "at very good places" and "nowhere else." This suggests to me what it seemed to suggest to the second commenter above: that the OP is competitive for jobs at "very good places" (whatever exactly that means). This suggests to me in turn that the OP is either (A) having a bit of bad luck, or (B) they could work on the interviewing skills. Readers (and the OP) may recall the curious case of Jared Warren (Stanford) here, who (if I recall correctly) was on the market for a fair while despite having a spectacular publication record. Obviously, it took Warren a while, but ultimately he ended up in a plum job--so, perhaps the OP just needs to keep at it (i.e. keep publishing, etc.), and in the meantime perhaps do some mock interviews with friends or colleagues to see if there is anything they can do on that front.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear from candidates who are (or were) in a similar position as the OP. What did you do to find your way out of this proverbial "trap"? Was there anything in particular that you did that seemed to help--or did you just stick it out?

Staying on the market just after accepting a job?

In our March "how can we help you?" thread, anon writes:

If you formally accept a TT position that you're not crazy about, is there really anything wrong with keeping your options open and to continue applying to other jobs? Like if I gave myself a deadline of May 1 to see if any of the other positions work out, is that unreasonable?

One reader submitted the following reply:

It is a job MARKET. You are on the market until you retire. So it is perfectly fine keep looking.

However, Bill Vanderburgh submitted a very different response:

While nothing prevents what you describe, this is a bad practice. Many people would consider it to be unethical. When you accept a position, the department to which you have promised you will come starts making plans around your arrival. Most especially, if you renege on your acceptance, it is extremely unlikely the department will be able to or allowed to fill the position for next year, leaving them in the lurch and amounting to the department having wasted all their time on the search. They might even lose the line altogether, depending on budget and politics next year. Instead, when you get an offer and you have other interviews coming up soon, ask for a longer timeline to give a final answer to the department which made you the first offer. (You can also email the next place you are interviewing to tell them you have an offer in hand, to see if they can speed up their process.) You won't always be given more time for your answer, in which case you need to make a judgment to accept or not accept before you have more info.

I'm curious what side of things most readers fall on here. What do you all think?

Deferring tenure-track offers?

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

I'd be really grateful for some advice on deferring tenure-track job offers in order to be able to pursue research fellowships you've also been offered:

Suppose you've been offered a tenure-track position at an institution in Continental Europe, for which you'd be expected to apply to make it permanent after a few years. The teaching load for this is around 50%, not including admin. You'd like to take this because it's job security, and there are few positions in your sub-field.
But suppose you've also been lucky enough to secure a research fellowship for 2-years that is due to start at the same time. This fellowship would give you 100% research time, and you'd like to take it. You've been struggling on rubbish contracts that give you precious little time for your research for too long, waiting for your publications to come out.

You find yourself in a "buses" situation: few buses come along for years, and then all of a sudden, you've got your publications, and two shiny buses arrive at once, and you want to ride both.

What should you do to try to take up both opportunities?

Should you ask the institution offering the tenure-track job to defer your start date by two years? Or do you take the job, and ask them to give you a sabbatical for 2-years to take the research fellowship? Or something else? What are the reasonable limits of what can be asked for here (is asking for a 2 year defferal too much; would one year be more likely to be acceptable?)? And how does this differ in different parts of the world?

Excellent questions. I do know that deferring TT jobs for postdocs is quite common in the US, but I don't know how common it is in Europe, nor do I know how to about asking for a deferral properly. Anyone have any tips?

Prizes or top generalist journals?

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

I have a question about publication strategy. I have a few papers underway that might be contenders for some essay prizes within my subfield(s), but I'm not sure whether I should submit them for the essay prizes or to top generalist journals. What is the perceived value of such essay prizes?

A little background: The prizes I have in mind are awarded by respectable journals, but they are either specialist journals or generalist journals outside the top 20. They come with some prize money, yet my current position is well-paid but temporary. This means that it's more important for me to improve my CV than to have the chance to win the money.

Good question! I'm not sure, but I guess I'd want to know actual examples of the prizes in question. For example, I know of the Marc Sanders prizes, which not only seem prestigious but include a publication in the Oxford Studies book series (which I've heard is also prestigious). What other essay prizes are there? I'm guessing if they are with generalist journals outside of the top 20, they wouldn't be nearly as valuable to a job candidate as (say) a publication in a top-5 or top-10 journal. But again, I'm not sure. What do you all think? It might be good to hear of examples of prizes in the comments section, along with how valuable they might be for someone still on the job market!

Job-offer negotiating experiences?

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

It would be great to see a thread where people share some of their experiences negotiating TT offers - either success stories or what they wished they had done differently. I'd be especially interested in hearing about non-salary parts of the negotiations, like teaching releases, startup, and relocation expenses.

I think this is a great idea. Any readers have any experiences to share?

Candidates writing their own recommendations?

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

Though I take it to be frowned upon, I get the sense from graduate students that it's very common for some senior faculty members to ask students to write their own letters of recommendation, and then edit them. I'm curious if admission committees ever feel like it is obvious that an applicant has written their own letter. Is it unethical to do so? Or are letters so 'inflated' anyways that this isn't a major concern for applicants or committees?

These are excellent questions. I too have heard of this practice, and frankly find it a bit astonishing that it apparently occurs. It sort of seems to defeat the purpose of an outside letter of recommendation to have a candidate write it themselves, no? So, I'm curious too: how common is this practice? What do readers think of it? And, do committees ever suspect that a candidate wrote their own letter? 

When do search committees return to long-lists?

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

I would love a post asking / discussing how often it actually happens that search committees go back to people from their long list after not inviting them for fly outs. Often, search committee members let you know that they can't fly you out at the moment, but they might get back to your file later depending on how the search develops. Does this ever happen?

Good question! I have no idea how often this happens, but I know it does happen, and can happen for a variety of reasons, such as candidates backing out of on-campus visits due to accepting job offers elsewhere or the committee not being comfortable with hiring any of the people they initially fly out to campus. It's also worth noting that if a committee isn't satisfied with its long-list, they can also always go back to the general applicant pool to see if they would like to conduct any additional first-round interviews. It would be great to hear from search committee members: how often do these kinds of things happen, and for what reasons? Any reasons or scenarios that I haven't mentioned?

How to make the most out of a postdoc?

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

I've read a lot of (helpful!) advice about making the most out of grad school and a variety of job opportunities. I'm wondering if there's been a thread on how to make the most out of a post-doc? Post-docs seem to me super liminal and precarious, especially since one likely has to immediately go back on the market after starting (unless one has the luxury/credentials to be very confident of her success the next go round).

What do successful postdocs look like? What should those starting a postdoc in the fall try to do while there? (other than find less precarious employment). All tips and insights from all perspectives are welcome, including what (if anything) those on search committees like to see from applicants who are currently postdocs.

Good questions! Another postdoc submitted the following reply:

I think this largely depends on the kind of postdoc you're on. If it's a research postdoc, then by all means, write as much as you can. If you have to teach, then teach -- if you can choose which classes, try to build up your teaching experience.

I guess I would just add that I think a 'successful postdoc' should probably improve as many parts of your CV as possible (research, teaching, and service), and in ways that make the most sense from the standpoint of job-market strategy. Remember, there are multiple job markets (R1s, SLACs, CCs, etc.), and candidates from certain kinds of PhD programs tend to fare better in different job markets than others. So, I'd say, even if you're in a research postdoc without teaching, by all means focus on publishing--but if there are other ways that you can add to your CV beyond publishing, consider doing it. Second, when it comes to choosing classes to teach, I'd advise trying to find courses to teach that expand your repertoire. The more types of courses you're able to teach, the more likely you'll be a good fit for a department that needs a particular course taught.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great, I think, to hear particularly from commenters who have recently had postdocs. What did you do, and how did it impact your competitiveness on the job market after the postdoc? What, if anything, would you have done differently in your postdoc?

Follow-up job market emails?

In our job market discussion thread, a reader asks:

How are follow-up emails inquiring about one’s status after a first-round interview generally perceived by committee chairs? Is it better not to inquire since it may just annoy them?

I’m considering doing so in a case where I was told they wanted to make offers fairly quickly, and it’s been a week longer than the estimated timeline for offers they gave me.

From all of that, it’s probably safe to assume I’m out. But, I wonder how common it is to request updates or how welcome that would be given where we are in the season? Is it only best to do so when one has an offer from another school on the table?

Another reader then followed:

I would just like to chime in that I would also love to hear more about the norms and do's/don'ts when it comes to follow-up emails. After I was ghosted by one institution for several weeks after an interview and no one else posted about any updates on here I did send the contact person a follow-up email, to which they never replied... That obviously made me think even less of the professionalism of this particular search committee, but perhaps it was inappropriate for me to email them at all? If it matters, they also gave me a timeline for when I could expect to hear back from them and then totally blew past it with no word.

These are good questions. I'm currently chairing a search committee, so I probably shouldn't answer, but I'd love to hear from other search committee chairs in the comments section below. What do you think of follow up emails? Are there any "do's" and "don'ts" that candidates should be aware of? (As a quick aside, I suspect that some chairs may feel quite hamstrung by HR rules at their institution on what they can say to candidates while a search is still in progress, but I'm not sure how common such rules are or how restrictive they may tend to be). 

Weighing priorities (relationships, job types, etc.) when choosing between jobs

In our February "how can we help you?" thread, an anonymous reader writes:

Let's say you currently have a fairly stable NTT position at a reputable institution. Doesn't pay amazing but you get to teach a wide variety of classes in a traditional in-person format and there is no research expectation; however being in this position requires you to be in a long distance relationship.

Let's also say you've been offered a TT position at a community college but there is very little traditional in person teaching but you might be able to stop being in a long distance relationship and move somewhere together. Pays better, etc but you have serious concerns about all the non-traditional teaching.

Thoughts?

This is an excellent question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

That is a major life choice, and only you can do it, because only you have to live with your choice. There are some things in life that are really important, in part, because they play such a big role in our lives for a loooooooong time: a relationship, and a job!

Of course this is true: everyone must determine their own values and priorities in making decisions like these. But, for all that, the OP seems to be looking for other people's insights. So, what do you all think? I'll probably share some of my own thoughts in the comments section, but I'm curious to hear other people's responses. I expect that some of our readers may have had similar decisions to make, and may have thoughts based on first-hand experience of what to prioritize (and not prioritize). Anyone have any tips, experiences, or other insights to share?

When to withdraw job applications?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread and January thread, Arthur asks: 

When you accept an informal job offer, is the done thing to immediately withdraw yourself from other active searches? Or should you wait until signing a contract? Maybe I’m just paranoid but especially given Covid uncertainty I’m hesitant to do so until I sign a contract, but I don't know if that's kosher. (And, if and when you should withdraw, should you only withdraw from searches for which you've made a further round? Or should you contact hiring committees from which you just haven't heard anything yet?

A couple of readers responded. Conrad writes:

A bit of caution seems totally reasonable; I can't imagine it's incumbent on you to withdraw before you've signed a contract.

And "don't count your chickens" writes:

@Arthur, definitely, 100% wait until the contract is signed. Personally, I would only worry about withdrawing from those that you've heard something or other, but I've no strong feelings either way. Perhaps it depends on how many apps you have hanging.

This sounds exactly right to me: never withdraw from a job that you are otherwise interested in until you demonstrably have another job, and you demonstrably have another job when and only when you've signed a contract. Before that, nothing is set in stone. Weird things can always happen, like a university President or Provost deciding at the last minute that, no, they really don't have enough money for the position (due, e.g., to a sudden economic downturn). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Visiting jobs for TT people?

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

I'd really appreciate a post that summarizes opportunities / postdocs / fellowships that early career people who already have a TT job can apply for. I often hear from people who spend a year somewhere, but it's often unclear to me how to find out about these opportunities. Examples are fellowships with the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, Visiting Fellowships at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Philosophy of Science, or Harrington Faculty Research Fellowships at UT Austin.

This is a good question. I'm on sabbatical next year, and applied to some of these kinds of things--but I expect there are probably other opportunities than those listed on PhilJobs. Anyone have any tips?

Should grad students work on trendy topics?

There's an interesting ongoing discussion at Daily Nous on which topics of research are trending for graduate students and recent PhDs. Having served on six search committees now, I'm really curious to hear from other search committee members: do you think it is advantageous, disadvantageous, or neither on the job market for grad students to work on trendy topics? Why? 

Here's my hot-take: I expect it is probably advantageous for getting an R1 job, but potentially disadvantageous for getting a job at a teaching institution. Here's why: R1s seem likely to want to hire the 'next big thing', and one obvious path to this is to hire someone who does really good work on a hot topic in the profession. However, trendy topics tend to be pretty narrow, and it's easier to stand out in a pile--as a researcher and teacher (for teaching jobs)--if you do something different than most candidates. This, again, is just a hot-take hypothesis. But I wonder if there is something to it. 

One quick note: I'd like to keep this discussion to search committee members. Here's why: job-candidates reporting their experiences may result in a misleading picture of things due to base-rate issues. If (e.g.) 90% of job-candidates work on trendy topics, then as a merely statistical matter, candidates who work on trendy topics will tend to get a lot of jobs. So, if we hear from candidates, we run the risk of committing the base-rate fallacy. We don't entirely obviate this by hearing from search committee members, but at least in their case we might get a picture of which types of candidates they prefer and do well in their hiring processes, all things being equal.

Publishing outside your AOS/AOC?

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

Should we try to publish papers not in our intended AOS and AOC?

Context, as a grad student, we take various classes to fulfil distribution requirements. For one class, the professor recommended that I try to publish the term paper. However, the class and topic lies outside of my intended AOS and AOC. Should I still try to publish it? What are the benefits job market wise, given that it lies outside of my AOS and AOC? Could doing so disbenefit me (e.g. If the only thing I end up publishing by the time I hit the job market is a paper outside of my AOS and AOC)?

Good questions. I think it obviously in the interest of grad students and other early-career philosophers to publish outside of their AOS or AOC, at least all things being equal. First, when it comes to the job market, the broader your publication record, the broader your appeal is likely to be to hiring committees. Sometimes hiring committees have areas they'd love to have someone be able to teach courses in even if it's not in the job ad. You may also just look like a more interesting philosopher to talk shop with. Second, when it comes to tenure and promotion, even if your institution turns out to be one of those (like mine) that only officially considers work you've published since starting the job, your overall publishing record probably has some real psychological impact--as your CV may simply look like someone who clearly warrants tenure. Plus, impact in the literature and your overall reputation as a researchers may be taken into account (viz. outside tenure letters), so why pass up publishing good stuff?

The only potential downside here, I think, is raised by the OP's final question. If your only publications when heading out on the job market are outside your AOS/AOC, then that might look very odd. But, wait a minute: if you've published in the area, why not list it as an AOC? You obviously have some level of competence in the area! So, it seems to me, the expected upsides of publishing outside one's AOS/AOC plainly outweigh the downsides. Finally, given how much uncertainty there is on all things job-market related, it seems to me the best approach is to simply do philosophy authentically, publishing what interests you! It's your career, so (or so say I) just be the philosopher you want to be and hope that there's a search committee out there that finds what you do and the philosopher you are worth hiring. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Norms for negotiating a job offer?

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

[W]hat are the norms for negotiating an offer? salary? course release? do you need to have another offer to have leverage? is negation typically expected?

Although these questions are already being discussed in that thread, these are such important questions that I would like to migrate the discussion over here. One reader, 'the sky is the limit', responded:

If you are working in the USA, anything is open for negotiation. But, know the local culture. If you ask for a pre-tenure sabbatical when you have colleagues who have been teaching there and not had one, you will look a little too self important.

Also, if it is state university you can find the pay of public employees. This should set your target for what you can reasonably ask for. If you are staring a TT job and you ask for what a tenured person is paid, again you will look like a big ass. And you are then off to a bad start.

Another reader followed:

[I]n my experience you don't need another offer in order to be able to negotiate, but you do need to have reasons that are saliant to the administrators at the instutition. "I'd like to have a course release" isn't going to fly, but "If I could have a course release my first year, I'd be much more competitive for this large grant application" has a better chance of working. It's also easier for deans to grant one-time bonuses (e.g., moving allowances, start-up cash, one semester or year of course release, etc.) than to grant recurring boons such as significant salary bumps.

I'm curious to hear what other readers think--but I think it's worth emphasizing how important it can be to be sensitive to context. There was a real horror story a few years ago about someone who negotiated their way out of a job. For example, if you have an offer from a teaching-focused institution, then asking for teaching offloads to focus on research can be a dicey endeavor. It's important to be aware that a job-offer is not a binding commitment until a contract has actually been issued and signed. Fwiw. But what do you all think? Do any of you have tips or experiences (good or bad) to share?

Moving from a CC to a 4-year university?

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

If one accepts a job offer from a community college, how difficult would it be to make a lateral move out of this position? In other words, imagine I'm on the tenure track at a CC. Would that likely put me out of the running for jobs at four-year universities (even if they're primarily teaching schools)?

These are good questions. I have to imagine that a lot depends here on how one publishes while at the CC. If you have a strong teaching record and publish sufficiently to be in a good position to get tenure at a 4-year university (teaching-focused or otherwise), then I have to imagine that you could move--or, at least, that search committees at a fair number of 4-year colleges or universities would seriously consider you. At least in my experience serving on a number of search committees, we really are looking to hire whomever we think is best for the position, given what we are looking for--and so if you have a great teaching (and service?) record at the CC while publishing, I see no reason why you wouldn't be competitive. That being said, not all search committees may be so open-minded, and people may have implicit or explicit biases.

What do you all think? It might be good to hear from people who are at CC's who apply for jobs (are you competitive?), as well as from search committee members. 

What could search committees do better?

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

I would appreciate a thread/post that provided candidates with an opportunity to discuss the "bad behavior" of hiring committees...

Given the blog's supportive mission, I don't think a thread calling out bad behavior is appropriate here. However, another reader added a nice suggestion:

In light of anonymous associate professors' post, maybe such a thread could be framed as candidates constructively reporting things that they don't like/contribute to bad mental health, etc? That might also get more uptake than people complaining, especially if people are not aware of what candidates would prefer...

My list would include:

1. Not updating shortlisted candidates who didn't make the fly out stage. (Or, more generally, not updating candidates who you told made progress but then did not advance.) It comes off as disrespectful, even cruel.
2. Not having accurate timelines. If you tell candidates you will contact them on date X, then either update them to tell them why you can't do so (e.g. delay), or be more careful about giving such estimates. Constantly waiting and checking makes it very difficult to focus, especially when you're waiting for news on a particular day.

As a quick aside, following a few other comments, my sense is that candidates may over-estimate how much control search committees have over these kinds of things, as things like HR requirements and unexpected logistical difficulties (such as delays in getting administrators to approve finalist lists, etc.) can seriously constrain what search committees can do. But, that being said, I think a constructive thread on things that candidates wish search committees would do better is a nice idea.

What do you all think? (Note: please avoid "calling out" committees or specific behaviors that an individual reading this thread might infer "they are referring to me". Instead, please post in general terms on things that you have found frustrating as a candidate and what you wish search committees would do better. Thanks!) 

The job market & financial health of universities

An anonymous reader writes in:

I was recently thinking about applying to a private, non-elite SLAC simply because it's a lot closer to my and my wife's families. I decided not to for a lot of reasons but one deep hesitation I had was that I know a lot of the private, non-elite SLACs are likely to flat out fold in the next ten or fifteen years and the public ones are likely to come in for some deep cuts. This brings me to a question that I thought it would be very good to put out there: How in the world does one get any information on the financial health of the place one is applying and related stuff like enrollment trends?

This seems super important. The people who ended up getting two jobs I interviewed in the past at public SLACs have already gotten laid off. It would have been a disaster for me and my family if I'd left a renewable lecturer gig . . . that, while shitty in oh so many ways, was at least stable, for a TT gig only to get laid off in three years. It seems important that applicants know that this is a real threat they need to worry about at a lot of schools, especially SLACs.

This is a really important question, and I'm really glad someone asked it. Over the past couple of years, I too have heard of at least of a few horror stories--cases where someone was finally able to get a tenure-track job, only to see their job eliminated a year or two after they started. Alas, I'm not sure how to answer the question. You can of course ask faculty or administrators at the university about the financial health of the institution (either during an on-campus visit or after a hiring offer is extended). But, as for asking faculty, my sense is that sometimes even they can be quite in the dark about these matters, as the actual financial health of the institution may only be known by upper administration (which, I think, is why so many of the recent waves of faculty-line eliminations have come as a total shock out of the blue to those who faced them).

So, while the OP's question is a super important one, I don't have any real guidance above and beyond: ask around before accepting a job offer. But this advice probably isn't all that helpful. What do you all think? Do you have any helpful tips or insights (or personal experiences) on this issue? 

Repeatedly publishing in the same journal?

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

How do we feel about having multiple publications in the same journal?

For instance, there are four major journals specific to my subfield. Of them, one is an absolute pleasure to work with; one has had egregious, well-documented problems with response time (i.e., taking many years); one has lesser issues with response time (i.e., taking many months); one has an acceptance rate of about 2% and hardly seems worth the effort.

Given this situation, sometimes I'm tempted to stop sending to the other three and only send to the 'good' one. Of course, I'm not actually going to do this, but I'm curious whether anyone has thoughts or stories about this subject. In particular, I wonder how multiple publications in the same (good, maybe A- level) journal would look to search committee or tenure committee members.

Good question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Assuming the journal is well-regarded, it's not clear to me why publishing repeatedly in the same journal should be a problem--or why search committees or a tenure committee should care. But maybe I'm missing something. Anyone have any helpful insights here?

Tips for Zoom job talks?

Earlier this week, we had an illuminating discussion on zoom teaching demos for on-campus visits. In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Amaya writes:

I was wondering if it would be possible to also do a thread on tips regarding Zoom job talks?

Great suggestion! It would be great to hear some tips, both from those who have done Zoom job talks, but especially (for obvious reasons) from search committee members. What works well in a zoom job talk? What doesn't? What do you all think?

Disinviting someone from your dissertation committee?

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

I have a question about disinviting someone from my dissertation committee. Is it 1) possible, 2) acceptable, 3) a bad idea (for strategic/interpersonal/departmental reasons, etc.), or 4) a good idea (given the below)?

The problem I am having is that said committee member does not engage with me AT ALL. This person won't answer emails, including requests for meetings, or give ANY feedback, etc. and is on my committee b/c given their area and my area, it made sense. But it seems they will not be in a position to recommend me when all is said and done, which is pretty terrifying. And despite my best (and many!) efforts, I feel I have no relationship with them not even a bad one, really, since so unresponsive. So I would like to disinvite them (I don't have a replacement yet), but I assume this is extremely controversial. Thus, seeking advice.

This is an excellent question, and I am sure some other grad students have (or have had) experience with similar situations. Mike Titelbaum (Wisconsin) submitted the following response:

That's a really tricky problem you have, and I'm sorry you're stuck with it. Besides the concerns you mentioned with "disinviting" one member, there's the additional problem that if that person is very well-known in your field, when you apply for jobs folks might wonder why that person wasn't involved in your dissertation, and might informally ask them what they think of your work.

Maybe one way to move towards a solution is to recognize that there are two groups of people here: Those that are officially listed as being on your committee, and those who help you write the dissertation. Those two groups don't always have to be the same. Many grad students have three people on their committee, but work closely with only one or two and hardly ever interact with the others. Heck, I've sometimes worked closely with someone on their dissertation without ever being on their official committee. So the fact that this person won't help you doesn't mean you necessarily need to get them off your committee.

If I were you I'd try to gain more information about this person, based on experiences of their colleagues and your fellow grad students: Is this ghosting behavior typical for this person, or is it an indication that they dislike your work? Even if they're unresponsive now, when dissertation defense time comes around will they read the thing and show up where they need to be? It's possible that even if they're behaving badly now, they will come through at the end and then (if they like the dissertation you produce) write you a perfectly good letter. If you do get information that leads you to remove them from your committee, I'd recommend identifying a replacement first. It's a lot easier to say to a cantankerous faculty member that you'd like to sub them out for someone else with whom you've struck up a good relationship, than to simply tell them you don't want them involved with you any more. And until you get a substitute, it doesn't sound like having the bad member on your committee for the time being is doing you any active harm. Good luck!

This strikes me as wise advice. You don't necessarily need to work closely with all of your dissertation committee members. What you do need is to write a passable dissertation and get good letters of recommendation from faculty whose letters are likely to help you on the job market. So, along with Mike, I think the contextual details matter a lot here. Is this just how that committee member is? Might they still write you a good recommendation letter at the end of the day? Would it look bad on the market if you didn't get a letter from them? Can you write a good dissertation working primarily with your other two committee members? These, I think, are probably the questions the OP really needs to answer in order to make the best decision.

One additional note: what the OP describes could even be a proverbial blessing in disguise. Dissertation committee members can sometimes disagree substantially on the direction a dissertation should take--which can give rise to difficult binds where you have to choose between which committee member's advice you follow. I've heard that in some cases, situations like this can lead to a divide within the committee itself, angering the committee member whose guidance isn't followed. So, in principle, it could actually be good to have "fewer voices involved" in working on the dissertation, particularly if the OP's other two committee members are responsive and helpful. So, long story short, I think the answers to the OP's questions are probably: (1)  Yes, it's possible; (2) Sure, it can be acceptable; (3) and (4) whether it's a bad idea or a good idea depends on the details.

But these are just my thoughts (and Mike's). What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from grad students who have faced this kind of situation, including how their decision worked out in the end, but also from grad faculty (including dissertation committee members). What do you all think?

Tips for Zoom teaching demos?

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

Can you open a thread asking for tips/advice regarding best practices for zoom teaching demos for a job interview?

This is an excellent question, and was seconded by another reader. Do any job candidates or search committee have any helpful tips to share?

How is the Omicron surge affecting searches?

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

I have a question for any search committee members who may see this and are willing to offer any intel (anonymously or otherwise): Is the current COVID-19 surge impacting (delaying or changing) your committee’s hiring timeline or the decision to have fly-outs versus online teaching demonstrations/job talks? Also, I wonder how a committee might respond to a candidate who expresses reservations about traveling for a second-round interview under the circumstances? P.S. I recognize how challenging this question is as things continue to evolve, and things may vary considerably based on the university’s location.

Excellent questions. It would be great to hear from some search committees in the comments section below!

What actually helps on the job market?

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

On this blog, I have seen many questions like "Would X help my prospects on the job market," and often that answer is "No, X won't really make a difference." My question is: what actually, substantially, really, definitely makes a difference? What should grad students actually spend their time on?

Here are the things I think really, actually matter the most (please tell me if I am wrong!): prestige of the PhD-granting institution, publications in top journals, being a great fit for the job AOS/AOC wise, (at least for a lot of jobs) having some solid teaching experience. There are also so many random things at play that can play a major role, like how your personality meshes with the people on the committee, who knows who, who they just hired last year, etc.

It seems like most other things just don't make a big difference, at least enough where it's worth doing action X JUST because you think X will help you on the job market (versus, say, doing public philosophy stuff because you are passionate about it).

So, it seems like there is not too much that's actually both helpful to my prospects AND within my control (publish in top journals, meet a lot of people and seem cool/smart/professional to them, finish the program while keeping my sanity), and I should just focus on those things without worrying much about the rest. Does this sound right?

These are excellent questions, and I'm very curious to hear how readers respond. Allow me to make a few quick points before opening things up for discussion.

Hopeful tips for the stresses of an R1 job?

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

Simple question: how is a R1 job different from being a graduate student? (Wrong answers only.)

What I mean is, grad school can lead to burnout, especially if one is caught up in trying to publish and do everything possible to get a job. From what I hear, things are only more hectic and stressful if one succeeds in getting a job (with committees, teaching more, and trying to get tenure). If this is the case, then would many borderline burned out grad students be best off thinking about alt-ac careers? (Asking for a friend.)

I get that, perhaps once one gets tenure, then one's academic life might become less stressful. And maybe, if one's initial job is right, then there might not be as much stress w/r/t becoming tenured. As someone who's relatively new on the job market, though, it does seem like there is a decent chance that, if I get a job, the relative stress will only increase. This concerns me.

A more positive spin on my question might be: what is the most hopeful thing you might tell a grad student who faces a precarious job market and an increased set of responsibilities even in the best case scenario in which she lands a R1 job? In what ways will the job that she's hoped for be truly worthwhile?

These are interesting questions, and I'm very curious to hear readers' answers. If you work at an R1, how would you answer?

Predicting fly-outs on the basis of interviews?

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

Now that readers are doing interviews, I was wondering if we could field thoughts on how well, in your experience, your sense of how the interview went correlates to success in getting job talks (or from job talk to offer). Have readers ever gotten offers from truly terrible interviews? Or not gotten offers from interviews that seemed guaranteed to go through? Can you get a sense of how interested the committee is in your application based on how they act in the interview setting? Curious for your thoughts!

Another reader submitted the following response:

I think that job candidates can tell almost nothing from (1) their sense of how an interview went or (2) how interviewers act. First you may not have a good sense of how the interview "went." That's because how an interview goes is not just about your own performance, but how others perform. You can't know that by your own sense of whether your answers were good, whether you presented yourself as a collegial candidate who knows your material, has thought carefully about teaching, etc. It's also because we often misjudge, in either direction, how well we've done. Interviews I feel that I bombed were perceived by the interviewers as awesome and vice versa (I know this from later conversations). Sometimes they are looking for things you just don't know about. In one interview, I answered a question very carefully in a way that aligned with my sense of how I "should" answer. Apparently that answer was the direct opposite of what they were wanting (and what I'd been prepped to say in grad school). But I felt like that interview went well--I didn't get a flyout.

Second, that kindly nodding interviewer? The one who seems to be listening intently, smiling, and sending out good vibes? They may be your worst critic. The one with furrowed brows may think you are their best candidate. Unless you already know these people and how their visible cues are linked to their internal states, you can't tell were you stand with them. And, again, after the interview, a lot happens. You may have interviewed "the best" (whatever that amounts to) that you possibly could have for that position. But the committee has to then navigate questions about fit, about internal politics and whose favorite candidates get invited, etc. So you can't read anything from how you think *they think* the interview went. The best advice I can give (having been interviewing for about six years now, with success at all stages, though shy of an offer) is to interview having prepared as well as you can, and then set it out of your mind. You have no control over what happens next, nor can you anticipate what the search committee will decide.

As frustrating as it may be for job candidates (which I appreciate, as I was one for seven years!), this response sounds broadly right to me, both as a former job-candidate and (now) as a search committee members. As a job-candidate, my judgment of how my interviews went seemed to bear little (if any) correlation to whether I got a fly-out. Sometimes I thought I bombed an interview but got a fly-out, whereas in other cases I was sure that I "killed it" in the interview only to get a PFO. To me as a candidate, this seemed rather baffling. However, now that I've served on like five search committees, it makes more sense to me. Let me explain.

Should you be willing to move anywhere for a TT job?

Today, as I contemplate 2.5 years not having seen my parents in person, I got thinking about mobility as an essential aspect of the academic job market. We take it for granted that if you want to succeed in academia, you must be willing to move to a wide range of geographical locations, away from people you care about including family and friends. You must be willing to uproot yourself to a location far away from them, and then find that it is hard (or impossible, as often turns out) to make friends. People with the two-body problem likewise face heart-rending choices of either sacrificing one's academic hopes to be able to stay with one's partner, or signing up for an indefinite, difficult long-distance relationship.

All of this was hard before the pandemic, now it's become even harder. With a changing and unpredictable public health situation, travel bans and border closures, academic job market candidates will increasingly ask themselves "Am I willing to put an ocean (or another large geographic distance) between myself and the people I care about?" -- My guess is that the answer to this question will be increasingly "No". 

It used to be common wisdom to tell grad students that they should be willing to take a job anywhere, and apply anywhere, even in places that they don't find geographically desirable. Given the state of the job market, it is indeed the case that making any sort of geographic restriction will severely limit your chances of academic employment. For this reason, it is a good idea to be frank with prospective graduate students about the many challenges of the academic job market, including the lack of geographic control. In my experience, talking to many alt-ac philosophy PhDs, geographic control was an important (and sometimes decisive) factor for them to leave academia. 

However, as placement director now more even than before, I do not advise prospective students "Apply (and accept) any TT job anywhere". Rather, I say that it does help to apply widely, and to be open-minded about where you want to live. But I would never recommend to people who definitely, 100% because of family reasons or whatever want to stay in their current city/area to take any TT job anywhere. Rather, if they are not willing to move where the jobs are, they need (early on) to have a good backup alt-ac plan. I've since seen several candidates who got placed in positions in places where they want to live, including one person who was able to find a nice alt-ac job just a few miles from where his parents live. 

So, given the pandemic and given how unexpectedly hard it is to find oneself basically without friends and family nearby, I would recommend that we revisit the recommendation to graduate students they should be willing to live anywhere. Even before the pandemic, I think people underestimate the importance of geographic control in their overall happiness, and our job market plans and advice should reflect that reality. 

How many applicants do jobs receive by AOS?

(Temporarily moving to the front for further discussion)

In our job-market discussion thread, an early career philosopher asks:

I am wondering if we can have a discussion where search committees share the AOS they seek and the number of applications they received in this job cycle. I think that a post like that will be especially valuable for early careers. We know that for most open searches, a typical number is around 600, but what about areas like M&E, history, ethics, non-western, gender, race, etc,.?

This is a great query. I think it could be really eye-opening to hear from search committees about how many applicants they received by AOS. 

If you're on a search committee, please do feel free to share in the comments section how many applicants you received this year, and what the advertised AOS was/were. Please feel free to share anonymously, but if possible, please also feel free to mention what kind of position you advertised (e.g. postdoc, non-TT/VAP position, TT, etc.). I'm really curious to see people's responses!

In-person v. Zoom 'flyouts'?

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

I've attended two first-round interviews so far, and both said the final round will be physical flyouts. I understand that this is the pre-pandemic norm in the US. I will do my best to fly into the US if I happen to get into the final round. Just would have preferred to have all things done online, to make things easier for me, less costly for everyone, and avoid unnecessary risks.

Another job candidate then added:

I agree with @job candidate. I live in a country where getting in and out during the pandemic involves a lot of bureaucratic hoops. And there's the always looming worry that borders will be shut while I'm on a flyout. This is a pretty big risk to take, in addition to health risks and costs of flying.

This is an interesting issue, as well as (obviously) a moral and public health issue. My understanding is that some universities in the US are still doing 'Zoom flyouts', whereas others have moved back to in-person ones. My general sense is also that these sorts of things tend to be dictated not by departments but by upper-administration (e.g. the Provost). So, I'm not sure that in many cases, much can be done here. But I do wonder whether it might make sense for overseas candidates to ask departments that request a physical fly-out if they would be willing to do a virtual one. What do you all think? Do any job-candidates or search committee members have any helpful experiences or insights to share here?

Updating search committees w/publications?

On Twitter, a philosopher asks:

Is it still relatively common practice/a good idea to email *every* job that you're still plausibly in contention for if you get a paper accepted that was previously listed as 'under review' in your cover letter? Is this advice at all department/program-specific, though? E.g., what Harvard might find 'desperate', a smaller state school/R2 might find appealing?

Good questions! Back when I was on the market, I seem to recall it being fairly standard to update committees with things like this. However, I don't know whether it is still something that candidates do or how well it comes off (does a new publication ever make a real difference with search committees?). What do you all think? It might be good to hear from candidates and (especially) search committee members here. Any helpful insights to share? Does the kind of school (R1, R2, SLAC, etc.) make any difference as to what to do?

Editorial experience and the market?

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

1. How do job committees view being an editorial assistant of a journal? For example, suppose that as a grad student you could serve as the editorial assistant for a top 20 journal, or perhaps an Oxford Studies in XYZ. But if you do so, you'll lose out some teaching experience. How will job committees view this?

2. How do job committees view being being a guest editor of a special issue?

My sense is that these kinds of things probably make very little difference to search committees, if any. At least in my experience, search committees care about research and teaching far more than they do about service--and I don't think that being a guest editor of a special issue counts for much in terms of research. The real career benefit of editing, I think, is probably networking (that is, getting to know and develop relationships with people in the profession--which can be a real benefit). But, if I were a grad student looking to be as competitive on the market as possible, (1) and (2) aren't the kinds of things that I would focus on, particularly if they distract from research or teaching. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Incomplete job applications?

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

I have a question that might have an obvious answer. I applied for a job in September, like two months ahead of the deadline. I realized after the deadline that I forgot to include a CV. I inquired to the search chair and was told they searched for contact information to contact me so I could supply the CV but they couldn't find my contact info in my dossier, so my file was never considered because of my lack of a CV.

Now, I get that its my responsibility to double check my app for completeness. But I also a bit surprised at the explanation--they couldn't find a way to contact me? My email is probably available in 30 seconds through a google search. Anyways, I get that is not the responsibility of a search committee with so many applicants but this struck me as kind of an odd explanation.

Thoughts on whether a search committee has any kind of obligation to try and inform applicants of incompleteness in their app and does that fall entirely on the applicant?

Interesting question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think, particularly members of search committees. I wonder whether there may be some kind of HR-related answer, such as that the committee has to evaluate candidates on the basis of what is submitted in an online application system, such that the committee cannot consider applicants who don't correctly submit all of the materials online. Anyone have any insights here?

Do search committees prefer TT applicants?

In our job-market discussion thread, a non-TT applicant writes:

How do committees approach comparing people who have yet to have an assistant professorship against people who are already assistant profs and are looking to move laterally? As someone who lost out on certain jobs last year as an ABD to people who already had TT jobs elsewhere, it's hard not to feel discouraged and like there's no hope in terms of competing against those applicants. All things considered, do committees typically opt to hire those who are already assistant profs, or are there sometimes reasons to hire the new PhDs over assistant profs? When I think about it from the perspective of a search committee member it seems like a good deal to just hire the person who is already seasoned and can hit the ground running, but this obviously really sucks for brand new people just trying to find *a* job in this awful job market.

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from search committee members. One search committee member responded:

Though there are no doubt advantages to hiring someone who's already on the TT somewhere else, there are also some ways in which the applications of TT people are at a disadvantage. These include:

1. The aura of 'potential' is mostly gone. You basically know what you're getting, especially if they're advanced assistant professors.
2. Some admin might want them to start over completely on the tenure clock, making any offer less attractive.
3. Some SC members might be suspicious of them if they don't give a good reason for why they want to move (are they just a constant jumper? are they combative? are they just looking for a counteroffer?)
4. There's some worry about a potential bait-and-switch: they say they're willing to start over or lose a couple years on the tenure clock, but then at negotiation time they take it back.

All these are basically non-issues for people not yet on the TT.

And another reader added:

This is an issue , but it really depends on the search committee, what they value, what they don't. And at some places, search committee members differ drastically from year to year, and so you don't know fore sure that there's a pattern they will follow.

You can take a look at this in job postings on PhilJobs - e.g. you can see some places hired ABDs/new graduates last year where surely there were also very experienced candidates in the pool, as well as some places that did the opposite.

I'm not sure about the overall numbers, whether there's a profession-wide preference in either direction. My vague, non-statistically backed up hunch is that fancier places are more excited to hire people without substantial track records.

Both of these comments cohere with my general sense. I guess I would just add that my sense is that teaching-focused colleges and universities may tend to prefer people with more experience. Why? Well, for a number of reasons. First, there is an enormous difference between teaching or TA-ing one class a semester (as one may as an ABD graduate student) and teaching a 3-3 or 4-4 course load while trying to balance research and service (which can be an enormous challenge for a new PhD). Second, teaching-focused colleges and universities may need someone who is well-prepared to teach many different kinds of courses from day 1, including courses outside of the job's advertised AOS. So, someone who has experience teaching a wide variety of courses may again be at an advantage over someone with far less teaching experience. Finally, people at institutions like these can care about hiring someone who is likely to get tenure, and more experienced people may be more established publishing, etc. All that being said, my sense is that regardless of this, all applicants are given serious consideration, as committees are (in my experience) sincerely looking to hire whoever they think is the best person for the job. Also, I think it is worth bearing in mind that usually (though not always) when someone leaves a job for a position elsewhere, the institution that they left may hire a full-time replacement for their position. So, lateral moves may or may not reduce the total number of full-time jobs needing to be filled.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Good public philosophy venues vs. ones to avoid?

Earlier this week, we discussed how public philosophy is perceived on the job-market. Perhaps surprisingly (to some of us, at least), most commenters seemed to think that public philosophy is a positive, at least if a candidate has a good record of peer-reviewed academic publications. As a follow-up to that discussion, I'd like to run a thread on these questions raised in our newest "how can we help you?" thread:

How are magazines like "Philosophy Now" viewed in the profession? Or others, like Aeon, Nautilus or The Conversation? Is there a ranking of prestige among these kinds of venues in philosophy? Ones that are good to publish in, or ones to avoid?

On occasion I peruse such magazines, however I mostly ask because I see people sometimes list articles they've published in these kinds of magazines as "publications" on their CVs. That strikes me as odd, and something one ought not do, (right??) - at least without making it very clear the publications are pop-pieces that aren't peer-reviewed.

Point being, I'm on the job market now and I'm curious how much these kinds of publications are worth on a CV, and how they should be listed.

I'm curious too! Which public philosophy venues are particularly good to publish in (or, at least, are likely to be perceived that way)? What about places to avoid? Why?

Insights on jobs outside of the US?

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

I'm wondering if anyone has ideas and advice about applying for jobs outside of the US. First, might an American PhD be an advantage for a candidate applying to, let's say, Eastern Europe? Second, should I be competent in what is happening in that country philosophically, or is it enough if I just specialize in my area? Third, how is the academic job market in other places in the world? Is it more difficult or easier to find a job elsewhere?

These are very good questions. Another reader, Qiu Lin, submitted the following reply:

While I do not have full answer to your questions, I do learn from my China-based scholar friends that many universities in mainland China do not post job ads openly, so you do need to ask people already working in their departments whether they are hiring this year. It is generally easier to obtain a professorship in China than in the U.S, as many Chinese institutions are trying to become more "internationalized" by recruiting Ph.D from non-Chinese departments. Feel free to email me if you'd like more info!

I also recall that this site is home to several informative posts about doing philosophy outside the U.S -- a quick search should take you there.

Indeed, I think our series, The Cocoon Goes Global, might contain some helpful insights. But I'd love to hear from readers. Is having an American PhD an advantage or disadvantage in international academic job markets? Which ones, and why? 

Public philosophy and the job market

An interesting question was raised on social media the other day about public philosophy counting against candidates on the academic job-market, the idea being that it is not considered 'serious' philosophy. Is this true? I assume that by 'public philosophy', the issue is publishing philosophy-related pieces in places like Aeon, Slate, etc. Does this kind of work really count against job-candidates? If so, why? Or, do (some or many) search committees look upon it favorably?

I guess my vague sense here is that doing public philosophy could be looked at unfavorably under certain circumstances--for instance, for jobs at R1's or if the candidate isn't also publishing more traditional peer-reviewed research in good journals. But my sense is also that public philosophy is probably also looked at quite favorably at other types of institutions, for instance, at liberal arts colleges and universities (whose administrations often care about having a 'public face'). Of course, it might also matter what kind of public philosophy one is doing, such as whether it is highly political--though I'm not exactly sure whether this would be considered a positive or a negative.

Anyway, I'm curious: do readers have any evidence that doing public philosophy is a positive or negative on the academic job-market? It would be great to hear from search committee members in particular, as well as from readers who do public philosophy!

Approaching people for recommendation letters

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

I wondered if anyone had any advice or strategies regarding when and how to ask senior members of the profession for letters of recommendation. There are a few such people whom I know well and who I know think very well of me as a philosopher but haven't read much, or any, of my work. I feel bad asking them for recommendations since it seems like I presume that to write a good letter they would have to get to know my written work, and so it seems like a much bigger ask than simply writing a letter (which is already not a significant ask!). I would also hugely appreciate any general strategies for approaching people. In general I am not such a confident person, and in particular I am really concerned that those I ask would think that I had an ulterior motive in building relationships.

This is a good query, and having been in Sam's position, I expect many other readers may be in a similar position too. One reader submitted the following reply:

Sam I think you misunderstand letters. No one should be writing a letter for you if they have not read your work. They cannot say anything worth including in an application, unless they have read your work. So it is hard for me to understand what you mean when you say such people think very well of you as a philosopher.

However, this doesn't seem to be what Sam is saying. Sam seems to recognize that to write a good letter, a letter-writer will presumably need to have read his work. Sam just seems to be (quite reasonably) concerned with asking someone who hasn't read his work to write a letter because that would require the person to actually sit down and read his work--which is a lot to ask! (Also, as an aside, there are plausible grounds for someone to think highly of you without reading your work: you may have had good philosophical conversations with them, they may have attended a talk of yours and complimented you on your presented paper, etc.). Anyway, bearing all of this in mind--namely, that Sam's concern is about coming across poorly in asking someone who hasn't read his work to write a letter--I think Sam's query is a very good one.

Asking for interview feedback?

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

Do interviewees usually ask for feedback on their performance from search committee members after they've been ultimately rejected? And if so, what is the best way to do this?

These are good questions. Another reader, Andy, responded:

It can be helpful to ask for feedback. What you get can vary a lot. I have had one line of just "it was a strong field" all the way to the chair of the search committee organising a 30 minute zoom meeting with me to give feedback. I know others who have had similar experiences. I think it is usually worth asking (unless you just got a really bad vibe at the interview).

I'm curious to hear from other job-candidates. If you have asked for interview feedback, have you received helpful responses? Also, for search committee members: what do you think of candidates asking for feedback? Is there a best way to do so?

What do search committees think of consulting?

On Twitter, Jeremy Davis (postdoc, University of Florida) asks:

Search committee members: What are your thoughts on a candidate mentioning their outside consulting work during an interview? (Context: it's relevant to their research, could be construed as 'outreach', and informs interdisciplinary teaching approach.)

This is a great question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. While I suspect consulting might not be particularly appealing to search committees at R1's (who presumably focus primarily on a candidate's research), I wonder whether it would look neat to committees at other kinds of institutions. First, it's a way for a candidate to stand out from the crowd. Second, search committee members might be interested in hearing more about it, and perhaps even want to get involved in some form of consulting themselves! But I'm really just speculating here. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Informing your department you're on the market?

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

I am in a TT position in a R1 university in a city where I know no one (also bc of CoViD). I am not unhappy, but another R1 university in a city where I have very deep roots has recently advertised an associate prof. position. It is unlikely that they will choose me, since I am not yet tenured, but it would be foolish for me not to apply. Should I mention it to the head of my department and my colleagues here? How?

My sense is that a lot of people in TT jobs apply for jobs elsewhere, and that it is probably a mistake to let your home department know. First, as the OP notes, the chances of getting a job elsewhere are low (particularly if it is a tenured position, as is the case here). Second, letting your department know could bias people at your institution against you, leading them to think, "So-and-so really doesn't want to be here." Although I'd like to think this wouldn't effect how people would treat you (including in tenure and promotion), you never know what the effects will be. Finally, I just don't think an employer has any right to know that you are looking for work elsewhere. It's your career, not theirs--and I think you probably only have an obligation to let them know once you have accepted an offer elsewhere.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? Also, I'm very curious to hear what people think of a TT Assistant Prof applying for a tenured Associate position. Is there any realistic chance of a non-tenured person receiving a tenured appointment? I would have thought not, given how protracted the entire tenure process is (i.e. going through a department committee, college committee, Dean, Provost, and Board of Trustees). I seem to recall hearing that it is possible, but if so, I'm curious how it works and just how good an untenured candidate would need to be for this to happen.