The Philosophers' Cocoon

Job-market reporting thread (2018-19 season)

Each year, readers ask for threads for discussing and reporting news on the job-market. I just posted this season's discussion thread here. Please visit that thread if you are interested in discussing/commiserating about this year's market. The current thread (below) is for reporting news on the market (i.e. reporting interviews, flyouts, offers, hires, and so on). Although it should go without saying, commenters are asked to remember the Cocoon's supportive mission while reporting. 

Note: I've placed permalinks to both threads on the right-hand side of blog.

Job-market discussion thread (2018-19 season)

Each year, readers have asked for place to discuss and commiserate about the job-market. While I recognize it's early in the job-season, jobs are already starting to go up at philjobs. Given how active last year's discussion was, I figured I might as well open up a new thread. This is that thread.

In the comments section below, please feel free to engage in general job-market discussion, such as discussing particular job ads, applications, questions about your dossier materials, how the job-market looks in general, and more personal issues (such as personal worries, etc.). The only caveat is that readers should bear in mind the Cocoon's supportive mission. This is not a place to engage in gossip, who does or does not "deserve" a job, etc. This is intended to be a supportive place, not a place to cast aspersions or tear people down.

Please feel free to share this thread, which will be listed as a permalink on the right side-bar of the blog for the remainder of the job season. Also, please note that there is a separate job-reporting thread to list updates on the job-market, such as which departments have proceeded to first-round interviews, on-campus interviews, filled a given position, and so on.

Job-market series links

Seeing as the academic job-market will be ramping up over the next couple of months, I thought it might be helpful (especially to new readers of the blog) to link to the Cocoon's various job market series. Here they are!:

• Job-Market Boot Camp
• Notes from Both Sides of the Market
• Notes from Search Committee Members
• Secrets of Search Committee Members
• Long Job-Market Journeys
• Alt-Ac Workshop
• Full list of posts with job-market tag

Good luck to everyone this year, and please do let me know if there is anything new job-market related you'd like to see on the blog!

Query on interdisciplinary job-marketeering

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, VAP of X at a SLAC writes:

My PhD is in philosophy, but my background in cognate field X is sufficiently strong that I'm now a VAP of X at a SLAC. I expect that at a handful of schools, separate tenure-track jobs may be advertised this year in both philosophy and in X. I'd like to apply to both jobs when that occurs, but I can foresee upsides and downsides of that strategy, and I'd like advice on how to maximize the upsides and minimize the downsides.

The main upsides I see are that I can teach interdisciplinary courses, conduct research with faculty members and students across disciplines, and foster student and faculty dialogue across disciplines. The main downside I see is being perceived as a unique kind of flight risk. Philosophers might think that I'll either leave for a job in X or, worse yet, use up a line in their department while only really contributing to X. Members of the department of X might have the reciprocal thought.

Am I overthinking this, overlooking other concerns, or both? And do you have any advice on how to navigate this situation? Thanks!

Good questions. I'm not very sure on what the best answers to them might be, but here are a few thoughts...

Reader query on choosing a PhD program

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

When choosing which PhD program to attend, is it more advantageous to choose a program based on the reputation of one's (presumed) advisor, or based on the reputation of the program itself? That is, when considering future employment prospects, is it more important that one's advisor/letter writer is a "star" scholar in their specialty, or is it more important that the overall rank of the program where one receives one's PhD is high? I am a recent MA who is interested in some PhD programs in philosophy that boast "star" scholars but not high overall rank.

I think this is a great query, one many prospective PhD students are likely to have--and I am curious to hear what readers think. My own initial reaction, to be frank, is to question a presupposition the questions seem to be based on: namely, that reputation (of a program or advisor) is the best way for prospective students to think about which PhD program to enter or what their "future employment prospects" are. Allow me to explain, and then give a more direct answer to AnonMA's query.

Reader query on solving a two-body problem

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you? thread, 'Anonymous associate professor' writes:

I'm not sure this has come up yet on the blog. If so just ignore. I'm an associate professor, and have some name recognition in my AOS. 

After several years on the market, my partner is still struggling in VAPs, postdocs, adjunct positions and so forth. My school didn't offer a partner hire and as I am in the UK they don't have such a policy. There was the idea of a new tenure-track line opening a while back, when he was a temporary lecturer there, but now our school is facing drastic cuts including in admin and library support, and things are much likely to get worse. 

For these and other reasons, and also because our 2-body problem remains unsolved, I am looking to move, and am hoping that we can solve it this time (I would be looking to move in any case because of the financial difficulties our school faces). Any tips on how we can solve the 2 body problem best much appreciated. 

In particular:
- How do we look for jobs? Should he look for tenure-track jobs and should we then try to negotiate a tenured hire for me (I've been associate prof for 3 years, and quite frankly, would rather not restart the tenure clock). Or should I look for tenured jobs and try to negotiate a tenure track for him?
- There are right now 2 positions that are open rank and that fit our respective AOS. Should we somehow mention that in our letter? Or just apply and see what happens? (Without 2 positions we cannot realistically move there - the salary, even if I manage to negotiate the top of the salary band, is not good enough for a one-income family to survive on. I've made inquiries with people who live in the area and they told me this).

Great questions, ones I suspect many other people face in various guises (as I myself have known more than a few people with two-body issues). Unfortunately, I have to confess that Ireally have no clue on what the answers are.

Anyone with experience in these matters willing to weigh in?

Reader query on finding CC and foreign jobs

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

So, you've had posts on this before, but I would love it if we did it again:

Where, other than philjobs, should I go to look for philosophy jobs? More specifically:

o If I want to job at a community college, where do I find them advertised?
o If I want a job in Italy, where are those posted?
o How about it I want a job in India?
o etc.

Anyone who can answer any one of these questions will be doing us all a huge favor. Answers of the form `here is a link to several job descriptions' are also waaaaay more appreciated than answers of the form `you have to look hard', since having examples of what I'm looking for often helps making the search easier.

This is a really great query. I expect a fair number of candidates don't even apply to a lot of good community college and foreign jobs simply out of ignorance of their existence. And indeed, as a former job-candidate, I know I didn't apply for many of these jobs because I didn't know where they are advertised.

In reply to Tom's query, Nick Z. wrote:

Most community college jobs are posted on HigherEdJobs and the Chronicle. Even this late in the summer there are two full-time teaching positions posted at the former, one in Buffalo, NY, and the other in Plano, TX. (Both positions are made even more attractive by their proximity to the border, just in case the political, social, and economic conditions of the US get even crazier.) Philjobs rarely posts community college positions.

Nick Z.'s suggestions are helpful, but still, I wonder whether it is true that "most" CC job are advertised in those venues, and it's still unclear to me where most foreign jobs are advertised. Although I don't know for sure, I have to believe there are far more philosophy jobs in Continental Europe, South America, Asia, and elsewhere that aren't advertised on any of the above websites (I've recently met philosophers who work in places like Colombia, Spain, and Sweden, yet I don't recall seeing jobs in those places advertised on the above websites).

Anyone have any insight on these matters? Tom suggested that I might throw up another side-bar on the Cocoon where people could list jobs not advertised on philjobs, and I think this might be a good thing to do. But it would also be helpful, I think, if people just knew where to look for such jobs themselves!

Queries: going on the market from a TT job

UPDATED: comments now open!

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, two readers wrote in with slightly different questions about heading on the job-market when one already has a TT job. First, Tenure a-comin' wrote:

I go up for tenure this year, and am going on the job market because I'm pretty scared about the future of my current state university. I've heard some people say that you should make clear in your cover letter when applying to any TT job that you're willing to start over from scratch - but I'm not. I want my current pubs counted, and I want to cut at least several years off the tenure clock. Given that I'm not willing to start from scratch, should I address this in cover letters at all? What about when/if people ask about it in interviews?

Similarly, Anonymous TT prof wrote:

I too will be going on the market from a TT job. It would be great to have a thread with advice about how to carefully do this. As Tenure a-comin' asked, should I provide some sort of explanation in my cover letter as to why I am applying out? When (if at all) should I tell my colleagues? Have others had to manage being on the job market and a search committee at the same time?

Notice there's a difference between these two queries. The first reader is going on the market while coming up for tenure, whereas Anonymous TT prof didn't mention that. Let's assume for the sake of discussion, then, that Anon TT prof isn't coming up for tenure, but just wants to move from one TT post to another. Does this make a difference as to what one should do? I think it very well could...

Reader query on unconventional teaching practices

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" post, gradstudent14 writes:

I'm planning to go on the job market next year, and lately I've been thinking about my teaching statement. I know that it's often said to be a good thing to stand out here, to make sure that you don't sound like every other candidate. And I suspect that I do, indeed, stand out here. Yet I also worry whether some aspects of my teaching philosophy and pedagogy are simply *too* radical, such that they'll scare search committees off. For example, I don't require attendance in my classes, nor do I require that students do the suggested readings (I don't give reading quizzes or assign homework on the readings). Nor do my classes have any required papers or other assignments. Rather, students may turn in a variety of different kinds of work (papers, posts on the class blog, presentations, podcasts, an optional exam, etc.), and the number of points they get for a given submission depends on factors like the kind of work it is, how long it is, and its quality. A student's final grade for the course is based on how many points she's accumulated by the course's end. There's essentially only one due date for students' work, and it's at the very end of the course. Before that due date, there's no limit to the number of submissions a student can turn in.

There are of course other aspects I could mention, but the above should give a basic picture of the structure that I prefer in my courses. When I talk to others about this way of structuring a course, often the initial reaction is to think that I must be crazy. People seem to be particularly struck by the absence of an attendance requirement and of a requirement that students do the readings. The message I get is "In a class like that, no one's going to show up, no one's going to read any of the readings, and no one's going to do any work." (As a side-note, such predictions have not been borne out by my experience thus far. While I'm still in the middle of teaching my first class, so far I've been quite impressed with the level of initiative students have shown...)...

Once I get a chance to explain my rationale for structuring a course in this way, I've found that people's disbelief often becomes a bit more tempered. But it's the initial reaction, the moment of being taken aback, that worries me when it comes to search committees. I worry that my preferred pedagogy will make me seem too "weird," too much of a risk, and that it'll be difficult to give as full or convincing a justification of it within the confines of a teaching statement as I could in a longer document or in person. And so, not that I suspect the question has a simple or easy answer, but I thought I'd nevertheless ask: When it comes to a teaching statement, how radical is too radical?

This is a really great query! I am very curious to hear other readers' reactions, but here are my own, speaking as someone who has served on three search committees.

Reader query on editing a special issue

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

Is it worth to edit a special issue for a journal? I was accepted (I contacted the journal myself) to co-edit a special issue (with a more senior colleague) for good specialised journal. The topic is something I have myself published and reviewed for.

I assume there is quite a lot of work to do, but what are the potential benefits? Publishing is must to get a job (I have done that and continue doing it) peer-reviewing and writing book reviews, on the other hand, seem to have almost zero benefits in the job market. So what about co-editing a journal issue? Is it worth doing it? (I am doing it anyway because I think it is itself valuable thing to do and something I am very much looking forward to). But perhaps others have some ideas or experience regarding this.

Good question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. My own sense is that there is no simple answer to this question, and that it probably depends on the totality of one's situation. Allow me to explain.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees, part 23: Top 5 job-market tips

The Cocoon has now had several series offering job-market advice: a Job-Market Bootcamp, Notes from Both Sides of the Job-Market, and most recently the present series. I hope you have found these series helpful, and hope to continue to dedicate new series to the topic in the future. That being said, these series have offered a lot of advice, and I suppose it can be a bit overwhelming. Consequently, to simplify a bit, I thought it might be good to have a post discussing top-5 list(s) of job-market advice. I'll begin by offering (and explaining) my own top-5 list. Then I'll invite discussion of the list and also invite those of you who have experience on the market--either as job-candidates or search-committee members--to share your own lists. Here goes!

Although my list may or may not be correct, I found it surprisingly easy to put together. In my experience--as a many-year job-candidate, three-time search committee member, and given some empirical evidence I'll share below--the following tips are without a doubt my top 5:

Tip 1: if you want an R1 job, you had better come from a highly-ranked Leiter program. If you are not from a highly-ranked school, it can be incredibly difficult to publish your way into these jobs.

This tip isn't just my opinion. First, there is empirical evidence for it. In an article forthcoming in Ergo, our own Helen De Cruz found that, "There is a structural lack of upward social mobility in hiring practices: someone from a prestigious school may end up in a lower-ranked institution, but the reverse is unusual." (p. 4) Here is De Cruz's 'money chart':

The Secret Lives of Search Committees, Part 22: apply again!

I had a bit of a strange experience as a search committee member I'd like to share. As I will explain, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it--but the most plausible explanation seems to me to be a potentially dangerous assumption by job-candidates.

In brief, the experience was this. I served on a search committee for a TT job on back-to-back years, both of which were in the same AOS. We hired someone the first year, who then left to return to their previous job (for good personal/professional reasons). We then hired a different person the next year who is still with us and doing great. Here, though, was the strange thing. There weren't many jobs in the AOS in either year (I went back and counted a paltry 4 jobs in the AOS the first year, and 6 in the second year). As such, it seems highly probable that most of the people who applied for our position the first year went on the market again the second year. That's many dozens of people. The surprising thing, though, was that almost none of the people who applied the first time around seemed to apply again the second year. It was really striking. I had expected to see some familiar names pop up again (and was hoping some of them would), and yet...there were so very few repeat applicants.

Reader suggestion: make sure your contact info is readily available

An anonymous reader wrote in yesterday:

I look up a lot of younger philosophers on the internet...and SO OFTEN it is really hard to find their contact information (email, etc.). I'm sure that cannot help their job searches, etc. so I wonder if it would do a tiny bit of good to post a little something on the Cacoon blog along the lines of "Make your contact information really obvious.. since people might want to contact you about a job, collaborations, invitations, etc.!"

Funny, I have had exactly the same problem! I go to look up an early-career philosopher, and their contact info seems nearly impossible to find. I agree with your reader: this generally isn't good, especially if you are on the job market. People on search committees may be interested in finding out more about you, and may be disappointed if they cannot find much. Indeed, I would even go so far as to suggest it could make a difference in whether you are interviewed. If a search committee member is "on the fence" (i.e. unsure) about you, additional information--such as info on your website--could well make a difference.

In short: unless you have some special reason to hide your identity or info online (which in some cases may exist), make sure you have a professional website with your info readily available. Don't make people go hunting through your department's webpage for info (where there is usually very little about you). A good website can very much make a positive impression--and in any case it can be very important to make it easy for people to get into contact with you! 

Ask a search-committee member: convincing colleagues to hire an excellent teacher

In my post soliciting questions for search committee members, a search committee member 'G' asks:

Let's say that you were a TT junior faculty member of a department without a graduate program. And let's say that you cared about teaching and you were just certain that if only your department would hire some rock star teachers and assign them to intro-level courses, then the number of majors would skyrocket and those additional students would benefit from increased exposure to philosophy. But let's say, also, that several senior members of your department weren't so concerned about exposing more students to philosophy, or diversifying the field, or increasing the number of majors, or teaching fantastic courses. Those members of the department are impressive scholars, especially for members of a department without any graduate students, but they are basically of the attitude that adequate teaching is all one needs. Or perhaps, deep down, they are skeptical that there even is such a thing as great teaching that can break through to students who otherwise would not major in philosophy. Here is the question: how would you approach your role on a search committee so as to maximize the chances that your department hired a truly fantastic teacher who would just rake in the majors?

The never-ending job cycle

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

I think the practice of the never ending job cycle needs to be fixed. It is utterly absurd to me that application deadlines for visiting positions are as late June 29th. That is, this is when they begin reviewing applications. I understand these positions may open suddenly and is beyond the control of the search committee, department, or university.

But . . . .

How is anyone applying for this kind of position supposed to make any decisions about their life?
Like signing a new lease? Having jobs ads continue to roll in this late makes it so that the cycle never really ends! As a consequence of the cycle never ending, neither does the anxiety.

Is there any remedy to this situation?

I'm not sure I entirely get this reader's worry about temporary positions. When I was on the market, I recall me and my friends who were desperate for a job being happy when a visiting position opened up late in the game. It meant there was still hope--and indeed, many people I know (including me) got visiting offers very late in the game, and were more than happy to! That being said, I very much do empathize with the reader's broader concerns about the never-ending job cycle.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 21: not acting like a grad student

One thing I remember hearing repeatedly when first going on the academic job market is to "not act like a grad student." Having served on three search committees now, this strikes me as important advice. I've not only heard people on search committees say things like, "X comes across as really green. Y comes across much more as mature professional", the implication being that this is a strike against candidate X and a mark in favor of Y. I've also had my own doubts about candidates on such grounds. As I have mentioned before, the transition from grad student to full-time faculty member is not an easy one. I struggled to make the transition myself, and not everyone makes it effectively (culminating in tenure-denials). Because committees (at least those I've known) want to hire people who are likely to succeed and get tenure, it can be very important to come across as a professional rather than as someone fresh out of grad school. But what is it to "act like a grad student", and how can it be avoided? Allow me to share some thoughts and then open things up for discussion.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 20: what happens after interviews

One thing I've often heard job-candidates wonder about--both in comments sections here and elsewhere--is what they should think if they have interviewed (either by Skype or on-campus) but haven't heard anything. The typical question is something like this: "Am I out of the running if I haven't heard anything after a few weeks?" In today's post, I'll try to shed some light on this issue. As readers will see, it's actually a pretty difficult question to answer, given contextual factors. On the flip side, my remarks may give some solace to job-marketeers, as unexpected things can and do happen.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 19: flyouts

In this series, I've tried to convey the "inside story" on various parts of the academic job-market, at least as I've experienced it having served on three search committees. In today's post I am going to focus on flyouts/campus visits. What are search committees looking for? What comes of well? What comes off poorly? And how do campus visits affect final hiring decisions? The answers I will share to some of these questions are admittedly anecdotal, once again stemming from my particular background hiring at a "teaching school" as well as my experiences as a job-candidate. Consequently, while I hope readers find them helpful, I will as always be curious to hear from others--particularly people who have hired at different types of institutions--how accurate or generalizable my impressions are.

With these caveats in mind, here are come impressions I've come to have about flyouts:

The candidate with the best flyout tends to get the job offer: In all three searches I've served on, we extended offers to the candidate that the department judged had the best flyout. The candidates' performances in their flyouts, by all appearances, seem to have been the deciding factor in who we hired. I think--or at least hope--that this will come as some consolation to candidates. While many things about the market may be unfair and/or arbitrary, my general sense (again, based on my experience) is that these features may play a more minimal role when the final hiring decision is made. Again, in every search I've been on, we hired the person who we judged performed best in the flyout--no more, no less. Of course, this is not to say this is how things always go. In one case, when I was a candidate, I was informed privately by a search committee member after the search was over that although I was judged to have performed the best in the flyout, political considerations (the nature of which I have no interest in disclosing) ended up leading the other finalist to be hired. Consequently, while I have some reason to believe flyout performance can be outweighed by other matters, my general sense is that performance tends to matter the most.

Knowing what you now know, would you go to graduate school?

At a conference dinner recently, a non-academic spouse to one of the keynote speakers asked us the following question: if you had to do it all over again, would you go to graduate school? I subsequently posted the question on FaceBook where it generated an interesting range of responses among fellow academic philosophers (and see also this excellent blogpost with musings on the topic by Marcus Arvan). Recently, I did an interview for Clifford Sosis' What's it like to be a philosopher? (currently only for Patreon supporters, but the link will become freely available next week) - I had a choice, as I got an offer to teach at a secondary school (art) at the same time when my graduate funding came through. 

Now obviously a question like "Would you do it all over again?" is prone to commitment bias, and is more likely to be answered in the affirmative on a semi-public forum like Facebook. Nevertheless, the range of responses was intriguing. 

Many of my respondents expressed a sense of meaningfulness, and joy in their work, while acknowledging conditions aren't as good as they used to be and likely to deteriorate. This was indeed the dominant theme--a love for research in particular, also for teaching, not so much for grading and administration. 

Lots I can gripe about with the deteriorating labor conditions and assessment horror but I’m still getting paid to read lots of new books and discuss them with great people. It’s a shock to realize how few people will read anything you publish and when non-drinking reveals that your introverted self has never really enjoyed conferences after all. But I’m still able to try to realize truth, goodness, and beauty with other people on their path I think better than I would (given my set of gifts and difficulties) in any other career. So I still feel very lucky.

Reader query on jobs at English-speaking institutions in non-English speaking countries

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

Can we have a specific thread about the international job market in philosophy in predominantly non-English speaking countries, but for faculty positions at predominantly English-speaking universities? Is PhilJobs the best place to learn about job opportunities abroad for US PhD candidates? Are there any guides or resources that give information about international searches that can't already be extrapolated from guides or resources about national searches? What are some impressions or misimpressions that people have about international searches and working abroad, but in a place where the culture and language are unfamiliar to them?

This is a great query. I actually would have loved to get a faculty job in a non-English speaking country, but didn't have much of a clue how to track them down and be competitive for them. While philjobs does advertise such jobs (I've seen jobs advertised in South America, Asia, etc.), it doesn't list very many of them, and I have to imagine there are far more jobs out there that for one reason or another are not advertised there.

Does anyone have any insight on these things? What's the best place to look for job-ads in non-English speaking countries? And what should job-candidates know about these jobs - about being competitive for them, what they are actually like (if one gets the job), and so on? If you work at such a place and choose to chime in, please feel free to share which country you work in, how you found the job, what the job is like, etc. It would be great to find out! 

Reader query on lateral moves

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

It might be a good idea to have a post about moving jobs. Suppose one is a junior professor and wants to move jobs (the situation I know of is someone who wants to move for a spouse.) Does it make sense to do this before tenure or after? And what difference does it make in each of the following situations:

1. at a teaching school trying to move to another teaching school.
2. at a research school trying to move to another research school.
3.at a teaching school trying to move to a research school.
4..at a research school trying to move to a teaching school.

The situation I know of is actually 4. This person is not sure they can move "up", and thinks chances of getting the right location at a teaching school is better.

I think this is a great query, as I have the pretty clear sense that a lot of people are looking to move 'laterally' from one tenure-stream job to another. In fact, I've also encountered a surprising number of cases of people willing to move down in rank (e.g. from tenured Associate to tenure-track Assistant) for various reasons (e.g. better location, moving from a teaching program to an R1, etc.). My sense here comes from several sources, including just talking to people (where I've heard a lot of people say they have 'feelers' out on the market pretty much every year to see if they can move).

So, then, what are the answers to Amanda's questions? 

On not putting your life on hold on the job market

Suppose you are--perhaps you are--someone in your thirties or beyond, and on a temporary contract. Examples include a postdoc, a Visiting Assistant Professor position, a fixed-term lectureship, an adjunct position. 

In my experience, and in the experience of many people I know, it becomes progressively more psychologically difficult to be on temporary contracts as one gets older, especially if one hits thirty, or thirty-five. Inevitably, you start comparing yourself to your peers, or people younger than you, who get hired while still finishing up the dissertation. In Europe it's relatively standard to have multiple postdoc positions. In the US it seems to becoming more common too. 

This uncertainty is exacerbated by our tendency to put our lives on hold, promising ourselves we will do all the things once we get that elusive tenure track or permanent job. Putting one's life on hold means big plans like buying a house, marriage, having children. But it can also mean things like making more time for one's hobbies, or finally learning to play the piano or study Chinese.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 16: job-talks at teaching schools

A reader wrote in yesterday:

I’m trying to mentor a former student who has an upcoming campus visit at a SLAC. This student has been asked to give a job talk, the parameters of which seem a little unusual. The search committee has said that it wants to hear about the candidate’s research interests and projects in this talk -- but that they also want the talk to reveal how the candidate presents scholarly material to a lay audience, for the purpose of assessing teaching. In effect, it seems that the committee wants one talk to serve both as a research presentation and also as a teaching demonstration. The candidate has one hour in total (including q&a). At my university, we always have candidates do a research talk and a teaching demonstration, and while there are of course important connections between them, they are fundamentally different requirements that are judged by very different criteria.

Have you ever had a thread on this particular kind of requirement? If not, would you be interested in starting one? I’d be very interested to hear thoughts and advice from others on how to prepare for, and succeed in, such a talk.

This is a great query. As I explained to the reader via email, this sort of thing is not at all unusual at SLACs. Indeed, my department has done something very similar for our recent TT hires, telling candidates to pitch their job-talk to undergrads. Allow me to explain the reasons for this. I'll then share some quick tips and open things up for discussion.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 15: recommendation letters

As a candidate, so many things about the academic job-market seemed hopelessly opaque to me. What were search committees looking for? How did they read and evaluate dossiers? How did they decide who to interview, invite to campus, or hire? I've tried to shed some light on these things so far in this series, at least from my particular standpoint (having served on several search committees and having spoken to people at other institutions who have as well). I hope you are all finding the series helpful.

In any case, one of the things that seemed the most opaque to me as a job-candidate was the role that letters of recommendation play in the process. How are letters of recommendation read? What are search committee members looking for in them? What looks good? What doesn't? As I explain below, my own experience--which once again may be idiosyncratic--is that there is no simple answer to any of these questions. It's no wonder the role that letters play seems so opaque from the candidate's side of the process: it seems hardly less opaque to me on the hiring side (though I do think there may be a few areas of consistency that candidates may find helpful). Allow me to explain.

Job-market mentoring program update - part 2: mentee feedback

Last week, I shared mentor feedback from this past year's iteration of the Cocoon's job-market mentoring program. In today's post, I am going to share feedback from this year's mentees. Helen and I hope that sharing this feedback will encourage more people to sign up for this year's program, which will open for signups on June 1st. Our hope, again, is that this program will help make the market a tiny bit more equitable, by helping more candidates--particularly those with special challenges--go on the market with the kind of mentoring they need to be competitive.

Here, then, is the feedback we have received thus far from this past year's mentees:

Question 1: Types of mentoring received?

"specific and detailed feedback on job application materials. In general, plenty of useful advice on aspects of the job market process that one wouldn’t have gotten from any other source." - Anonymous mentee

"Provided sample dossier materials; Help constructing CVs, Cover Letters, Teaching Statement, Research Statement, and a Teaching Portfolio; and interview training, including sample questions, mock interviews, and detailed feedback." - Anonymous mentee

"Dossier Materials" - Anonymous mentee

"[Redacted] read some materials, and also gave advice on what to apply for." - Anonymous mentee

"General discussion, reviewing application materials." - Anonymous mentee

"Dossier Materials." - Anonymous mentee

"dossier material." - Anonymous mentee

"general advice." - Anonymous mentee

"dossier materials." - Anonymous mentee

"reviewed many of my application materials, discussed tailoring strategies with me, and provided a much-needed external perspective on my market process." - Cat St. Croix

"Dossier materials (including CV, cover letter, research statement, etc.) Interviewing tips." - Anonymous mentee

"Dossier Materials." - Anonymous mentee

"Reviewing materials, strategizing which jobs to seek, discussion of interview prep. My own preference was not seek much in the way of moral/ emotional support, but to keep the relationship focused on the task of finding a job." - Anonymous mentee

"Reviewing dossier materials, mock interview, general job market advice." - Anonymous mentee

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 14: CVs

UPDATED 5/11 - 5:40pm

In this series' post on cover letters, there was some discussion of whether to include a 'Works in Progress' section on one's CV in, which is apparently something people are routinely advised to do. In rough outline, my experience--which another search committee member echoed--is that Work in Progress sections are unlikely to make any difference. When it comes to research, people on the hiring side of things are more interested in demonstrated ability to actually publish. Since merely having work in preparation or even work under review doesn't demonstrate that, as Amanda notes my sense is WIP sections are probably a 'wash': include one, or don't - it probably won't make a difference.

In any case, that discussion got me thinking about CVs more generally. Given that this series is intended to give candidates an inside look of how search committees actually think and do things, what 'secrets of search committees' are there regarding CVs? My sense is that there are some unsurprising secrets, as well as some more surprising ones - though please bear in mind that the following remarks are based on my experiences at a teaching-focused institution (as well as discussion with people who have hired at other similar institutions):

Get your AOS & AOC right: Every search committee member I've talked to looks at CVs first, before anything else. Why? Because they are the easiest way to check the first thing that matters in any application: whether the candidate is qualified for the job being advertised. The easiest way to check this is to pull out the candidate's CV and check their AOS/AOC lines. If the candidate's AOS/AOC fit the job ad, then the rest of their CV will be looked at. If not? In that case, my experience is their application goes straight to the 'trash.' Maybe this isn't the case for all jobs (research jobs?) - but, at places like mine, when we advertise a given AOS/AOC, those are the areas we have to hire in. If you don't have the right ones, my sense is that applying is simply a waste of time. Which brings me to two other important issues:

    1. Don't 'bend'/exaggerate your AOS/AOC: if you don't really have any background in the area advertised, don't include it on your CV just to make you 'look' like you're qualified. It will become very clear from the rest of your CV whether you are or not - so don't bother trying to be deceptive. At best, it will accomplish nothing - at worst, it can look dishonest.

    2. Don't list four AOS and eight AOCs: this one is surprisingly common, and also looks bad. Almost no early-career philosopher legitimately has more than one or at most two AOS. If you did your dissertation in X, then that's a legit AOS. If you did your comprehensive exams in areas X and Y, and have written some papers in both areas, then maybe list both as AOS. But do not list more than that. You don't have four legit AOS. Making it look on your CV like you do reeks of dishonesty or self-deception. The same goes for AOCs. You don't have an AOC in area Z simply because you took a grad seminar in it. You need to have some more substantial experience than that. As a rough rule of thumb, you should only list an area as an AOC if you have a pretty substantial background in the area--something like multiple grad courses and real teaching/TA experience in the area. Two or three AOCs is legit, maybe 4 (EDITED). Anything more is seriously pushing it. Indeed, far from helping you, listing too many AOS/AOCs are likely to hurt you, making you look out of touch with professional norms.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 13: teaching dossiers

I have talked about teaching statements and teaching portfolios several times in two previous series. I still stand by the things I wrote there, particularly about how important it is for teaching statements to use concrete examples of teaching practices rather than broad generalizations and emotive language. However, my recent experiences on search committees and discussion with other people who have served on search committees elsewhere have driven home a few other important things I think candidates should know:

Too many teaching portfolios are indistinguishable: As I mentioned here and here, one of the most important things candidates need to do is "stand out" from the crowd. Your dossier is one of dozens or even hundreds of others the search committee is looking at. Particularly if you are applying for a job at a teaching school, the committee is looking for something that distinguishes you as a teacher - something that makes you "jump off the page" as someone particularly worth interviewing. Alas, in my experience, roughly 8 in 10 teaching portfolios are more or less indistinguishable from one another, saying similar things (such as stating that they diagram arguments, have students do group work, engage in Socratic dialogue, etc.), having similar teaching evaluations (basically, fairly happy students), similar looking syllabi, and so on. Unfortunately, it's a simple fact: if you're doing what everyone else is doing, you're going to have a hard time standing out. So, either you need to develop a more original pedagogy, or you have to show in some clear way how you are particularly good at what you do. In the teaching statement, concrete examples of in-class discussions, assignments, etc. are helpful, as in my experience hardly anyone actually does things the same way in the classroom (even those who do Socratic dialogue typically do so in distinct ways). On a similar note, I think it's important to not only include syllabi in the teaching portfolio, but also examples of term-paper assignments, rubrics, etc.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 11: interviews

UPDATED 4/30 - 7:15pm

Thus far in this series I've relayed some of my experience on how search-committees (at least at teaching schools like mine) evaluate candidates from afar: in terms of fit, originality, time on the market, career-stage, project choices, teaching experience, and online presence. As the comments section in my posts on horse-trading and online presence indicate, not everyone on the hiring-side of things entirely agrees with some of my experiences--but, on the whole, there hasn't been too much disagreement on other issues. 

In today's post I'd like to move to a different part of the hiring process: interviews. What comes off well in a job interview? What comes off poorly? I'll just share a few things that have stood out to me, and then open things up to comments. Given that my experience is hiring at a certain type of institution (a teaching institution that also values research), I would very much be curious to hear from people who have hired both at institutions similar to mine, but also ones very different than mine (R1's, CC's, etc.). In any case, here are my thoughts.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 10: online presence

I had two separate conversations about online behavior recently with people who have served on search committees. The first person asked me whether it is ethical for people on search committees to google job-candidates to see if their online behavior (e.g. on facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) raises any "red flags." Then, just the other day, someone else expressed to me that people's online behavior can very much be expected to be held against them in hiring, especially if their online behavior is egregious or consistently off-putting. We can of course discuss the ethical issues here, if you like (and I suspect some of you will). Still, setting aside the ethical issues, there are at least two things I think are worth saying here.

The first is that, regardless of the ethics, it seems to me likely at least some search committee members are going to care about candidates' online behavior and be aware of that behavior (via facebook, Twitter, reading blogs, etc.). In other words, like it or not, I think this is an issue candidates need to be aware of and worry about. Even if one thinks it is wrong for search committees to take this kind of stuff into account, I just don't see any feasible way of policing it. Sure, policies could in principle prohibit members of a search committee from bringing up such issues in formal discussion--but I do not see any way to prevent them from doing so in private (i.e. in their own heads). I also suspect it is unlikely for there to be any moral consensus on the ethical issues here, as in my experience there is a great deal of disagreement on these matters. 

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 9: horse-trading

I had a conversation recently with a friend who served on their first search committee. One of the things they said they found most surprising about the experience--and which they never would have really thought much about as a job-candidate--is the role that 'horse-trading' can play.

This person said that as a candidate, one sort of imagines that search committees sit down, agreeing who the best candidates are, developing a coherent rank-order of candidates, and then interviewing them. However, the reality is quite different. Typically, what happens is that each person on the committee develops their own ranking of candidates. Then the committee gets together to share and discuss their rankings, and what often occurs is something like this:

Candidates A and B are near the top of everyone's list.

Candidates C and D are at the top of some people's list, but far down other people's.

Candidate E is at the top of one person's list (who feels very strongly about them), but far down everyone else's list.

The same search committee member is ambivalent about C, but strongly opposed to D.

This actually simplifies a great deal. Things can be much more complicated than this. Indeed, in some cases there may be no candidates at the top of everyone's list. But let's stay with this simple example. What will tend to happen in this sort of case?

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 8: teaching experience

In my post, "Two Enlightening Job-Market Conversations", I paraphrased the following remark from a friend of mine who has been on a hiring committee at a small teaching-focused institution:

Many candidates only or primarily have experience as TA's or maybe one or two solo-taught courses, which is totally insufficient for getting a job at an institution like mine.

I think this is a really important and under-recognized point--one that a lot of grad students, grad programs, and job-candidates may not adequately appreciate. My sense is that grad programs (and their students) have a tendency not to prioritize breadth of teaching experience. This sense is reflected in the following conversation, which occurred in the comments section of the above post.

Reader submission: 'Academic Frustrations: Publications & Jobs'

The following is a post submitted by Rögnvaldur ('Valdi') Ingthorsson (Lund University):

Academic Frustrations: Publications and Jobs

—Valdi Ingthorsson

I recently came across an old post by Jason Stanley in The Philosopher’s Cocoon about the frustration of getting papers through the peer-review process (Stanley on Peer-Review). The post put its finger on a couple of things that have frustrated me for a while. First, why is it so difficult to get philosophically interesting papers published in high-ranking journals? To my mind, these journals seem to be mostly filled with papers that don’t do much more than recirculate received views, albeit in a competent way. Second, why does quantity and ranking still rule over quality in the hiring process? I have come to think the two are closely related. As you can figure, I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who struggles to get published and to get a job. I very much expect that journal editors and tenured faculty in hiring committees will not recognise themselves in the description. But I think it is healthy for them to find out how the whole thing looks from the other side (even if it is all biased and exaggerated, a possibility I cannot rule  out).

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 7: AOS and project choices

In the comments section of my post in this series on originality, Pendaran Roberts wrote:

If you're going to be original, based on my experience, it needs to be within a well-worn and, preferably, popular topic...Anyway, originality is certainly not something to shoot for simpliciter. I think what you want is a 'cool' project, immediately understandable and appealing to non-philosophers, in an acceptable and popular area. I'm not sure 'originality' really captures this idea correctly. I'd use words like 'cool,' 'popular,' 'trendy,' 'consistent with the zeitgeist...'

Pendaran's point here actually gestures toward several different issues that, in my experience, grad programs and their students may not pay enough attention to: the role that one's choices (of AOS, dissertation topic, etc.) can play in one's competitiveness (or lack thereof) on the market. 

Two enlightening job-market conversations

I had a really enlightening conversation with a friend yesterday that had some interesting parallels to a conversation I had with another friend several weeks ago. Both friends are philosophers, both work at different universities, both work at 'teaching schools' (i.e. small liberal-arts colleges), and both have served on search committees.

One interesting parallel between my two friends concerns their graduate programs. One of them received their PhD from an Leiter 'unranked' school, the other from a fairly well-ranked (but not 'Leiterific') school. The friend from the unranked school noted that their unranked program has a far higher TT job-placement rate than many Leiter-ranked schools (as reported in Jennings et al's 2015 placement report). This friend speculated that this is because their grad program doesn't try to compete for research jobs. Their PhD program didn't obsess over things like journal rankings (they said this is something that wasn't even talked about). Instead, while their program cares about research, they focus primarily on preparing their graduates for teaching jobs--getting their grad students a lot of solo-teaching opportunities, developing their pegagogy, and so on. Further, this friend remarked to me that this really stood out to them as a search committee member. The person noted that many applicants present as a 'terrible fit' for a job a teaching school like theirs (I'll return to some reasons why below). 

Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 6: career stage

In the comments section of my introductory post to this series, Humanati wrote:

I have a topic that I'd like to see covered: to what extent do search committees really adjust accomplishments and (e.g. teaching) experience to career stage? I ask because of my own experiences of the market this year. Here’s my situation: a few publications (some in top 10, others in top 20 journals), Leiter-ranked R1, great teaching evaluations and a decent (though not overwhelming) amount of teaching experience, went on the market the same time I began a post doc. Not unhappy with the outcome; I did well. But what I found most interesting was the feedback I received (through various channels) from places where I *wasn’t* first choice. I was told time and time again that an important deciding factor was comparative seniority/experience. I often lost out to people who’d been visiting assistant professors or postdocs or assistant professors for 1-3 years already—people who, largely owing to a 1-3 year head start, had slightly more or slightly more impressive publications than me, or slightly more teaching experience than me. This made me suspect that these universities were just favouring a sure thing (someone who has *already* demonstrated that they can get x number of publications, teach y amount of courses a semester) over a slight risk (someone who has demonstrated potential, but less hands-on experience). But then, these prospective employers consistently emphasised how ‘incredibly impressive’ my CV, etc. was *for my career stage*. A related point that a friend has often made to me concerns time spent completing a PhD. I understand that institutional norms play some role in this. But one point that this friend put to me (one with which I’m inclined to agree) is that it can sometimes seem slightly unfair not to take it into account. Suppose Dr. X has one publication and took 9 years to do her PhD, and that Dr. Y has two publications of comparable quality and took 6 years to do her PhD. If all else is equal, I’m inclined to think that Dr. Y is the more impressive candidate! Do search committees ever take this into account—how long a candidate took to do his or her PhD and what he or she accomplished in that time span?

This is a really good query. I've encountered something like it on many job-market discussion boards: if candidate Y has accomplished more than X in shorter amount of time, isn't Y the more impressive candidate, all things being equal?  More generally, do search committee members take into account 'career stage'? If so, how?

I'm very curious to hear from other people who have served on search committees. However, my own sense is that this is probably yet another place where research and teaching jobs differ greatly. Allow me to explain.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 5: jobs abroad

In the comments section of my post in this series on originality, Pendaran Roberts writes:

This is a great blog with a lot of interesting insights. However, I seriously wonder how much the anecdotal data presented in this search committee series is worth. For example, the stuff about originality is quite questionable in my experience. In the UK at least, it looks like big funding bodies stray away from originality. I had a pretty original research program. However, the funding bodies preferred to fund stuff on Kant, for example.

I suspect the explanation is that who to fund is decided by a committee largely comprised of non-philosophers, so the stuff that gets funded has to seem on the surface to be acceptable and worthwhile...

If you're going to be original, based on my experience, it needs to be within a well-worn and, preferably, popular topic...Anyway, originality is certainly not something to shoot for simpliciter. I think what you want is a 'cool' project, immediately understandable and appealing to non-philosophers, in an acceptable and popular area. I'm not sure 'originality' really captures this idea correctly. I'd use words like 'cool,' 'popular,' 'trendy,' 'consistent with the zeitgeist...'

Now it's perfectly possible that search committees for TT jobs in America or the equivalent here in the UK function quite differently...but one of the best ways to secure yourself a permanent job in the UK is to get a 'fancy' grant or grants. So, I think PhDs in the UK (and Europe) should be thinking about how to get these grants...I know grants are less of a thing in the US, so maybe originality matters more in America than it does in the UK.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 4: Staleness

In the comments section of my second post in this series (on "fit"), Daniel Brunson wrote:

Solid advice, but I wonder if you could consider the balance of "do all the things!" with the supposed (?) "stale PhD" phenomenon in a future post.

An excellent query - one I was very concerned with on the job-market myself. Does one's PhDs 'go stale' the longer one is on the market? That is, is more time on the market a disadvantage? And if so, can anything be done to ameliorate it? 

Moving for jobs

In the comments section of Tom Cochrane's post in our long job-market journeys series, Amanda writes:

Marcus can we have a thread on moving for a job? For some people who love adventure, I suppose the choice is easy. But for most people, they are faced with a real life-altering, and not at all easy, choice regarding whether to permanently move somewhere very far from friends and family or leave the profession. In my experience, there is an expectation that you must be willing to move anywhere or else you are simply not dedicated enough to be a philosopher. But is this rational? In a discipline that prides itself in critical thinking it is amazing we don't talk about the tradeoffs of being an academic. One big one is that moving away from family means it might be impossible to eventually care for aging parents. I would love to hear how some people went through this decision making process, and perhaps some thoughts on whether professional expectations are reasonable or healthy. 

An excellent query - one I haven't seen much discussed. I too would love to hear from people who've had to make these kinds decisions, both on (1) how they made their decision, and (2) their experience once the decision was made (how their lives changed, whether they are happy with the decision, etc.).

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 3: Originality

In the comments section of my previous post in this series (on 'fit'), Shen-yi Liao wrote:

Out of 100 job applications, I think there are 80 people who would be perfectly good for the job. And choosing from that often just comes down to highly circumstantial, if not arbitrary, factors that are really hard to predict from the outside, even from the ad. 

Then, however, Al wrote: 

I’ve been on 1 US search committee (R2 with MA) and involved in two U.K. searches (R1)...In both the US and the U.K. my experience has it that an interesting project made a big difference. I don’t think it’s easy to say what this comes to since people on a committee will have different preferences, but if your search is in, say, mind you start to get pretty tired seeing the same thing over and over and then someone with a decent pub or two and some nice teaching experience breaks out because they have a different take on an issue or a different application of something familiar. I know that’s pretty vague but hopefully you get the idea.

Together, Shen-yi's and Al's points underscore a general issue about the job-market that seems rarely discussed: the importance and nature of originality. Allow me to explain.

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 2: Job Fit

When I was a candidate, I was a bit baffled by the interviews I got (and didn't get). Judging by the job-ads, sometimes I got interviews for jobs I seemed a good fit for; other times I got interviews for jobs that seemed like a bad fit; and still other times I didn't get interviews for jobs that I seemed like a perfect fit for...even though I got interviews at "better" schools for which I seemed like a worse fit. It made no sense to me. What in the world were search committees looking for? I expect many candidates can empathize.

So, let me try to address (and then open for discussion) the three questions I raised in the introductory post to this series:

1. What is fit?
2. Why does it matter to search committees?
3. What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?

Readers should bear in mind that my answers to these questions are based upon my particular experience, and I encourage others with different experience to share their thoughts in the comments section!. 

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 1: Introduction

I recently had a conversation with someone who served on a search committee for the first time, who expressed surprise at just how different the process was than they might have expected as a job-candidate. Being on the other side of the process was very illuminating, they said, and it might help candidates to learn more about it. Because I was on the market as a candidate for seven years and have now served on three search committees (two for tenure-track hires, one for a non-TT hire), I'm very well acquainted with what it is like to be a job-candidate and a search committee member (at least at a teaching school). Consequently, I thought it might be helpful to share a bit about what the process is like. While I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss any particulars about actual hires (viz. how actual hiring decisions were made), there are general things about the search and hiring process that seem to me entirely appropriate to make candidates aware of.

In my next post, I will talk about the oft-mentioned notion of "fit" (i.e. what it is for a candidate to fit a particular job). My general sense, having perused many online discussions of the job-market, is that candidates often think of competitiveness for jobs in general terms: publications, teaching evaluations, and so on. But, as is often noted, "fit" appears to play a large role in search committee deliberations--larger, it seems, than many people may be aware of. So then:

1. What is fit?
2. Why does it matter to search committees?
3. What can candidates do to improve their likelihood of fitting jobs?

As I will explain in my next post, my experience is that the answers to all three questions are complex--far more complex than people who have never been involved in a hire may be aware of. So, I hope current and future jobs-candidates find the next post--and this new series--helpful.

Reader query: being competitive for teaching jobs coming from a prestigious program

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

I’m currently finishing up at a fairly prestigious graduate program. As expected, all of my advisors are interested in getting me a research job. They tend to talk up opportunities at R1s and talk about the “struggles” of teaching at SLACs and state schools with hefty teaching loads.

Here’s the problem: I desperately don’t want a research job. The only part of philosophy I like is teaching it. I’m happy to do research to make sure that the content I teach is accurate and informative, but I have no interest in churning out papers to be cited four or five times. I do not want to be a leading scholar of anything. I want to teach my students how to think for themselves and how to think well.

How does someone from a research-obsessed PhD program position themselves for jobs with a strong teaching focus? (I mean where the requirements for tenure are at least 50/50 teaching and research.)

My program has given me several opportunities to teach and I have received accolades and good evaluations for my teaching, but I’ve had no luck at all convincing schools that I’m dedicated first and foremost to my students.

Amanda replied:

Peter first I would try applying to prestigious slacs. They like fancy degrees and care a lot about teaching. But also getting involved in any programs that focus on teaching. There are camps and stuff like that you can do. Do adjunct work, even if it is just one class and you don't "need" to do it. It would help show you as a serious teacher. Put teaching first on your CV (before publications) and emphasis in your cover letter what you said above: that despite the pressure to be a researcher you prefer a teaching job. Lastly, I would avoid too many and too prestigious publications. With your degree it could be easy to "over-qualify" yourself for many teaching jobs.

As for your professors. I would not mention your goals/plans unless you really really trust them, as they will try to talk you out of it. Just apply for teaching jobs and when you accept one that will be that. Given this market, it is very hard to criticize anyone for accepting a TT position of any sort. Lastly, if you are sure you would be much happier at a teaching job, I would not apply to research jobs. If you are offered the position there will be all the pressure in the world to take it. And just like that you could end up in a life-time position that makes you unhappy.

Amanda's suggestions sound basically right to me. Someone coming out of a top-program will be probably be at a disadvantage for non-elite teaching jobs--and too many high-ranking publications may only accentuate that disadvantage (due to potential assumptions by search committee members that they must be looking for a more elite job). So I agree someone like Peter should probably have their eye on more highly-ranked SLAC jobs. However, I think if someone like Peter developed themselves as a candidate and pitched themselves in the right way, they could in principle make themselves competitive for teaching jobs more generally. How?

The unexpected upsides of teaching jobs?

Sam Duncan (Tidewater CC) recently wrote a guest-post for us on how people in our profession often seem to perceive teaching jobs in a negative light. Because we do our PhDs at research universities, we are socialized to want research jobs--for prestige, ample time and resources for research, low teaching loads, and so on. Indeed, Sam is far from alone among my philosophy friends for encountering negative reactions to his job. As Sam recounted, when he told one of his grad school professors about his community college job, the response was "Well you deserve a better job but it’s a step up." I've heard many similar stories. One of my other friends (a well-accomplished researcher at a SLAC job) mentioned recently than when people learn where she works, they act like she's from Jaaku.

However, what are teaching jobs actually like? As Sam put it, his job is "actually a really good job by almost any objective measure." I've had a similar experience, and recently got to thinking about some of the benefits of working at a teaching school. Having worked at one for nine years now (after working for one year at a research school), here is a short list of some of the unexpected upsides I've experienced:

Should you want a research job?

I recently came across a social media post by an early philosophy grad student noting that "their dream: is to eventually land a research job. This is, of course, the kind of job grad students are typically socialized to desire (PhD programs tend to prize research). And of course an R1 job may sound great on the surface: a light teaching load, lots of time for research, lots of other philosophers around (both faculty and grad students) to talk shop with, and so on. However, some recent experiences have led me to wonder whether R1 jobs are all they are cracked up to be.

Reader query on the worst aspect(s) of the job

In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Anon writes (my emphasis):

Following up on the thread about impostor syndrome and the one on Daily Nous about the graduate student mental health crisis (which is probably a faculty crisis too) I think this might be a good time to focus some light on the following issue: What is the worst aspect of your job as a professional philosopher? Or if you are a graduate student or job seeker, what is the aspect of the job you look forward to least, and wish most to avoid. Basically what is the one thing in the profession that most drags you down, saps your will to work (or to live even), such that fixing this problem would result in the single largest improvement in your professional, and hence personal, well-being?

For me, I think it is the relentless speed-up of the job driven by the relentless demands for ever-increasing "production". It is bad enough when it comes from the mindless MBA-bots which run universities now, but the worst thing is that so many academics have now internalized this imperative and it guides their professional actions and expectations (even while they complain about it). I find this incredibly alienating, in the Marxian sense. The constant pressure, combined with the fact that I have to publish on what's fashionable, rather than what I think is worth working on (let alone interesting), has utterly drained my work of any value to me. This, in turn, is compounded by the need to publish quickly, so the work is necessarily half-assed, which in turn saps my self-respect since I am not even producing the best crap that I can (and I have to spend time engaging with work that is, it seems to me, similarly rushed and drained of value...). I feel that I am not a researcher but simply an academic "content-creator", whose job is just to generate a fancy version of click-bait. I often find myself day-dreaming that being an adjunct would be preferable; yes, I would have less time to write, but outside of class my time would be entirely my own.

I know not everyone feels the same way about the need to produce, and I am interested to see what other people consider the worst thing about their job, or the profession more generally.

I think this is a good query. If there are particular things that people find frustrating about working in the profession, it can be good to know what those things are--not only for commiseration, but for (hopefully) working to make things better. I may weigh in myself down in the comments section. For now, though, I think it might be good to just open the topic for discussion: What is the worst aspect of your job as a professional philosopher, and why? Let me also ask one further question: What do you think could/should be done to make that part of your job better?  

Getting tenure standards in writing?

In the comments section responding to Ash's recent query on grappling with tenure denial, Ash writes:

Thanks so much everyone again. I hadn't expected so many people to recommend appealing. I have looked into it and I suppose I will appeal, if only to voice my disappointment with the inconsistencies and lack of transparency in the process...

One final question: did other people *get* their tenure standards in writing? They were shared with me a couple of times during the fly-out--once by another assistant professor at the time, who left for another position before I started--and at a few meetings, two with the Chair, since then. But I never thought to get them in writing. I've asked the three other people who have been assistant professors since I joined here, and they all said they were given the same formula--X number of articles, Y number of articles in top journals--but none of us were given it in writing. And we never thought to get it because... There didn't seem to be any disagreement about what the standards were. And we wouldn't have anticipated this kind of situation.

Amanda added, "I would love to hear people's thoughts about getting tenure in standards in writing. Is it weird to ask for this?" I too am curious to hear from readers on this.

Where the jobs were(n't) in 2017: by AOS

Updated 2/21 (11:30am EST): Due to feedback, I reclassified 'cultural' and 'non-Western' philosophy under History/Traditions. I also moved social epistemology from 'social identity' to 'epistemology.'

Last June, I gave an informal tally of how academic philosophy jobs were distributed by AOS in 2016. Because I am always curious what the job-market looks like, I've put together another tally this year (see below).

A few quick notes. First, I tallied tenure-track jobs by doing a general search on Philjobs from August 1st, 2017 through February 16th, 2018 (some 'open contract' jobs turned out to be TT); then I tallied non-TT jobs by doing a search for 'fixed term' and 'open contract' (as some non-TT jobs were open contract as well). Second, because some job-listings had multiple openings (the single listing for NEH fellowships listed 35 jobs, whereas some other postdocs had 2 or 3 openings), I included the number of openings in my tallies. Third, like last year, whenever I encountered jobs with multiple AOSs, I assigned each AOS a fraction of a job. For instance, if a job listed two AOS, I assigned each AOS '.5' of a job; if there were three, I assigned each AOS .33 of a job; if there were four, .25; and so on. While again I recognize this might seem a bit odd, I think it is a well-motivated, as it helps distinguish how many jobs were dedicated to a specific AOS as opposed to jobs split between many. Fourth, I only counted junior, entry-level academic jobs (postdocs, Assistant Profs, Lecturers, etc.), not senior jobs (Associate) or non-academic jobs. Finally, while I've tried to be accurate (I went through everything twice), this is just an informal tally. If there are any errors, please do let me know and I will correct them ASAP. Also, because I'm reporting these numbers a bit earlier this year than last, I'll plan on updating them in June.

Anyway, here are my (rounded) tallies by AOS, along with some brief commentary:

TOTAL JOBS = 423 (228 TT, 195 Non-TT)

Breakdown by AOS (TT + Non-TT combined)

• Aesthetics: 1.5 jobs (.03%)
• Continental: 9.2 jobs (2.2%)
• Core: 39.3 jobs (9.3%)
• History/Traditions: 49.4 jobs (11.7%)
• Open AOS: 135.5 jobs (32%)
• Religion: 8.8 jobs (2.1%)
• Social identity (race, gender, etc.): 15.4 jobs (3.6%)
• Science: 22.8 jobs (5.4%)
• Value theory (ethics, political): 141.4 jobs (33.4%)

I find this pretty astonishing: 65.4% of all junior-level academic jobs this job season have been either Open AOS or in Value Theory, and 1/3 of all jobs were in value theory.

Reader query on returning to academia

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

Could we have a thread where people discuss whether they have any knowledge of someone who left academia and returned, and how they would look upon such candidates? I am considering taking a non-academic job. I have good teaching experience and excellent publications. I would be open to applying selectively to academic jobs in the future, while working a non-academic job. I am just curious whether that is realistic.

Great question! I have no idea how others think about this, and agree it would be great to hear from people on the issue. For my part, I personally know one fellow who recently left academia but has published some pretty great papers (in really well-ranked journals) after leaving. I have a hard time believing this person wouldn't be seriously considered for academic jobs. But this is just my feeling.

What do readers think?

What to do if the hypothesis is true? - part 1: job candidates

Last week, I floated a hypothesis that might partly explain why a certain type of philosophy job-candidate seems to struggle inordinately on the market, relative to their level of accomplishments. Very roughly, the hypothesis is that individuals from lower Leiter-ranked PhD programs may be utilizing a counterproductive job-market strategy: the strategy of trying to publish their way into a job through publications in highly-ranked journals. On the one hand, I hypothesized that even if candidates like this publish in top-journals, they may still be non-competitive for research jobs, given prestige bias (for candidates from 'Leiterific programs'). On the other hand, I hypothesized that if candidates like this have publications in highly-ranked journals, they may be non-competitive for teaching jobs, by appearing like a flight risk (or perhaps, as Amanda added, by appearing like someone who wouldn't be happy in a teaching job). Either way, the hypothesis goes, the above job-market strategy may be a bad bet for candidates coming out of lower-ranked programs.

This hypothesis (which I have Amanda to thank for getting me to think about) has gained uptake the past several days, both in the comments section and on social media, where I encountered quite a few people (faculty and job-candidates) who noted the hypothesis seems to cohere with their experience. I also received emails from job-candidates who fit the profile saying the same thing. Still, for all that, it is just a hypothesis. It may be accurate, it may not be. It would be good to find out more definitively, such as through a study similar to Helen's forthcoming study in Ergo. 

In the meantime, there is the question about what people should do if the hypothesis is true. Because we don't know for sure whether it is true, we should probably exercise caution here. Still, I think it may be worth discussing, particularly for job-candidates like Tim who are having trouble getting any interviews as things are. I also think discussing the hypothesis further may help people--both faculty and students--in grad programs that struggle to place people in permanent jobs. So, let us consider two questions:

1. What should job-candidates like Tim do if the hypothesis is true?
2. What should grad students and grad programs do if the hypothesis is true?

I would like to dedicate the current post to the first question, and then return to the second question in a follow-up post.

Grad-program rank, publications, and job-market: a hypothesis

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, one of our readers ('Tim') speculated on why he hasn't gotten any interviews on the academic job-market this year:

One of the things that keeps shocking me over and over is the number of interviews Amanda and TT Lady announce having. NINE first round interviews? Jesus. I've had fewer than that in three years on the market...

I've had zero this year so far. None. Not a single first-round interview.

The response I expect is 'Well, Tim (no, not my real name), you really need to reexamine your materials then, or publish more or..' Here's the thing: I hired Kelsky to help with my materials. And I did some of the job-mentoring stuff offered elsewhere. And I (literally) have published almost twice the amount that is required for tenure at the institution where I currently have a temporary position. And no, not all of them are epicycle pubs. And there are several areas where I'm one of the `go to' people to ask.

Yet I've had zero first-round interviews. My application is not being taken seriously, it seems. I would love to explain this (this fact, the general one) by anything other than my being a white male. But it's hard to come up with anything nearly as plausible. 

While the ADPA Report indicates gender-effects in hiring, Tim's explanation for why he hasn't received any interviews seems to me to run up against some facts--among them, the fact that there appear to be people who share Tim's demographic identity who have gotten plenty of interviews and jobs (as I noted, my last two years on the market, I received a fairly large number of interviews, and I've had some friends with similar experiences). This suggests to me that whatever role gender does or doesn't play on the market, there is probably something else going on in Tim's case. What could it be?

Following some things that Amanda has said in the past, and some of my experiences mentoring candidates, I've toyed with a hypothesis on what might be going on in these types of cases. I want to be clear: it is just a hypothesis. It may be totally wrong. But let me say why I think it is worth thinking about.