The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Hi Everyone,

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

A few notes before I list the numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing a gap year due to COVID?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

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

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Accept a postdoc or wait?

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

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

Another reader submitted the following response:

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

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

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

Where things should go on CVs?

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

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

Another reader helpfully responded: 

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

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

 

 

Choosing between US and UK jobs?

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

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

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

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

Lewis Powell's (Buffalo) tips on CVs

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

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

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

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

Weaknesses in recommendation letters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Job Application Materials Arms Race

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

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

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

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

Getting over the job-market hump?

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

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

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

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

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

Checking in with search committees?

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

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

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

Postdocs, relocating, and the path to a FT job

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

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

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

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

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

Discussing leaving the market w/significant others

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

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

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

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

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

So please, serious responses only.

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

Tips applying to UK jobs?

A reader writes in:

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

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

Is lack of affiliation a problem on the market?

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

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

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

What do others think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which AOCs are good to develop?

On Twitter yesterday, an early-career philosopher asked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should (not) be in a teaching portfolio?

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

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

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

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

Another commenter, Annie, responded as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Staying competitive in philosophy in a non-philosophy postdoc?

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

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

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

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

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

Tech tips for interviews?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Inquiry about Writing One's Own Letters of Recommendation

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

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

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

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

How to dress for Zoom interviews?

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

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

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

Must a writing sample fit the job?

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

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

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

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

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

Should external letters be weighed more heavily?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How often do interviews make a difference?

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

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

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

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

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

Submitting extra recommendation letters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Should websites be 'purely professional'?

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

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

Several readers responded to this comment. Francois wrote:

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

Then 'R' wrote:

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

Finally, an anonymous postdoc wrote:

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

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

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

Do job candidates need a website?

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

Do I need a personal website?

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

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

Looking forward to input.

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

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

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

Good jobs not on PhilJobs?

A reader writes in:

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

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

Assistant Professor of Policy & Governance - University of Washington

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

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

Grappling with the COVID-era job market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing ability to attract outside funding?

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

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

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

Looking at job-candidate websites?

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

I have two questions about the role of personal websites in the job application process.

1. What are some reasons search committee members might visit an applicant's webpage?
I have a hidden, password-protected page on my website that contains all my application materials and a few additional ones. I put the address and password in my cover letters. Now that most of my applications are in, I see that people from regions I applied in are visiting my webpage, but they are not using this page. Instead, they are just browsing the website in general. Most frequently, they spend a minute or less on my homepage and research page. Sometimes it's less than 30 seconds and just my homepage. But I'm not sure what information they are looking for in these pages, since all of it is predictably contained in my dossier. The only thing I can think of is that the website gives a vibe of who the candidate is, or maybe they just want to see a photo?

2. In what stage of the process do search committees look at the candidates' websites?
For example, is it when they go through the batch to make the initial cut? It is when they decide on the long list? I'm sure there's a lot of variation, but I wonder if there are some commonalities. I'm curious because of a pattern I see on my website. Sometimes there is a burst of visitors from a certain place for a few days and then they stop vising my website. Could this be interpreted as some vague indication that there was a discussion of my dossier? If I don't hear from that department in the following weeks and they have stopped visiting my website, should I take it as some sort of signal that my dossier is no longer considered? On the one hand, intuitively, it does seem to me like a sign that they lost interest. On the other hand, this happened to me with several departments and I haven't seen reports that any of them invited people for interviews or any updates about their searches.

Another reader submitting the following reply:

I think you are overthinking this way too much. This is the sort of worrying that leads to serious anxiety around the job market. Your job is to submit an application. Then leave it to the committee to do their work. Some people will look at your webpage and some won't. The one case I remember most vividly is a very unaccomplished colleague trolling around looking for dirt on an application ... and finding it! So just keep the content professional.

In one sense (as I explain below), I think the OP probably is overthinking things. But as the follow-up comment notes, one reason search committee members may visit a candidate's website is to simply see how professional and 'put together' a candidate is. So, I think it is important to reflect a bit on why search committee member might visit candidate websites.

Updating search committees?

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

Suppose that an R1 institution schedules a first-round Zoom interview with a job applicant. And suppose that between the moment the interview was scheduled and the interview itself, this applicant receives a request to contribute to a special issue of a specialty journal and an invitation to contribute to an edited volume on some topic relevant to their AOS.

Should this applicant inform the search committee of these developments? Or do these developments not rise to the level of newsworthy?

And in a case like this, what developments are newsworthy such that an applicant should inform search committee members?

Good questions! I'm inclined to think that it's just fine to inform a committee of new accomplishments, such as a new forthcoming (i.e. accepted) publication. However, I'm not sue that mere invitations to contribute to a special issue or edited volume rise to that level. What do all you think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees? Which kinds of developments are newsworthy enough to inform search committees about?

Philosophers in Industry updates!

This is just a quick note that I made significant updates to the Philosophers in Industry directory, adding over 20 entries yesterday thanks to a helpful reader. Given how historically awful this year's academic job market is, my hope that the directory will help philosophers in need of work network outside of academia, as well as better appreciate the kinds of possibilities open to philosophers in industry. Looking at the updates, a few things really pop out at me.

First, 'ontologist' jobs seem to be a big growth area. I don't know much about the line of work, but it appears to involve logic and formal semantics--the general aim being to improve how software applications (including AI and web search engines) reason and categorize things. There is a pretty large number of ontologists listed on the directory, both at big corporations (Amazon, Dell) and smaller start-ups. Second, although I recall seeing a few job ads from them on PhilJobs over the years, I did not realize until now how big of an employer of philosophers Cycorp appears to be.

In brief, people with philosophy degrees can get very good jobs in industry, especially (but not only) if they are willing to learn how to code and network well. Over the years, many readers at the Cocoon and elsewhere have despaired over a philosophy PhD only preparing them for poorly paying, 'entry-level' jobs. I hope the Directory helps despairing readers see that philosophical training can be leveraged into good careers outside of the academy, and that it serves as a helpful resource for networking, finding good jobs, and learning what it takes to transition into them!

Listing articles under review?

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

Does anyone have strong feelings about listing "under review" manuscripts in a separate section of the CV? (That is, below the actual publications, of course.)

On the one hand, it seems smart to let everyone know that one has a pile of research that could be accepted for publication any day now. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether anyone will be impressed by the fact that one submits a lot for publication consideration, much of which might not ever be published anyway.

Another reader submitted the following response:

I would say it is not smart, and it does not seem smart. Too often people who do list things under review are deceptive - after all, you can list anything and any journals, and there is no effective way to confirm any of this information. Consequently, it does not belong on a c.v. - translation: course of life. All you end up doing is making more work for search committees because they have to work through what the person is really claiming, and this takes time if you are looking at 85 c.v.s

I entirely agree with this response. As a past search committee member, it rub me the wrong way when I see articles listed as under review on a CV. When I'm hiring, I'm looking for hard accomplishments--specifically, the kinds of accomplishments that are likely to get the candidate tenured or promoted at my institution. Listing articles under review, even many of them, just isn't good evidence of that: a publishing record is. Now, I know sometimes search committees--particularly search committees at research institutions (or so I've heard)--look to hire on the basis of a candidate's 'promise'. But here too, it doesn't seem to me like having a bunch of articles under review is good evidence of that. If I were interested in some nebulous notion of promise, I would instead want to focus on the candidate's research statement, writing sample, and recommendation letters. So again, I just don't see the purpose of listing articles under review.

But these are just my thoughts. As we all know from past discussions on this blog, search committee members can differ wildly on how they think about things and evaluate candidates. So I wonder what other search committee members think. Any other search committee members willing to weigh in on this?

The post-interview waiting game

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

Going on two weeks post first round interview; committee said they'd be in touch by early November.

I have heard nothing even after reaching out once to try and get an update.

Is this unusual or are the circumstances and idiosyncrasies of particular searches and committees just too different to say anything meaningful?

Good question. I think there are all kinds of possible explanations here. The most obvious is that given that we're just around 30% through the month, it's still technically early November--so the OP could hear any day. A second, related possibility is simply that the committee has had trouble finding time to meet to make a decision on who to move forward with. A third possibility is that the committee has met but is having trouble deciding between one or more candidates. A fourth possibility is that they have decided and sent their recommendations on who to invite to campus to the college dean, but the dean is being slow with things. You get the picture by now. It could be just about anything.

This is just one of many reasons why I think, as some other readers have noted, the best thing to do in general is to try your best to put things out of your mind and not get your hopes up. Either you'll get a campus invite or you won't. There's nothing you can do about it post-interview. I know, it's maddening--but in my experience the best thing to do is to simply move on in your own mind and if you get a campus invite, you get a very happy surprise.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

How long do search committees take?

(Comments open now!)

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

I have a question related to applying for jobs this year. It's my first time on the market. I've read a lot of articles and blog posts about the unspoken rules of academic searches and their timelines, one of them being: you often don't get informed about having been rejected until much, much later. I find myself wondering: How much time, on average, does it take the search committee to come up with a list of first-round interviewees after the job posting deadline? I'm asking about TT jobs especially. In other words, when can I reasonably assume that I'm no longer in the running? I've read here and there that it's about 2-6 weeks, but that guess wasn't specific to our field. (And could this timeline be altered during the pandemic?)

One search committee member submitted the following response:

This is in response to job-seeker. 2-6 weeks strikes me as quite fast. I'm on a search committee this year, and we're not intending to contact shortlisted applicants until 7-8 weeks after the deadline. It takes a long time to read applications! Perhaps it makes a difference that we'll go straight to (zoom) talks, rather than doing first-round (zoom) interviews.

I think these two comments are a bit telling. On the one hand, on the search committees that I've served on, we've tried to move fast, meeting just a week or two after the application deadline. However, as the above search committee member notes, they move quite a bit more slowly: 7-8 weeks is close to two months after the application deadline. When I was a job-candidate, I got a first-round interview for a job over two months after the deadline. So, sadly, I think the answer to the OP is: you never really know. Search committees can make decisions quickly, or they can take their time. The best thing to do in order to know whether interview decisions have been made, I think, is for candidates who have received them to report them on our job-market reporting thread (which has been oddly quiet so far this season).

How do search committees work? - part 1: reading candidate files

Now that we're in the midst of the academic job season (a horrific one, I know), I thought it might be helpful to current and future job-candidates to try running a series soliciting from search-committee members an inside view on how their deliberations work. For example, how do search committee members read applications? What do they look for in interviews? How do search committees deliberate in meetings in deciding who to interview? How do they deliberate in deciding who to invite to campus? Whom to hire? I'd like to begin today by asking search committee members to share how they read applications. Here are some questions to consider:

1. Do you read applications before the deadline?
2. If so, do you think it matters whether candidates apply early?
3. In what order do you read documents? Why?
4. What do you look for in different parts of the application (e.g. the CV, research statement, teaching dossier, diversity statements, etc.)?
5. How large of a role do recommendation letters play?
6. Etc.

Any search committee members out there willing to weigh in?

How long should job-market materials be?

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

I am writing in response to the thread that got going earlier on diversity statements and their length. One respondent mentioned that all of their materials were just one page, and I'd like to hear from others if this is true of them as well, and also from perhaps hiring committee members that this is what they prefer. I'm especially interested in the proper length of a research statement.

In my own case, my diversity and teaching statements are one page. However, my research statement is longer. I've had friends who have been hired share their research statements with me, and they were very long, like, five pages singled-spaced long. Now I know someone can say, "Well, that whole thing isn't going to get read." But I guess my response is, so? It's all there if they want to read it. My statement is fairly long, but I also have a little roadmap that tells them what area of my research I discuss in each section. So if they want to jump around, they can do that. Is that bad? Would that annoy you if you were a hiring committee member?

One more thought here (I know this is already long-winded): Wouldn't it be the case that shorter research statements speak in broad brush strokes? And isn't that not great? I'm imagining a short statement that just spends three or four sentences describing each project, or just says things like, "My next project explores the rationality of anger; I argue X." The end. I guess my issue with this tricky document is figuring out how to say enough for the reader to see your ideas are not half-baked, but not so much that it starts to read like a scholarly article.

Help?

Great questions! I'll be very curious to hear what other readers who have served on search committees think. However, here are a few quick thoughts of my own.

Job-market consultants/services?

Back in 2015 in the Cocoon's Job-Market Boot Camp series, I shared my experience using a job-market consultant. This week, a reader emailed me asking who I used and whether we could have a thread discussing consultants. Given how catastrophic this year's academic job-market is so far, I think it could be helpful to not only discuss academic job-market consultants, but also any potentially helpful services to help job-seekers transition into non-academic jobs.

So, then, I'll put out four questions to our readers:

1. What academic job-market consultants are out there?
2. If you have used an academic job-market consultant, would you recommend using them?
3. What non-academic job-market services are there to help job-seekers?
4. If you have used a non-academic job-search service, would you recommend using them?

I'll answer first. I used Karen Kelsky from The Professor Is In as an academic job-market consultant way back in 2014. I have to confess that I was pretty skeptical about the service. It was also damn expensive, and I couldn't really afford it (especially given that I was still in substantial student debt at the time). However, I had been on the market for six years, planned for my seventh year to be my last, and personally knew two other philosophers who got tenure-track jobs after using her--so my spouse and I decided I should give two of her services (dossier review and interviewing intervention) a try as a last ditch shot. Surprisingly, although I was skeptical and found Kelsky a bit gruff personally, my sense is that her help vastly improved my materials and helped me correct a few bad interviewing habits--and I ended up finally getting a tenure-track job. It's hard to know whether using her services 'made the difference', as it were. After all, correlation isn't causation, and I might have ended up with a tenure-track job anyway. I'm also just one person, though, and it was a long time ago, so I cannot vouch for the quality of the services today. But this was my experience.

What about the rest of you? Do any of you have experience with academic or non-academic job-consultants (or similar services)? If so, what was your experience like?

Query on diversity statements

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

How long should a diversity statement be for R1 jobs and postdocs? Many of these job ads ask for one, but none of them specify length.

Good question. I understand that some universities have detailed rubrics for diversity statements, in which case I'm guessing the answer is: the statement should be as concise as possible while aiming to satisfy as many things in the rubric as possible (given the applicant's background). Do all universities that require diversity statements have similar rubrics? If so, it might be good to hear about how similar or different they are to the one outlined above. It might also be good to hear from search committee members on how long effective diversity statements tend to be, and as a general rule what is too short or too long. Finally, it could be good to hear from search committee members on some "do's" but also some "don'ts" (i.e. things that candidates sometimes write in diversity statements that don't come off very well). Anyone with experience and insight willing and able to weigh in?

The 'any questions for us?' question

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

I'm curious if folks who have been on hiring committees can shed some light on the oft-used concluding question at interviews: "Do you have any questions for us?"

My understanding is that this is, in one sense, a genuine ask: does the candidate have any questions we haven't addressed? But, clearly, it is also a signaling opportunity: what sorts of things does the candidate care about, and what can we glean about them as a colleague, teacher, and philosopher from these questions?

There are obviously terrible answers: "How much is the pay?" "Can I wear jorts to work?" "Are the students there really as bad as I've heard?"

But it's much less clear to me what constitutes a *good* question to ask here. I've heard of folks asking about developing courses, research funding, and extra-curriculars, but these seem overdone now (since we've all been taught from the same playbook, so to speak).

Maybe those who have served on committees could offer some more specific advice/commentary on this. Are there any answers to this question that have really struck you as *good*? What sorts of things make you cringe? What are you tired of hearing? What sorts of things make a candidate stand out here?

Great questions! Any search committee members willing to weigh in? I'll just share three brief thoughts: (1) In my experience, good questions show that you have done your homework on the institution and actually thought in some depth about ways that you might contribute; (2) As a general rule, I think questions about the philosophy club tend to be cringeworthy (as it can seem to betray a kind of laziness in terms of learning anything more substantial about the institution before the interview). Beyond this, I'm not sure though. I think it would be great to hear from other search committee members!

Teaching statements & COVID?

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

I'm curious whether and how everyone on the market is changing their teaching statements to fit the new realities of teaching. Teaching right now has required significant changes in techniques for most, if not all of us. For example, I'm teaching hybrid, socially distanced classes and my usual activities can't be used. I've tried adapted versions, but honestly, they did not go as well for practical reasons. Should I downplay the in-class activities in my teaching statement? Should we all have paragraphs devoted to hybrid and online teaching generally? What are people doing?

Great questions! I think it would be great to hear from both job-candidates and search committee members. Anyone have any insight?

Interviewing tips for religious university jobs

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

Could you address some potential strategies for interviewing at religiously affiliated--specifically Catholic--liberal arts colleges? My general sense is that the school is less interested in the applicant's particular beliefs or religious affiliations and more in hearing how the candidate is able to incorporate the university's religious values into teaching, research, and service. This may be right but I can's escape the nagging feeling that there will be some left field question about religion or theology that will throw me off?

Is this a well founded worry?

Another reader submitted the following response:

My experience with Catholic schools was not great. I was long-listed for a number of jobs at such schools, because of my profile. Inevitably they ask a question or questions that are the litmus test. They ask what you know about Catholic philosophy ... I was educated at a place where I knew who Jacques Maritain was ... and other greats in 20th C Catholic philosophy. I think I was too honest. I am not saying these places only hire Catholics, but they generally are looking for one of their own.

This coheres with my own experience applying for jobs at Catholic schools. I recall, even at the application stage, a number of Catholic universities that I applied to requiring materials (e.g. statements speaking to the Catholic mission of the university) that suggested they were probably looking for someone in the faith. However, I also remember applying to a number of other religiously-affiliated universities (particularly non-Catholic schools) that seemed entirely open to candidates irrespective of these kinds of things. What are other people's experiences here? It would be great to hear from job candidates about their experiences, as well as people at religious institutions who can comment on their hiring priorities and practices.

How to list talks on a CV

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

How should talks appear on a CV? I'm late-junior stage (about to be tenured) so I've given more than a few. Do I just list the most recent? Going back how far? Do I list the most prestigious and somehow indicate that it's a selected list? Do I not list any? For context, the 'talks' section of my CV is currently taking up a little over a page, about the same as my publications. How do other people navigate this?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

A common practice is to have a list of invited talks, and then a list of refereed conference talks. Each list is labelled - clearly! I assume, if you have some publications (a page worth), that that is what will really determine whether you get tenure or not. Talks are much more important for early career people with few pubs. I am far along, and generally just list recent talks.

I'm curious what other people think. What do you all do, and why?

 

Explaining CV oddities in applications?

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

I am a second-year M.A. student of Philosophy at a low ranked university, looking forward to applying for another master's next year in a better university. I passed nine graduate philosophy courses with good grades. My bachelor studies were not in Philosophy and I had just one Philosophy course at bachelor, so I think I need my master's degree (and courses) for a successful application to a philosophy major. I have no personal problem completing my current studies as a master student to get my degree, but there is an educational law in my country that prevents people from entering master studies twice unless the mandatory military service (which lasts two years) is completed. I can withdraw from my current M.A. and apply for another M.A. without any problem with this law. In that case, my current university will give me an official transcript, but no degree. I prefer this withdraw option because it saves two years for me. Are there any problems with the withdrawal from my current master's in applying for another master? I mean does this have a bad effect on the strength of my application, and should I mention this in my application? Thanks for your advice.

This is an interesting query in a couple of respects. First, it raises questions not only about what this particular poster should do given their situation. Second, it raises more general questions about what people should do--both in graduate school applications and in job applications--regarding similar 'oddities' on their CV.

What do you all think? First, what do you think this reader should do? Do you think withdrawing from one MA and applying to another will give them problems? If so, what's the best path forward for them? Should they try to explain their situation in some way in their application? And how, more generally, do you think applicants should handle similar CV oddities? (If you have a CV oddity yourself, feel free to share it and/or how you handled it in the comments section!).

How are different types of publications weighted?

Yesterday on social media I came across an interesting question: namely, how different types of publications are weighted, both on the job market and in tenure and promotion. Among other things, it was brought to my attention that different types of publications can be valued more in some countries than others. For example, I learned that in Germany, publications in edited volumes are looked upon very highly, but that in the UK, this may not be true (with exceptions, perhaps, for publications in volumes published by OUP or CUP). Similarly, I heard that public philosophy (i.e. publications in popular press such as Aeon, The New York Times, etc.) can be looked upon highly in the US, but not in other countries. I think it might be great to crowdsource more information about these differences in the comments section below.

I also think it might be good to hear people's thoughts on other particular issues, such as how it looks to a search committee  or tenure and promotion (T&P) committee when most of a candidate's publications are in edited volumes (as opposed to journals). For example, suppose someone has a publication or two in decent but not great journals, but a bunch of publications in edited volumes by top-ranked presses with influential editors. How do people think this looks on the job-market and in T&P? On the one hand, I imagine that it may look good to publish in volumes put together by big name editors for good presses. On the other hand, I've always wondered whether publishing primarily in edited volumes may raise the following concern: namely, that publishing in edited volumes is a more ambiguous measure of research quality than publishing in journals. After all, one of the key things about journal publishing--at least in the present system--is that peer-review is anonymized. In edited volumes, on the other hand, the editors know who you are and (depending on the review process) so too may any reviewers they send your chapter to. Because content for edited volumes isn't selected by a fully (double- or triple-) anonymized process, the worry is that readers (i.e. search committees or T&P committees) won't feel in a good position to know if the work was selected primarily on its merits or as a result of the person having 'good connections.'

For these reasons, I can't help but wonder--at least in terms of job-market success and eventual tenure decisions--whether candidates should focus primarily on journal publishing. Maybe I'm off on this--it's just something I've long wondered about, and figured it might be good to hear from more people about. Anyway, what do you all think, particularly those of you with good experience in these matters? How are different kinds of publications weighted on the job-market and T&P? How do things differ from country to country? And how do things differ with respect to department types (e.g. do R1 institutions weigh certain things more heavily than non-R1's)?

Visualizations of PhD program placement data

Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga) writes in:

I've been working on a project for some time now. I've downloaded placement and graduation data from Philjobs, cleaned it up, did some analyses, and visualized the findings. The result is a site where visitors can find job placement rates for PhD programs. There's also a searchable drill-down table where users can see where graduates of a program have historically placed. You can find it here: https://charleslassiter.weebly.com/placement-data.html

Lassiter adds, "This is an ongoing project and I plan to update every 6 months in September (for job seekers) and March (for students headed into PhD programs)." He also notes that, "The biggest issue is that the data is crowd-sourced from Philjobs' placement page as well as PhilPeople profiles."