The Philosophers' Cocoon

Misleading job-market materials?

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, Dr. X writes [note: comment edited to preserve anonymity]:

There should be a discussion of the types of misleading information to avoid putting on one's CV.

An example that everyone should know by now to be deceitful: listing something under review as a "publication". JUST. STOP.

A more underhanded example: claiming that PhilPeople metrics declares you as being, say, "top  [X] for citations (past five years) for [Y]", without also noting the extremely narrow criterion for entry into PhilPeople's data pool...

Good query. I wasn't aware of the PhilPeople issue, but I hear about similar things every job season. What other kinds of misleading things should candidates take care to avoid? 

Longitudinal TT job data?

A reader writes in:

I was just looking through your stats about 2017 job postings here.  Very helpful!

I'm wondering if you also have some longitudinal information about how the number of job ads has shifted over, say, the last five years or so.  I'm guessing the number of advertised TT jobs has gone down, but I can't seem to find that info on your site or on DN, etc.  I did see other posting from you about the 2016 and 2015 market, but some of those stats included info about August postings and some did not, so I found it hard to compare over time.

I don't have longitudinal data myself, but seem to recall coming across some graphs before indicating the philosophy TT job-market has declined steadily since the 2007-8 financial crisis. Does anyone know where those graphs or data is to be found? Thanks!

Query: what if one can't count on a letter-writer?

An anonymous reader writes in:

[W]hat should a prospective candidate to the job market do when she cannot count with a recommendation letter of her previous supervisor? I imagine some PhD students do not have a good relation with their ex supervisors, and thus this bad relation may create two possible scenarios: in some cases a supervisor may refuse doing a recommendation letter (for ex, by not answering a mail), or in other cases, the content of the recommendation letter may be more harmful than beneficial for the prospective candidate. This may be an important obstacle for getting a job. 

Great query. My first immediate thought is that the clear thing to do is to move on and get outside letters. However, this doesn't address the problem that not having a letter from one's previous supervisor might seem like a red flag to search committees. And unfortunately, I'm not sure I know what to say about dealing with this issue.

Anyone have any helpful tips here? 

Query about tailoring cover letters

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" post from several months ago, GE asks:

I'm a graduate student entering the job market for the first time, and I'm finding it a little bit baffling to develop a cover letter. The advice on Philosopher's Cocoon and a few other online sources is all pretty consistent: you have an introductory paragraph, a current research paragraph, a publication/presentation/future research paragraph, and a fit paragraph. But a lot of jobs specifically ask that you highlight particular things in your cover letter. Often this overlaps with things that you're already putting in a cover letter, or it can be added in the fit paragraph, but it's hard for me to believe that if a search committee specifically asked for you to speak to your experiences advocating for diversity and inclusion, for instance, that they want to read through a whole bunch of stuff about your research before you get there. In those cases, should I rearrange my cover letter to highlight that stuff sooner? Or should I *only* be addressing the requested topics in my cover letter in those cases?

Good questions. I'll be curious to hear what other search committee members think.

Query on junior scholars writing books

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

So what are everyone's thoughts on writing a book as a Junior (non-tenured) scholar, particularly when you are not from somewhere fancy? So here are some things I have either seen or heard:

• If you do write a book, even if it is very good and published with a very good press, or even the top press, it is likely to be ignored.
• If you are searching for research jobs, then *maybe* a book with Oxford, Cambridge, or Routledge might help, but other presses likely not. And even with the aforementioned presses great articles are probably better.
• For tenure at a research place, books with the above presses can help but you better have had great article publications as well.
• For teaching schools books are more competitive with articles? Maybe? I am really less sure on this.

Good questions - I'll be curious to hear what readers think! Here are a few of my thoughts.

Tips for inside candidates?

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

The department in which I am currently a postdoc is conducting a job search in one of my areas of specialization. While I have heard of all sorts of “inside hires” for which the job search was merely a formality, nothing about this job search is in any way tailored to me. I simply more or less fit the bill reasonably well. I am not a perfect fit for the job ad, and so am far certain I can expect to get the job.

Since learning about this job, I have a few questions for the readers of this blog:

First, I wonder how I should conduct myself in the coming months. Should I consider myself from now until then as being in interview mode? This could go on for several months. 

Second, since the odds are that I will not get a job offer, I should expect either not to get an interview, not to get a “flyout”, or not to get the offer. But what should I expect from people around the department? I know I would appreciate a genuine face to face ‘sorry, you just aren’t what we are looking for’ from my experience on the job market that might never come. Would me applying end up sour my relationship with my colleagues for the remainder of the postdoc?

Lastly, despite not being a case of an intentional inside higher [sic], I do enjoy familiarity with everyone on the search committee. What can and should I do to best take advantage of this fact, if at all?

Great questions! I'll be curious to hear what readers think. Because I was an inside candidate for TT jobs on two different occasions--once at the University of British Columbia (where I did not get the job) and once at my current university (where I did)--allow me to share a few thoughts before opening things up for discussion.

How does the job-market look?

I know know the job-market is stressful--but I'm curious what people's impressions about this year's market are so far:

1. How does the market look as a whole (better, worse, or roughly the same as recent years)?
2. Any noticeable trends (types of positions, changes in application processes, etc.)?
3. Are any AOS's having particularly good or bad years?

Anyone interested in chiming in? Our job-market discussion and reporting threads have been a bit quiet so far, though I know it is early still!

Query on grad program attrition

Mike Titelbaum (University of Wisconsin-Madison) wrote in by email:

I am a big fan of The Philosophers' Cocoon, and occasionally jump into the comments section...[But] There's something that occasionally comes up on Cocoon threads and elsewhere that bothers me...

Often when we counsel students comparing graduate schools, we suggest that they look (among other things) at the percentage of admits who complete the program. The underlying implication seems to be that higher completion rates indicate a better program. But this seems to me out of step with another discourse floating around the internet in general and the Cocoon in particular—that deciding as a PhD student that you don't want to become an academic isn't a failure in any sense.

Sometimes a department has a low completion rate because they're unsupportive, are chasing out certain students, or have a toxic environment. But PhD students leave programs for many reasons, including that the program has done a good job of revealing to them what the academic life is like, and they've decided it isn't the life for them (even though it might be available to them). If a department was pressuring people to stay and finish their degree despite having had such a realization, that would enhance their completion rate but it seems to me would be the kind of department that I would discourage a student from joining.

There's also presumably a big selection effect here. Different departments wind up with different kinds of students.  Some populations might be more inclined to decide that academia isn't for them and leave their program before completing. That would hurt a department's completion rate, but perhaps indicate nothing bad about how the department treats students once they arrive. In fact, if a department is more willing to take a risk on certain types of students who might not finish, that might be a good sign about that department's atmosphere and goals.

As I said, this is just something that's been bothering me. I have absolutely no empirical data on any of this, and not even much anecdotal data. But if you're measuring a department by its completion rate, then you're assuming the sole goal of a PhD program is to create PhDs (and possibly then academics). Perhaps instead the first goal of a PhD program should be to help students figure out whether writing a dissertation, completing a PhD, and then becoming an academic is the right path for them?

I think Mike raises really good points here. In email discussion, I suggested that perhaps the best thing to do is to compile and make more transparent both qualitative and quantitative data regarding attrition and job-placemtn.

Good open-access journals?

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

I like the idea of publishing my research in open access venues, since I find the for profit journal industry contrary to the academic ideal. My solution is to try to at least aim first for publishing at open access journals. If my papers get rejected from these, then I will submit them to the standard “respectable” journals. In this way I give open access journals first dibs. But, since I am currently a postdoc and I need to make sure I get published in journals that others (hiring committees) consider “respectable.” My question is what are considered leading open access journals. The only one I can think of in philosophy is Philosophers’ Imprint. It would be very helpful for my aim to compile a list of other OA journals that are considered respectable.

Good query. Ergo immediately comes to mind. So too, at least in ethics and social-political, does JESP. But beyond these, I'm not too familar with which philosophy journals are open access, let alone considered "respectable." 

Anyone have any insight here?

Teaching videos for the job-market?

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

Something I've been wondering about: Do you think there is any benefit to taking videos of, e.g., lectures, talks/presentations, etc. and sharing them in one's portfolio in the relevant place? The advantage, I would think, is that it serves as further evidence of the kinds of claims one is making about teaching/research skills.

My guess is that 99% of committees will ignore them, but that it couldn't hurt to put them out there. I'm reasonably confident about the former, but less so about the latter.

In response, another reader wrote:

[T]he catch is you have no right to video record your students. You would need them to sign release forms, and to be given the option to leave the lecture that day. Certainly this is the case in America.

Fair enough - but suppose you were to get permission. Is there any chance of it benefiting a candidate by having a link to a teaching video in their portfolio? And it is true that "it couldn't hurt to put them out there"? 

Phasing out letters from dissertation committees?

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Number Three asks: At what point should I stop asking dissertation committee members for letters of recommendation? Two years post-PhD? Four? More?

I will be curious to hear what other people think. However, my own thoughts (based on my seven-year experience on the market and time on three search committees) are these:

1. It is not at all clear to me that you should ever stop using letters from your committee.
2. But it is a good idea get additional outside letters to supplement them.

My only evidence for these two claims is admittedly anecdotal, but here it is...

Reader: what are teaching schools looking for?

In an email query this weekend, a reader asked:

"Teaching schools" (whatever vague and ill-defined collection of institutions that picks out) claim to value teaching. So one would think that applications at teaching schools would be evaluated along broadly the following lines:

(1) Will this person stick (e.g. Can this person do whatever is needed to get tenure, and are they going to stay and try to get it?)? If no, discard the application; if yes, go on.

(2) Do they have evidence of their ability to teach? If no, discard the application, if yes, go on.

(3) Among those that are left, look for those with the most evidence of having ability to meet our teaching needs.

This seems sensible. But here's the deal: I meet (1) for sure. And I have taught (actually taught; not just TA'd) more than 40 courses. And I've taught broadly. And I have great evaluations. So I *feel* like teaching schools should be beating down my doors. But they aren't.

Approaching the job market: not a lottery or about philosophical worthiness

(UPDATE: comments now open!)

This is a guest post by Meghan Sullivan. She is Professor of Philosophy and the Rev. John A. O’Brien Collegiate Chair at University of Notre Dame, and has lots of experience with job searches. 

Jonathan Kramnick's observations about changes in the MLA job market transfer to the philosophy market.

And while the job process is certainly high stress for all involved (especially the candidates), I don't think it needs to be as mysterious as it is often portrayed to be.

I am part of a big research department, that is nearly constantly hiring, that serves a philosophy-theology based core curriculum, and that places a high value on collegiality and pluralism. Like many of my colleagues, I've served on a bunch of search committees for the past seven years and as part of many students' job searches. Here is the guidance I give job candidates to try to take the mystery pressure out of the whole thing.

1. Hiring departments are generally trying to solve a problem and meet some goals -- that is what triggered the search. Hiring is not a matter of giving out awards for philosophical worthiness. It isn't a matter of selecting someone who will raise the mean IQ of the faculty. At least not at any healthy department. When a job gets listed, the department is thinking "We really want to grow in metaphysics and we'd love to be able to offer courses in metaphysics and philosophy of science." Or "our university just started up an Honors program. It would be great if we could find a faculty member that will increase our strength in phil religion and help organize that program." Or "We think research on philosophy of race is incredibly important right now. Who is likely to lead us into new avenues in this subfield? What would they write on? What would they do with a conference budget?" Often times when candidates have a rough time on the market, it is no reflection on their abilities or research choices -- it is just that other candidates solved the problems better. That doesn't make you feel great, but it helps in not taking a pass-over as a personal judgment.

Research & teaching job markets: an important difference?

I've written a number of times on how there are multiple academic job-markets, not just one. As a quick rough first pass, there is a research job-market and a teaching job-market--and hiring committees in each market look for different things. A few of my experiences have led me to believe that there may be another important difference--one that may be of great interest to grad students and job-marketeers: potential differences in being able to 'work your way' into a TT job. Allow me to explain.

Although I could be wrong, my sense is that if one does not get a research job relatively quickly (i.e. either right out of grad school or after a postdoc), one's chances of getting a TT job are likely go downhill quickly and stay that way (unless your publishing record is so undeniably good that hiring committees take notice). Why do I say this? I have to confess that my sense here is based mostly on anecdotes. But here are the anecdotes. I know of a few cases where someone was out on the market a while, published up a storm (in top-ranked journals), and then finally got a TT job at a research school. But I don't know many of these cases. I know far more cases of research-minded people--people who have also published up a storm in top 10 and top 5 journals--who still don't have a job or get many interviews. These anecdotes seem to me to fit well with Helen's work indicating it is next to impossible to "publish one's way up the hierarchy" into research jobs, as well as with what I have heard about the importance of trajectory. Basically, my sense is that if you don't get a research job relatively quickly, people on the hiring end of things at R1 schools may be likely to pass you over in favor of people coming out of grad school who "people are talking about."

Query about canceling classes for campus visits

In the comments section of our job-market discussion thread, Anon writes:

...I am extremely stressed out about applying from my current TT position. Suppose someone is teaching a MWF schedule and lands multiple on-campus interviews. The faculty member will likely have to miss a number of teaching days. What is one supposed to do in this situation? How is one supposed to explain multiple absences, especially at an institution where there are strict policies that discourage canceling class?

Because this seems to be a common quandary (I've heard similar questions asked by many different people), I figured it might be good to gather answers to it in an independent thread. I'm not sure I have any good answers. Anyone have any helpful insight here?

What's wrong with letters of recommendation

All of this.

Choosing PhD programs: further issues to consider

There is an interesting discussion at Daily Nous regarding the importance of different kinds of teaching experience for the job-market. Readers may recall that the importance of teaching experience is something I discussed in the Cocoon's Secret Lives of Search Committees series. As I noted there, having served on several search committees at a teaching-focused institution, my sense is that many PhD programs do not emphasize teaching experience nearly enough. Teaching focused departments are looking for candidates who have more experience than just TA-ing. They are looking for candidates who have independent teaching experience--and breadth of it at that (since teaching-focused departments often need faculty who are prepared to teach many different classes, including ones outside of their AOS).

Query on submitting extra application materials

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

I have a small question but it is one that I know a lot of people face. When applying for jobs, is it always best to send exactly what the department asks for? Or is it sometimes better to send more materials if you have them? (I think this has been discussed but I can't find where.)

Also, more specifically: if a job asks for, say, two research and one teaching letter, but it is possible to send them more (e.g. whatever system they are using allows for additional uploads), should you send them more?

My thoughts about this were as follows: it's probably different for research-focused and teaching-focused jobs, and you should try to identify which category the job in question falls into. I worry that sending additional research letters to teaching-focused jobs communicates that you think of yourself as a researcher/writer more than a teacher/philosopher, or perhaps that you are aiming to get a more research-focused job. But for research-focused jobs, you should send as many letters (within reason--once you hit six or so it's probably just annoying to have more) as possible, if you are sure that they are very strong.

This is a good query, one I wondered about a lot as an applicant and didn't get much guidance for. I'm curious to hear what readers who have served on search committees think. For my part, I'm inclined to think it may be good to submit extra materials (i.e. additional recommendation letters) when applying to research jobs. However, my sense is that it is probably not a good idea to submit additional materials for teaching jobs. Allow me to explain.

Query on length & structure of teaching dossiers

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

It emerged in discussions in recent-ish memory that some people have pretty short teaching dossiers.

How are those structured? When I put together just all my course evaluations, from about 12 courses, I have about 25 pages of material.

More generally, I guess I would be interested in hearing about guidelines for minimum and maximum lengths of the various sub-sections of the dossier.

This is a good query, as in my experience many candidates go wrong here. In reply to anon's query, 'On the Search' wrote:

Committees just do not want to see all your teaching evaluations. Let us imagine you submit 25 pages of evaluations. And let us assume that 120 people are applying for a job. That means there are 3000 pages of teaching evaluations. Do you think any committee will read this much?

Having served on three search committees now, I entirely agree...

Reader query about 'key selection criteria'

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

Jobs in the UK and Australia often ask applicants to complete forms detailing how they satisfy "key selection criteria." They seem like HR documents that no one ever reads. And they're often _very_ lengthy. Should these be taken seriously?

As I don't work in the UK or Australia, I am probably not the best person to answer this question. However, my sense is that key selection criteria matter a great deal in these markets in the sense that, yes, one had better address them in detail somewhere (either in your cover letter or a supplementary document).

Job-market reporting thread (2018-19 season)

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

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

Job-market discussion thread (2018-19 season)

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

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

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

Job-market series links

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

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

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

Query on interdisciplinary job-marketeering

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

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

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

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

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

Reader query on choosing a PhD program

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

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

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

Reader query on solving a two-body problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone with experience in these matters willing to weigh in?

Reader query on finding CC and foreign jobs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queries: going on the market from a TT job

UPDATED: comments now open!

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

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

Similarly, Anonymous TT prof wrote:

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

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

Reader query on unconventional teaching practices

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

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

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

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

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

Reader query on editing a special issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reader suggestion: make sure your contact info is readily available

An anonymous reader wrote in yesterday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The never-ending job cycle

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

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

But . . . .

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

Is there any remedy to this situation?

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

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

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

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

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

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 19: flyouts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reader query on lateral moves

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

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

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

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

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

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

On not putting your life on hold on the job market

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

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

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

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

A reader wrote in yesterday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 1: Types of mentoring received?

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

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

"Dossier Materials" - Anonymous mentee

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

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

"Dossier Materials." - Anonymous mentee

"dossier material." - Anonymous mentee

"general advice." - Anonymous mentee

"dossier materials." - Anonymous mentee

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

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

"Dossier Materials." - Anonymous mentee

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

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

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 14: CVs

UPDATED 5/11 - 5:40pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 11: interviews

UPDATED 4/30 - 7:15pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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