The Philosophers' Cocoon

Choosing job-talk papers

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

About the paper that you focus a job talk around. Suppose you have something at every stage of the pipeline - including, say, a manuscript that's not quite submitted for review, a manuscript that's under review, a manuscript that got an R&R decision, a manuscript that you've revised and resubmitted, and a conditional acceptance.

Are any of these options clearly a bad idea? On the one hand, as we get towards the end of the list, they're more polished, and you'll presumably look better presenting them. But also, as we approach the end of the list, they're more "done", and you run the risk of looking like you don't have new things coming.

'One-Time Job Candidate' then answered:

Just my opinion here, but I think the choice of topic for a job talk depends a lot on where you are giving the talk. If it's at a place with a PhD program, I would choose something new, interesting, ambitious, that may not be as far along in the process.

But at teaching-oriented places, I think it's better to give a safer talk in the sense that it's on a better-known topic which is accessible to a lot of people. At least, this was my experience with the job talks I had a few months ago. All were at teaching-oriented places, and none of the talks were based on a paper. Rather, they were overviews of my research program as a whole, tying my work into recognized and accepted philosophical problems that everyone can appreciate.

It was clear that the audiences appreciated this, including the undergraduates in attendance.

I found this interesting, as I would have thought the opposite to be the case: that it would probably be best to present something very polished at research institutions (given the concern for rigor in research, particularly in Q&A's), and something more ambitious at teaching institutions (that might excite the faculty and undergrads there, even if not terribly polished). But this is just my off-the-cuff reaction, and I don't really have much to go on besides my experiences and One-Time Job Candidate's.

What do you all think, particularly those of you who have done well on the market or been on the hiring side of things?

Taking time off work/the market for motherhood?

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

Would it be career suicide to skip the job market and adjuncting for a year (or maybe even two) to expand my family and be a stay at home parent for a little while? I would still attempt to write, publish, and present at conferences (in fact I'd have much more time to attempt to do these things if I wasn't adjuncting and on the market while parenting a young child). I was on the market during my first pregnancy and adjuncted right up until my due date. I'm not keen to try that again while also parenting a toddler. I also don't want to put off having another kid until after I get a permanent job (since it may never happen anyway). Would schools consider hiring someone with this kind of gap in teaching? If so, would there be a good way to explain it in my cover letter and/or CV when going back on the market at a later time?

'B' then answered:

Make a point of listing it on your c.v. or in your letter that you were on maternity leave. There are civilized departments out there. Hopefully no one will ask you to show the placenta to prove it.

While I think this is right--and I think this is an important issue--I also think that whether Anonymous should bet on 'civilized departments' may be a difficult question to answer. Allow me to explain.

I have heard two things anecdotally from a number of people. The first is that search committees may have a tendency to look askance at 'gaps' in one's employment record. The second is that, at many places, there may be fairly clear discrimination against women on the basis of motherhood. For example, I have heard from women academics I know personally that things like the following have been said in their presence, "Oh, she just had a child. Say goodbye to her productivity." Not only that: there is plenty of empirical research showing a very real "motherhood penalty" in hiring and wages--whereas men actually appear to benefit in the workplace from being fathers (whereas motherhood is prejudicially associated with less productivity, fatherhood appears to be prejudicially associated with greater productivity).

If you put these two (very) unfortunate things together--the anecdotal possibility that hiring committees may hold 'employment gaps' against candidates, and real evidence that motherhood is used against mothers in hiring--then B's advice may, sadly, not be the best advice to follow (at least if Anonymous does not want to risk these things, as the concerns in her comment suggests she is concerned about). That being said, I am neither a father nor (obviously) a mother, so I cannot pretend to speak to Anonymous' situation beyond this.

What do you all think?

Expectations about becoming a professor

Last week, I wrote a post answering a recent undergraduate's query about managing expectations heading into grad school. In brief, I suggested to 'Cautiously Optimistic' that they take a great deal of care not to let their cautious optimism morph into reckless optimism - as I have seen many a grad student (including myself!) become socialized in grad school to expect an academic career, and hence not take enough care to ensure they have a viable 'plan B' if an academic career doesn't work out.

In today's post, I want to address another part of Cautiously Optimistic's query that I didn't focus on the first time. In their query, they wrote: 

I have gotten a taste for academic life (as a TA, presenting in conferences, etc.), and I enjoy producing scholarship and am most interested in working with students. While in high school, I job shadowed professors (in music and in English), since the profession appealed to me. So I would like to be a professor. (my italics)

Here is what I would like to focus on: Cautiously Optimistic's desire to be a professor on the basis of their 'taste of academic life.' As I explain below, I think undergraduates and early-term grad students (i.e. MA students and PhD students before the dissertation stage) can and often do have dramatically inaccurate expectations about what is actually involved in becoming and being a professor--that is, a dramatically inaccurate 'taste' of what academic life is actually like. Allow me to explain.

What It's Like to Be on the Philosophy Job Market: A Simulation

About a month ago, I gave a presentation to a group of graduate students about the philosophy job market. During that presentation, I showcased a short video that was designed to be a simulation of what it's like to go on the academic job market in philosophy. I think it's fair to say that it's not the most optimistic portrayal of how the job search can go. But given what was going on at the time I came up with this idea, that's probably not surprising. On the bright side, it did provide some use for the rejection notices that I had been accumulating over the past few years, and my search this past year was ultimately successful (though that story will have to wait for another post).

Anyway, I have now uploaded that short video to YouTube so that you can have the experience of going on the philosophy job market condensed into a mere 75 seconds. The video is embedded below, but I'd recommend full-screening it if you want to actually read some of the text. Note that all the rejection emails in the video are legitimate except one, and you'll probably be able to figure out which one that is.

Updated job-placement graph

Following this earlier information, Jonathan Weisberg (Toronto) has posted this new graph on academic job-placement:

As Amanda noted in our previous thread on this topic, Weisberg's data does not include the placement rates for hundreds of  'unranked' philosophy PhD programs (i.e. programs not in the Leiter rankings). This is important, because according to the ADPA Report the placement rates of some unranked programs are very high, indeed much higher in some cases than the most highly-Leiter-ranked programs (see here for a brief overview).

Phd program prestige and TT placement

There has been a lot of discussion here over the years on the role that PhD program prestige plays on the job-market. Here is a new chart Jonathan Weisberg (Toronto) posted on social media today based on data he collected:

Long story short: top-ranked programs have significantly higher TT placement-rates on average than lower-ranked programs. However, some lower-ranked programs have even higher placement rates than the highest-ranked programs.

For (a lot) more background, see here.

New-hire horror stories

Over the years, Daily Nous and the now-defunct Smoker have discussed job-market horror stories of various sorts, including things like rescinded job-offers and astonishingly bad behavior by departments and search-committee members. But recently another kind of horror story was brought to my attention: horror stories about intolerable conditions after being hired. Grad students and job-marketeers, of course, are socialized to treat just about any TT job as worth taking, due to how terrible the market is. But are all TT jobs really worth taking? I recently had someone contact me about a truly terrible situation they unexpectedly found themselves in, which could have serious implications for their long-term career prospects (not to mention their well-being). I've also heard a number of people say they are very unhappy where they ended up, for various reasons.

Anyway, because this issue has not been discussed nearly as often as job-market horror stories, I thought it might be good to have a thread soliciting people who have had new hire horror stories to share in general terms what happened to them and why it was so awful. Hopefully there aren't a lot of cases--but regardless, it could be good for candidates to learn about the kinds of bad situations they could get themselves into if they are not careful. So, then do any of you have a new-hire horror story? If so, can you give some vague details? (important note: please ensure that any details you provide are not stated in a way that identifies or could be reasonably used to identify other individuals or specific institutions, which I think is necessary for preserving the Cocoon's safe and supportive mission).

Evidence that 'weak' publications help candidates

Earlier in my career, both in graduate school and thereafter, I was told by a number of people that I should only try to publish in top-ranked journals, as publications in 'bad journals' are likely to be held against job-candidates. At least anecdotally, I have heard that this type of advice is common, perhaps even the received wisdom among job-candidates and faculty at grad programs. But is it accurate?

A number of years ago (all the way back in 2012), I did some informal data collection on that year's job-market, and what I found seemed to tell a very different story. I found that publications in non-top-20 journals not only didn't appear to hurt candidates for R1 jobs (as roughly half of R1 hires had at least one non-top-2o publication). I also found that non-top-20 publications appeared to help candidates for jobs at 'teaching' institutions (as roughly 2/3 of all hires for these jobs had no top-20 publications and 1/3 had publications in non-top-2o journals).

When I found this, I was still on the job-market myself, with only two minor publications (both 'replies') in a top-20 specialist journal and two publications in lower-ranked journals. So I decided to take a risk: I decided to stop focusing so much on top-ranked journals and instead started sending papers to lower-ranked journals. Over the next two years (2013 and 2014), I published nine articles, all in lower-ranked journals. And what did I find? My interview numbers dramatically increased (mostly at 'teaching' schools, but also the occasional R1 interview).

Now, of course, all of this is anecdotal. I am reporting it again now, however, because a scientific study, 'Do Publications in Low-Impact Journals Help or Hurt a CV?", was just carried out testing the hypothesis, at least in a sample of academics in psychology. And what did they find? Here are some key passages from the study's abstract:

Two experiments revealed that an applicant was rated as stronger when several weak publications were added to several strong ones, and was rated as weaker when the weak publications were removed. A third experiment showed that the additional weak publications were not merely viewed as a signal of additional strong publications in the future; instead, the weak publications themselves appear to be valued. In a fourth and final experiment, we found that adding a greater number of weak publications also strengthened the applicant, but not more so than adding just a few. The study further suggests that the weak publications may signal ability, as applicants with added weak publications were rated as both more hard-working and more likely to generate innovative research ideas. Advice for tenure-track psychology applicants: Don’t hesitate to publish in even the weakest journals, as long as it does not keep you from publishing in strong journals. Implications of the market rewarding publications in low-impact journals are discussed. (my emphasis)

Oh, and the idea that better-ranked journals publish better work? This new study found that studies in top-ranked science journals reproduce less often than studies in lower-ranked journals. To wit:

In which journal a scientist publishes is considered one of the most crucial factors determining their career. The underlying common assumption is that only the best scientists manage to publish in a highly selective tier of the most prestigious journals. However, data from several lines of evidence suggest that the methodological quality of scientific experiments does not increase with increasing rank of the journal. On the contrary, an accumulating body of evidence suggests the inverse: methodological quality and, consequently, reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank. (my emphasis)

So much for conventional wisdom!

Tips for moving mid-career?

A reader asks,

Do you know if there is any discussion on the Cocoon blog about how to try to do a "mid-career" move? Success at that seems very random. I'm asking for a friend who has an excellent, excellent publication record but gets no bites whatsoever. Yet I know some other people who appear to have done little publication-wise but have been able to move to better places.

I actually don't think this is an issue we have ever discussed at length. So how about we discuss it now! Does anyone have any helpful tips or insights on making a mid-career move (i.e. from one tenure stream or tenured academic job to another)? Following empirical findings on the high importance of networking in occupational hiring, I suspect that may be a significant part of what is going on in the cases the reader describes (as well as potentially prestige bias). But in any case, might be especially good to hear from people who have made mid-career moves successfully, as well as from people who have served on search committees that hired people mid-career. Hopefully we can get some inside insight! 

The Special-Skills Fallacy

In my first post in this series, I argued that our profession--grad programs and professional institutions--should do far more to foster alt-ac opportunities for early-career people, and offered some simple suggestions for feasible things I think can and should be done. Then, in my last post, I suggested that for these things to happen, we probably need to combat the 'academia or bust' mindset in the profession, a mindset that seems common in grad program faculty, grad students, and job-marketeers. However, it occurred to me after reading comments in both threads that in order to combat this mindset, we may need to combat something more specific: what I will call The Special-Skills Fallacy. Allow me to explain.

Consider what 'job marketeer' wrote here:

The faculty at my PhD program did a good job reminding grad students that the market is tough...On the other hand, they didn't seem to acknowledge the possibility that those who intend to complete the program may also want to consider alt-ac employment. The biggest reason this seems like an oversight is...there are no obvious alt-ac career choices for philosophers. (my italics)

Similarly, consider what 'postdoc' wrote here:

If we fail at the TT objective, then there aren't too many other jobs a PhD in philosophy (without a STEM background) can do that match the status of University Professor (if any). (my italics)

Comments like these appear on the Cocoon startlingly often (I vaguely recall dozens of them). Consequently, it appears as though many people in our profession--grad students, job-marketeers, and grad faculty--probably (at least implicitly) believe something like the following argument, which I will call the Special Skills Fallacy:

The Special Skills Fallacy

1. Philosophy graduate students, MAs, and PhDs (without an additional STEM background) have no special skills relevant to obtaining good alt-ac careers.

2. If (1) is true, then there are no obvious alt-ac career choices for philosophy grad students, MAs, or PhDs.

3. Thus (from 1&2), there are no obvious alt-ac career choices for philosophy grad students, MAs, or PhDs.

4. If (3) is true, then screw it: philosophy grad students, MAs, and PhDs have no real shot for good alt-ac careers.

5. Thus, (from 3&4), screw it: philosophy grad students, MAs, and PhDs have no real shot for good alt-ac careers.

In other words, this line of reasoning seems to me a very common argument that many people implicitly accept to justify inaction--both individually and institutionally. However, should we actually believe this argument? I think it is (informally) fallacious in not one but two different respects.

The Shadow Self

Last year in November, Alia Wong published an article in The Atlantic that detailed the various ways that PhD students often suffer from mental illness. The factors that put a strain on these students’ mental health are familiar: long-term employment prospects are poor, some students accumulate massive debt, and getting the the PhD is an intellectually taxing enterprise. Mix that together, and you get a recipe for stress and unhappiness.

The article focuses on a study of economics PhDs, and according to the survey mentioned, they are three times more likely to experience depression than the general population. (About 6% of the general population experiences depression; roughly 18% of those surveyed did.) But economics is far from the only field where concerns about mental health loom large. A recent study at UC Berkley found that a much higher proportion of their student population suffered from apparent depression, including an astonishing 64% of surveyed students in the arts and humanities. Broadening to the full spectrum of mental health issues, a recent study found that 50% of academic scholars have experienced mental health issues due to their academic work, which is roughly double the rate at which the general population experiences mental health issues. And last year, Teresa Evans and her colleagues argued that there was sufficient evidence of a mental health crisis in graduate education.

I could list other findings, but you get the point: a lot of graduate students struggle with their mental health. Philosophy graduate students are no exception, and even after graduate school, most early career scholars who find employment spend time in temporary appointments where they are forced to go back in the job market within a year or two. Facing the need to continue publishing and teaching well so that they can brave the job market gauntlet again, these positions are often just as stressful as the tail end of graduate school. And even when stable employment is secured, many departments are just one change to the general education program away from their existence being in jeopardy. A tenure-track position is often not a panacea for the challenges of academic life.

When we consider all this, it should not be surprising that many of our colleagues are struggling to with depression, anxiety, and their ilk. The victims of these conditions are all around us, and yet we so rarely acknowledge this fact. Consider these remarks from Peter Railton’s 2015 Dewey Lecture:

And what of depression?  Perhaps we all know the mask of depression, that frozen, affectless face we catch glimpses of on our students, colleagues, and friends. I can’t do anything about that. But perhaps I can do something about the face of depression—its visible image in the minds of our children and parents, teachers and students. Because in truth, we are still to a considerable degree still in a world of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” with regard to depression and associated mental disorders, such as anxiety, even though these will severely affect one in ten of us over the course of a lifetime, and often at more than one point in a lifetime.

Alt-ac: how our profession can do better?

In recent years, my primary focus on the Cocoon has been to help early-career people navigate the profession, particularly the job-market. To this end, Helen and I did things like the Job-Market Boot Camp and Job-Market Mentoring Program. Although I plan to keep doing these kinds of things--as a number of readers have said they find these kinds of things helpful--from time to time some readers in comments sections have been critical of these endeavors, saying that they don't do anything to deal with the deeper problems grad students and job-candidates face: specifically, features of the profession that put grad students and job-candidates in such awful positions to begin with. If, as appears to be case, only something like 35% of job-candidates can get permanent academic jobs at all, what does job-market advice really accomplish in the end...besides helping out this candidate or that candidate, while still leaving 65% of job-candidates without jobs? Ben Sheredos' paper on the phenomenology of professional failure really drove this point home to me: that for all too many candidates, all of the well-meant advice and encouragement in the world (viz. "You can do it...if only you improve your dossier materials and interviewing skills!") may not only ring hollow, but may even be harmful in a hard-to-quantify way (by perhaps fostering false hope, followed by many hours harder and harder work to become a better candidate, only to again be met with failure in the end). In this way, Ben's paper made me begin to reevaluate what in the world I am trying to do here at the Cocoon.

Job-market catastrophizing?: a conversation

The other day, a reader in a Leiter-ranked grad program wrote in:

Does anyone know how the difficulty of obtaining a tenure-track philosophy job compares to that of starting one’s own business, becoming a popular writer, developing a patented product, ... any other kind of highly successful job that brings with it the joys of long-term employment security and doing what one loves? Asking the same question in more leading (but also more transparent) terms, does our profession’s culture of catastrophizing the job market have anything to do with the fact that many (certainly not all) philosophers seem to have somewhat affluent backgrounds—and might therefore be unaware of how tough the "job market" is for almost everyone in late capitalism? I appreciate warnings about the competitiveness of professional philosophy, but I find they are often hard to understand since they aren’t relativized to jobs that are comparable to philosophy jobs. A further way of phrasing my question: How much does the brutality of the philosophy job market have to do with philosophy, and how much does it have to do with the fact that philosophy jobs are really, really, really great jobs?

We then had an enlightening email conversation, which the reader suggested we might share here on the Cocoon. Here is that conversation.

A Phenomenology of Professional Failure

Ben Sheredos (UC San Diego) drew my attention earlier today to his manuscript, 'A Phenomenology of Professional Failure.' I gave it a read this afternoon, think it is very much relevant to some recent discussions we've had, and think it is well worth reading, both by early-career people and more advanced members of the profession. First, it may help prospective graduate students better understand and appreciate the actual stakes involved in pursuing a philosophy PhD. Second, it may help other people in Ben's situation--by perhaps helping them better understand their own experiences, as well as by letting them know they are not alone. Third, it may help more advanced members of the profession better understand and sympathize with the point-of-view of a seemingly growing number of early-career people disaffected by the profession. Finally, to that extent, perhaps it can lead our profession to do something that is surely long overdue: namely, better grapple with the fact that this is the kind of situation that all too many early-career members of our profession find themselves in. I hope I am not alone, when reading Ben's piece, in thinking we need to do better. For, to summarize just one of his piece's many takeaways, our profession seems professionalize the vast majority of its members (the 60+% who do not obtain tenure-track jobs) to regard themselves as failures. We need to (A) stop professionalizing our PhD students into conceiving themselves as failures if a permanent academic job doesn't work out (which I have heard is a very common attitude in PhD programs), and (B) do a much better job of professionalizing our PhD students so that they have greater capacities to be successful--for example, by better preparing them for opportunities for success outside of the academy. 

Anyway, although I found early sections of the paper to be a bit protracted, the latter parts (sections 5 and 6)--where Sheredos gets to explaining the phenomenology of professional failure--contain some pretty moving passages that got me thinking about how I have responded in certain discussions, and how to do so in the future. So, rather than summarize and comment on Sheredos' analysis, I'd like to simply quote some choice passages that struck me as particularly meaningful and worth reflecting on, and then open things up for discussion:

Sweat Equity on the Philosophy Job Market

By Greg Stoutenburg (York College of Pennsylvania)

gstoutenburg@ycp.edu

In light of a recent post about basing one’s choice on whether to start a PhD in philosophy on the disvalue of not getting a tenure-track job, and a somewhat related post about choosing a non-tenure-track position over a tenure-track one, I thought I’d share something I have been thinking about for a while, which is my personal experience of four years on the philosophy job market. There is an abundance of job advice available to would-be philosophy graduate students and those late in their PhD progress, but very little of it comes with context that might help with figuring out what one ought to do. A lot of people with interest in philosophy have backgrounds like mine and hope to work their way on to the tenure-track. I now believe that such an approach is fundamentally misguided, as I will share in this story of what I did to prepare for the market that I have now given up on.

Since this is a personal story, I invite anyone who is interested to check out my website. It includes my CV and lots of job market materials: gregstoutenburg.com. You might use that information for comparison.

Good idea or bad idea?

A while back, someone asked in a comment thread here at the Cocoon whether it might be a good idea to note in a job-market cover letter that they personally know someone at the university they were applying to. Over the years, job-candidates have asked a lot of questions like this, such as whether it's a good or bad idea to change the order of their CV for research and teaching schools; whether it is a good idea or bad idea to list papers under review on their CV; and so on. Looking back on my own time on the job-market, there were a lot of things like this: things I was uncertain were a good idea or a bad idea.

Anyway, it occurred to me the other day that insofar as we've had questions of this sort in the past--and insofar as I routinely ran into puzzles like this as a job-candidate--it might be good to devote a thread to questions like these. So, then, is there something job-market related that you're wondering whether it is a good idea or bad idea to do? If so, then ask away in the comments section below! Your question can deal with any part of the job market: dossier materials, Skype interviews, on-campus interviews, contract negotiations, and so on. Other readers should feel free to answer - but I may select some particularly good questions and devote separate threads to discussing them (in much the same vein as our "how can we help you?" series).

It will be interesting to see the kinds of questions people have - and hopefully we will be able to provide some good answers!

Concerns about recommendation letters?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, James W. Quinn writes:

Would it be possible to discuss the letter-of-recommendation system and its moral, practical justification? I have been enduring horrible situations—from plagiarism and unpaid labor to sexual harassment—in order to be able to apply for some jobs that require three, if not five, letters.

I've long had concerns about letters of recommendation, and Michael Huemer (University of Colorado) wrote a piece a while back summing up a lot of them. There was some really good discussion of Huemer's piece at Daily Nous. However, James Quinn's comment above reveals another (much darker) side to the letter of recommendation issue that I have not seen discussed as much: the manner in which requiring letters of recommendation may empower bad actors in the profession to abuse their power over graduate students and job-marketeers.

I'm curious how wide-spread these kinds of cases are, as well as to hear what our early-career readers think of the letter of recommendation system in applying for jobs. Anyone have any thoughts or experiences they are willing to share?

Why I chose an NTT job over the tenure track

By Jake Wright (University of Minnesota Rochester)

There’s an expectation, often unstated, that when one is weighing competing job offers where one is tenure-track and the other is not, the tenure-track job should win out every time.  When I was on the job market five years ago and faced exactly this choice, I chose the NTT job. 

When this came out in a comment thread here on the Cocoon the other day, some commenters, including Marcus, expressed a mixture of surprise and curiosity.  Why, they wondered, would someone choose an NTT job over the tenure track?  What factors might go into such a decision?  What pressures did I face, and how did I weigh competing considerations?  It was suggested that I might write a post discussing some of these questions, and thus, here I am.

The costs of getting a tenure-track job

In a recent post at Daily Nous, L.A. Paul and John Quiggin suggest that when it comes to rationally deliberating about whether to enter a PhD program in philosophy,

The crucial question is whether students can prospectively assess how much they’ll disvalue not getting that tenure track job when the training is done (or, put differently, how much they’ll disvalue the life they’ll find themselves living as an unsuccessful job candidate). 

Paul & Quiggin's post very much resonated with me. I entered graduate school naively optimistic, thinking everything would go according to plan: that I would finish the PhD quickly, get a tenure-track job without a problem, and get tenure. Oh how different the reality was. I struggled to finish my degree, getting stuck at the dissertation stage (like all too many grad students do), and then after I finally finished the degree I grappled with the job-market for seven years. There were so many times--both in grad school and beyond--that I wished I could go back in time and knock some sense into my earlier self, convincing him to stay the heck away from entering a philosophy PhD program.

However, are Paul and Quiggan correct that 'the crucial question' is whether students can prospectively assess how much they'll disvalue not getting a tenure-track job? Some recent experiences have led me to think the crucial question is much more complex--and in some ways much more disturbing--than this. Allow me to explain, by way of two stories.

Dissertations: monographs or three articles?

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

I wonder what folks think about monograph dissertations in comparison to three-article model dissertations.

I wonder because it seems as if having three articles are more likely to increase once’s chances on the job market in comparison to a monograph.

I think this is a really interesting query, and I'm curious to hear what people have to say. Allow me to share a few thoughts.

Transitioning to one's first TT job

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

I would be grateful to read a post on how one coming out of grad school or a post doc should prepare for starting their new tenure-track assistant professorship in the states, with an eye toward getting off on the right foot for securing tenure painlessly.

'Excited new prof' then added:

My request relates to Eddie's. I was wondering if anyone would have advice about what (not) to do during your first year as an Assistant professor on a tenure-track. I'm starting this fall at a regional comprehensive in the U.S.

Great questions - and there has already been some good advice given, particularly Old Prof's:

What NOT to do in your first year: do not agree to do all sorts of committee work, and then not deliver on what you said you would do (be realistic); do not hide problems with your teaching until they are so big the dean hears about it (get help early); do not assume that your new institution works like the ones you have been at in the past (ask questions); do not stop researching (show that you can balance research with full time teaching ... it is also the only way to get out of a bad place if you need to leave); do not go out drinking with your students or say inappropriate things to them; do not trash your colleagues to other people on campus (wait at least a year for that ;).

But let me add a few more things before opening things up for discussion...

Query on SEP & Phil Compass articles

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'possibly unlucky' writes:

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I would love a discussion of the way in which SEP/PhilCompass articles are handled. I think most view a publication in SEP or PhilCompass quite favorably (I'm always impressed by such publications) and these publications allow the author to exert a fair amount of influence over the subfield (unlike traditional journal articles, these reference articles can be read by hundreds, if not thousands). Yet the process by which credit and influence are distributed is, to me at least, extraordinarily opaque. I've only had experience with PhilCompass, but my sense is that the subeditors have a tremendous amount of autonomy and so there is no standard practice. There's no review system or procedure in place, so those who don't personally know the subeditor may not be guaranteed serious consideration. In my own case, I had to just cold email the editors. In one case the editors told me to come back in a year (a year!) if I hadn't published my article and they *may* reconsider it. In another case, the editor just ignored me. Have people had similar experiences or am I just unlucky?

There was quite a bit of discussion about this query in that thread already, but let me say a few brief things. In reply to 'possibly unlucky', Amanda wrote:

My experience is that invited publications count for a lot, as much as peer-reviewed journals for lots of research places. It is all about proving you are a member of an elite club, not some impassioned judgement of who is objectively best.

I have to confess that I found this very surprising. As someone who doesn't work at a R1 institution, I would have thought that Phil Compass and SEP entries would not count as positively in a candidate's favor as traditional non-invited publications featuring original research. Indeed, my own experience (having served on four search committees) is that some search committees really want to see whether a candidate can publish original research consistently through traditional, anonymized review - and that if a candidate only has a few publications, most of which are either invited or literature overviews (viz. SEP or Phil Compass), then that could even count against a candidate.

But, like others, I am merely speaking anecdotally here. Any search committee members care to weigh in? How do you (or committees you've served on) tend to treat Phil Compass or SEP publications?

The “job market" doesn't start post-PhD

This is a guest post by John Protevi, Louisiana State University

This post has two sections. In the first, I take a wide view at employment practices in philosophy departments in American higher education. In the second, taking that analysis in hand, I offer some advice to people considering entering graduate school in philosophy.

When philosophers talk about "the job market," they presuppose that the job market in philosophy begins post-PhD, that it’s all about people looking for a TT job. 

I suggest that we change our frame of reference on these matters, and specify that when we talk about "the job market" in this way we are discussing only a small segment of the complete system of employment for philosophy instruction in institutions of higher education. So I'd like to suggest we call the analysis of the complete system "the political economy of philosophy instruction." 

When we change the frame of reference like that, we see the context for the (post-PhD) job market includes post-BA labor of graduate assistants (either as TAs in charge of sections, or in charge of discussion groups, or as graders of essays) as well as part-time and full-time instructors with BA, MA, or PhD, and post-docs with teaching duties. 

To put it in a formula that retains “job market”: the *real* job market for philosophy teachers begins post-BA, so that PhDs are not just competing against other PhDs but also against anyone else who teaches philosophy, holders of the BA and MA included. 

When we talk about the "political economy of philosophy instruction" we can then explicitly talk about several factors that are only implicit in the discussion of the (post-PhD) "job market."

First, we can see the role of university administrators, who are, after all, largely responsible for the shifts in employment patterns in philosophy instruction. 

To an administrator, a section of Logic or Intro to Phil or Intro to Ethics or ... taught by a BA or MA is a section taught, and taught at low cost. This focus on administrators enables us to connect "job market" discourse with the analyses of the "corporate university," the "privatization of the university," and like matters.

Moving from renewable lecturer to one-year VAP?

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

Is there is a situation in which it makes sense to leave a potentially renewable lecturer position with pretty bad pay for a better VAP position with much better pay?

Is the renewability factor too important to give up for the one year, non-renewable position that pays much better?

I'd be curious to hear what everyone else thinks, but here's my answer. Absent extenuating circumstances (e.g. the lecturer salary being too low to live a decent lifestyle, adequately support one's family, etc.), the renewable lecturer position seems the better bet. I spent seven years on the academic job-market, and for me time made all of the difference. I was lucky to be in a renewable non-TT position that I could stay in that entire time. Had I been in a one or two-year position, I doubt I would have been able to stay on the market as long as I did--which again, was as long as I ended up needing to get a tenure-track job. On the other hand, if the lecturer salary is really low (and one really cannot fathom remaining in that kind of situation long-term), then maybe rolling the dice with the VAP makes sense.

What do you all think? It might be helpful to hear more detail from the relevant reader to orient the discussion, as well.

Evening the playing field

In the comments section of Helen's recent post in praise of ordinary academics, Derek Bowman wrote:

The problem is that even positions like these now require one to be - or at least to present oneself as - exceptional. How many of the many job market threads here at the Cocoon are about how to *stand out* rather than simply how to be a good teacher or a good philosopher?

NK then added:

To add to Derek's comment: It's long bothered me that so much of the discussion here is about how to stand out. To an extent, I get it. But telling everyone how to stand out arguably just intensifies the competition (and reinforces the background assumption of meritocracy) that's already making so many of us so miserable. I'm actually inclined to think that giving job-seekers advice about how to get a job is a lot like encouraging athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs (setting aside the fact that the latter are against the rules): if you give the advice to a few, and they take it, it will likely help them; but if you give it to everyone, and most of them take it, the result is that everyone is working harder (suffering, or taking the risk of suffering, the side-effects of the drugs) for basically the same chances of success. So the whole exercise seems pointless (irrational, even).

Helen then responded by saying, "The way I see my mission on The Cocoon and other forums is to help level the playing field...[by providing] free information...[that] helps to make it clearer what [kind of] candidate you are." However, NK wasn't persuaded that what we do helps to level the playing field.

Because these kinds of concerns have come up before (and I do understand where they are coming from) I'd like to try to clarify why I am still hopeful that the tips and information we've provided may help to level the playing field in good ways.

Reminder: it only takes one

Shay Logan (Macalester) writes in:

I have a job! Yay. But that’s not exactly why I’m writing. Mostly I’m writing because I think there’s something about my experience in four years on the market that might be valuable for your readers to know.

I’ve seen the “if you’re doing things right you’ll get a load of interviews” thing mentioned on your blog and heard it a ton elsewhere as well. But I think it’s wrong. It was definitely wrong for me. Chatting with other folks in niche fields, I get the following sense: if you’re not (a) working in moral/political or (b) from someplace fancy, then you will probably get very few interviews even if you’re doing everything right. 

Example: I never once had more than three interviews in a job season. Chatting with other folks in niche subfields leads me to believe this is a common experience. And, in case it matters, I (and many of the folks I chatted with) did the things you’re supposed to do (lots of outside vetting, hired a job consultant, went to career centers, published more, taught more, etc) and still never got more than three interviews in a season. This despite applying very broadly, to anything that I/they qualified for (sometimes 80+ jobs). 

This season, I had exactly one interview. They hired me. 

The moral of the story *isn’t* “don’t give up if you’re not getting many interviews”. By all means, give up when it makes sense to give up. Failing to get many interviews may be evidence to add to your “when does it make sense to give up” calculation. The moral is just that failing to get many interviews doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with your application. It’s just how things are out there for some (many?) of us. 

Thanks to Shay for writing in with this. I think it is a very good reminder that different subfields can be very different (in terms of interview numbers), and that it only takes one interview to work out! That being said, I still think it may make sense to evaluate whether to stay on the market depending on how many interviews one gets. For example, if you've been on the market for 5+ years but you are still getting one interview each season, it may make sense to consider how long one should keep at it given the chances (and other opportunity costs) involved. Still, Shay's comment seems to me very helpful, and I thank him for sharing it. And of course I congratulate you, Shay, on getting the job! :)

In praise of ordinary academics and their goodness

Averageness is a statistical concept, but often it becomes a normative one. Once you establish a bell curve, you can start looking for the exceptional and unusual, as for example Galton's quest for "nature's preeminently nobles" in eugenics, and this becomes the new norm. In academia, averageness is bad.  We all need to be exceptional: exceptionally productive researchers who publish in the right venues, gifted teachers. 

The drive for exceptionalism is toxic. People who go to graduate schools and write doctoral dissertations are already exceptional and gifted in academic talent, but if you find yourself in a pool of such people, it's hard to stand out. Eric Schliesser estimated in 2014 there are 44,000 philosophers alive worldwide. Yet just a few names keep on popping up.

We rely on heuristics and shortcuts to recognize brilliance, because it would be unfeasible to read everyone's work in detail. So we use prestige (as I've argued earlier, see also here) as a shortcut, or gender (although, I do have to say that situation has markedly improved over the years.) Still, even if somehow we had total gender parity and prestige bias could be mitigated the drive for exceptionalism remains. There are exceptional people deserving of recognition, of mention on blogs, of prizes, of symposia at the APA devoted to their books. And then there's all the rest. Whatever shortcuts we will use to gauge exceptionalism, as long as the drive for it persists (and given the job structure of academia, I do not see this change any time soon), that belief will remain.

Skype teaching demos, etc.

In our job-market discussion thread, K.A. writes:

Following up on an earlier conversation about teaching demos via Skype (and thanks to anon 3/12/2019 for their thoughts): does anyone have any advice on how to structure a 10 minute Skype teaching demo?

I don't have the topic yet, but my concerns so far are mostly structural: how should I place the camera, should I aim to write on the board, how should I be interactive with the group on the other side.

Anyone else have thoughts?

I've heard of more of this kind of thing occurring lately - including 15-20 minute Skype research talks. I actually think this may be a better way to interview (since, unlike traditional interviews, it actually has you simulate 'the job' a little bit!). But I have no experience with it myself, and doing this sort of thing online can have special challenges (especially, I imagine, if one uses powerpoint). 

Does anyone have any experience with these, and perhaps any tips to share? It might also be good to hear from search committee members who have held these types of interviews, to hear what works, what problems may have arisen for candidates, and so on!

 

Informing committees of job offers

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

I've just been offered a VAP at Institution X, where a decision is expected of me within about two weeks. However, I recently interviewed for a VAP at Institution Y, where I was told that they'd make a decision in about a month. I strongly prefer the position at Institution Y. How do I diplomatically reach out to Y in a way that might speed up their timetable, but not in a way that seems pushy or likely to tell me to PFO?

Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems to me pretty straightforward. Just write a polite email informing the search chair you have a job offer (without mentioning who the offer is from), maybe mention that you are still very interested in their job, and ask them what the time-frame of their search looks like. At that point the ball is in their court. If they are seriously considering you as a candidate but don't want to lose you, then they will make something happen. If not, then not: they'll give you a polite PFO and that's that. I don't see any other real options here. Finally, for what it's worth, I suspect a search committee is less likely to speed up its timetable for a VAP position--simply because VAPs are temporary positions (whereas there is probably much greater incentive to hire the committee's top choice in a TT job).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees or engaged in this kind of negotiating as a candidate?

Negotiating tips, especially w/unionized schools

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Anon writes,

I would love some advice (and maybe even some sample language!) about how to negotiate effectively. Some background info: I'm a junior woman, and the institution that made me the (as yet unofficial) offer is unionized, which might affect how much room there is to move when it comes to salary. Thanks in advance!

The best negotiating advice I am aware of is by Karen Kelsky at the Professor Is In (see here and here). I won't belabor repeating all of her advice here, but let me discuss two things I think are probably vital to know.

First, I want to emphasize something vital that Kelsky emphasizes: your negotiating strategy needs to be in touch with the kind of job you have been offered. In brief, my experience is that although a lot of things are negotiable for R1 jobs, not much is for jobs at teaching oriented schools (e.g. liberal arts universities and community colleges). For example, asking for a reduction in teaching load or deferring your job for a year are totally fine at a research school. However, these are not things to try to negotiate with a job at a teaching-oriented school (e.g. a liberal arts university or community college). For one notorious horror story, see here. My sense is that at teaching schools, course-load reductions may never be given (or only given to department chairs), and there may never be pre-tenure sabbaticals nor (to my knowledge) job deferments. Indeed, my sense is that for jobs at teaching schools, the only thing one may be able to negotiate may be a modest salary increase. Candidates should be aware of these differences. Personally, when it comes to jobs at teaching schools, the safest thing to do is to probably just ask for a bit more salary, and the next-safest thing to do is to ask the chair of the search committee the open-ended question (after receiving the offer), "What, if anything, do you think is safe to ask for in negotiating?" My sense is that there is probably little harm in asking a question this broad, and that most people sincerely interested in hiring you will give an honest answer.

Second, there is the other issue Anon asked about: negotiating with unionized schools. Although I am no expert on unionization, to the best of my knowledge once a university is unionized US Federal Law prohibits one-on-one negotiations--as unionization is a legal status, entitling both sides (the university and its unionized employees) to collective bargaining. If I am wrong about this, please do let me know--but this is my understanding. 

Anyway, these are only my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you with experience negotiating (either as job-candidates on the hiring side of things)?

Trends in philosophy jobs by AOS (2013-18)

In past years, I reported the distribution of academic jobs in philosophy by AOS. This year, the Aero Data Lab has done one better, providing a detailed report of jobs by AOS from 2013-2018. The graph they provide is very striking, and here are some of the main takeaways:

The most striking result here is probably the “ethic” category, which consistently sees 50+ opportunities both for tenure track and fixed term positions. “Politic” and “science” are also looking relatively strong, with 20-30 opportunities each year. So for new graduate students in search of a project that is likely to increase their job market desirability, working on the ethical, social, or political implications of science would seem like a safe bet.

In terms of trends over time, most of the AOS’s fluctuate between 5-15 jobs/year. There appears to be a slight downward trend for “ancient” and “mind,” and a recent uptick of interest in “race”. However, the lack of big changes over time is also interesting, and worth thinking about for new graduate students as they develop and shape their projects. For example, in the past 6 years, there have only ever been a handful of opportunities in math, medieval, and aesthetics—even for fixed term positions. So if your main area of interest is more niche, it may be prudent to think about building a connection to a higher demand AOS in order to increase your future academic job opportunities.

Addressing flight-risk in cover letters?

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

I have a question about tailoring cover letters. I'd like to convey in my cover letter that I'm not a flight risk but I'm unsure of the best way (or anyway besides outright saying this) to do that. Any advice?

This is a great question, and I am curious to hear from people who have served on searches about what they think. But here are a few quick thoughts of my own...

Using older teaching letters?

Two readers wrote in this week about using "old" teaching letters on the market. One reader writes:

I've noticed that a lot of schools lately require a rec letter that addresses teaching. What do people do about these? I've been in the same job long enough that the people who've seen me teach recently are all colleagues who don't know I'm on the market, and I need to keep it that way. The only teaching rec I can get, then, would be [many] years out of date. I'm sure that's not an unusual problem.

And Anon wrote in our "how can we help you?" thread:

Normally I just use one teaching letter, from someone who saw me teach at my current job. I've come across something that asks for more than one teaching letter.

I do have another teaching letter handy that describes my teaching from the last job (it's on Interfolio). The thing is, it's "out of date" - but does that matter in a case like this?

I get that my research letters change from year to year, but this is just a letter describing what I was up to in the classroom at a particular time and place. So is it okay to use an old one or does it look weird?

I'm curious to hear what other readers think--but I'm inclined to think it's just fine. A search committee member might notice that the letter is a few years old, but for all that I think they are likely to be more interested in what the letter says than anything else. I think it probably is a good idea to get a newer letter if you can--but if you're in our first reader's position and that's not really an option, I'm inclined to think it's not a very big deal.

But I'm just one person, and may be idiosyncratic. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

Preparing for structured interviews

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

I have a practical question about interviews. It seems like there are two kinds of interviews--(a) those where the committee asks follow up questions, and (b) those where they don't. I assume (b) happens because of HR regulations, but I am really bad at these interviews. My answers tend to run short even when I have a lot to say. And that's bad, since a lot of fixed term lecturer jobs have (b) type interviews, and that's mostly what I'm competitive for right now. Should candidates plan responses to certain typical questions to fit a target time-length, so they don't run short? Or is it expected that this stuff happens? Is there some way to turn it into a conversation that I'm missing? There's often not even any nodding or eye contact during my answers, let alone follow-ups. Sometimes these interviewers skip important questions too, like "How would you teach Intro?" I'm pretty good at (a) type interviews, but utterly bewildered by (b).

This is an excellent query. My experience isn't that '(b) type' interviews tend to occur because of HR regulations. Rather, it is because science supports them. Allow me to explain, and then offer a few tips on preparing for such interviews.

VAPS vs. Lecturers: do search committees care?

Update: comments open now!

In our newest "how can we help you?" post, anon writes:

Is there a meaningful difference between going on the job market as a lecturer and a visiting assistant professor or are both viewed equally?

Obviously, the institution where you're employed and other details have to be considered, but all things being equal, will the title alone confer or convey any meaningful difference or are both viewed as what they are: temporary, contingent appointments?

I honestly don't know the answer. Because I know Lecturer positions in the UK are basically equivalent to Assistant Professor positions in the US, my sense is that search-committee members regard them as basically interchangeable titles for candidates from the UK. In the US, however, my understand is that Lecturer positions can be any one of many things.

Search-committee prejudices?

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

A few years ago, before I secured a permanent position, I applied for a tenure-track position at the institution where I was on a year-to-year fixed-term contract. Department members seemed favorably disposed to my teaching, service, and research. When a tenure-track position in my AOS was advertised at the institution, I jumped at the opportunity to apply.

One member of the department sent an email to other members of the department indicating he was against my candidacy for the tenure-track position. According to the email, which one member of the department forwarded to me, his reasons were that people who obtain fixed-term contracts shouldn't be hired at those institutions permanently and that people on fixed-term contracts were less talented than those who get a tenure-track position directly out of graduate school.

You've discussed the precarious relationship between permanent department members and fixed-term contractors on this blog, but what should we make of this professor's behavior? Is it prejudice? Or is it mere preference?

I basically agree with what Craig wrote later in the comment section ("That seems like a gross prejudice..."). I've known a lot of excellent philosophers--including ones with some pretty astounding publication records--who have been stuck in fixed-term positions for a long time. And I think it is terrible that some people evidently hold this against job-candidates. But, assuming this is a problematic prejudice, this raises two questions:

1. What can be done about it?
2. What other prejudices do search committee members sometimes have?

Leaving Academia: A Guide (guest post by Matt Drabek)

This is a guest post by Matt Drabek, which originally appeared here.

Source: Dnalor 01 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Dnalor_01)

Some of you probably know I have some experience with leaving academia. It’s a gradual process. I started having doubts about an academic career around 2010 or 2011. When I went on the job market in 2011 and 2012, I searched both academic and non-academic jobs.

I landed a non-academic job in early 2013. For a few years, I taught-part time as a Visiting Assistant Professor while working a non-academic job. My last paycheck from a university was in January 2016, and my most recent academic publication (which I’ve summarized) was in the summer of 2016.

So that’s my basic leaving academia narrative. I’ve also done a couple of interviews.

So much for the narrative. Here are some tips/lessons.

Tips for negotiating spousal hires?

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

Do folks have any tips for how to negotiate a spousal hire? I assume the right time to ask is at the offer stage, but after that I'm not sure. Do you ask for a TT line specifically, or just ask what can be done for them? Would it be helpful to hire someone like the Professor is In team to help with negotiations?

Great questions - ones that I'm sure more than a few job-candidates could use good answers to! Unfortunately, I don't know the answers. Do you any of you? It would be great to hear from people who have experience on either side of the matter, i.e. people who have negotiated spousal hires themselves, or who handled spousal hires on the hiring side of things (as search committee members, Dean, etc.). Anyone have any helpful tips to share?

Should you just be yourself in a job interview?

Lots of graduate students and other people on the job market are advised to not be themselves in a job interview. Yourself? God, no. Please.  The idea you could be yourself is a symptom of grad student naiveté, so the idea goes, quickly shed once you become more job market savvy. Job consultant Karen Kelsky calls the be yourself advice one of the most persistent academic myths, and writes ""yourself"  is the very last person you want to be."

The problem is, while Kelsky is not wrong about the reasons for why "just be yourself" is terrible advice, the advice not properly contextualized is confusing. It is confusing because it leaves the candidate wondering, "If not myself, who should I be?" And it seems the answers to that, which I've encountered as a mentor fall along the following lines.

Many job candidates mistakenly believe that because fit is so important (it is, as I'll go into in a bit) they need to pretend that they will perfectly fit the requirements of the position. Can you teach advanced logic? Sure I can! (problem: what if you only ever took one logic course, and that was in your by now nebulous undergraduate?). Can you teach medieval philosophy? Not a problem! We need someone who will work on classic epistemology, are you at all interested in that? Of course, I'll just drop all my interests in social epistemology and I will work on Gettier problems and Cartesian skepticism.

Candidates and SC-members with similar interests

In our ongoing job-market discussion thread, Cleverly Disguised Mule writes:

I have a job market question/issue that I suspect others have encountered as well. How should one approach an application--in particular, the cover letter--for a school that has people working on issues *very, very close* to one's own research?

So suppose I'm applying to an ethics job at Cocoon University and I work on, e.g., naturalism in meta-ethics. But Professor X at Cocoon U who works on that same topic. My hunch is that this makes me less desirable to that department; but maybe not. Given that I'm applying either way, what should I do to make myself look more desirable? Do I emphasize my interest in future collaborations/discussions with Professor X? (How presumptuous of me to assume that Professor X wants to collaborate with anyone! Plus, doesn't this risk emphasizing my overlap with what their department already does?) Or do I try to illustrate the way my project is different from Prof X's? (This might involve going far into the weeds in a cover letter, which might turn off other committee members.) Or do I emphasize my other projects and interests? (This might make me look less serious about my naturalism project, which might look odd to some readers.)

I'm guessing the best approach lies somewhere in between these, but I'm not really sure how to navigate what seems to me to be a possible minefield. If anyone has any specific ideas, I'd be very grateful.

This is a great query, as my own experience (having served on several search committees) is that it is minefield. Allow me to explain why, and then share a few thoughts on perhaps the best way for job-candidates to proceed.

Making the most out of visiting-positions

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

I'm a new PhD and a VAP at a teaching-focused, undergraduate institution. I find teaching meaningful, but I also found myself over-worked and under-stimulated. My students are great! But they're undergraduates. How do other people deal with this experience, particularly long term? Of course, more teaching experience/more experience with a heavier teaching load will, I'm sure, help - but I'm not sure how significant that help will be.

This is a great query. I was in VAP at my current institution for 6 years before being hired tenure-track, and I faced roughly the situation described here. In fact, I still face something like this situation now that I'm tenured--as I'm still a member of a very small (four-person) department at a school where most of the philosophical discussion I engage in is with undergraduates.

So let me offer a few suggestions on the basis of my own experience. I don't pretend that my strategies will work for everyone. But I hope they at least get a good discussion started, and I am curious to hear how others have handled similar situations!

Tips for good teaching demos?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, First time ABD writes:

I have had a few skype interviews now that have warned that if I were to get a fly out interview, I will have to do a teaching demonstration. So the more general question I have is, for those who have done a teaching demonstration, do you have any pragmatic tricks or tips to share, or experiences that you've learned from. For those on search committees, what exactly are you looking for in a teaching demonstration?

The more particular question I have is: I work hard, especially at the start of the year, in classes to structure my classes such that they will function optimally (for instance I make students sign up to email me reading responses the day before class which helps structure my lectures but also makes sure that I have 12/60 students ready to ask questions during the lecture). I feel like in a teaching demonstration, I'm being (unfairly?) parachuted down into a class where my structure is not there. Should I, as a part of my teaching demonstration, try to get the class structured, even just a little bit, to the specifications that I want? (I hope that second question made sense, it's a little vague)

This is a great query. I am curious to hear how people who have served on search-committees (or otherwise witnessed a teaching demo) respond. But here are a few quick thoughts of my own...

Tips for applying to US/UK jobs from abroad?

In our most recent "ask a search-committee member" thread, an academic abroad writes:

Perhaps someone can say a bit more about applications from those who have made a career abroad and are now applying in the US or UK? Our career trajectories tend to look a bit different, and sometimes the whole AOS/AOC thing doesn't apply as straightforwardly either. In some countries, lots of publications come through edited volumes, not journals, and sometimes we have publications in foreign languages.

Moreover, for those whose semesters are structured differently, or for universities in which student evals play less of a role, we might have different teaching materials. For example, my seminars meet only once/week over the course of 15 weeks...The focus here also tends to be on reading less and engaging more intensively with the material. This means my courses are structured differently, and my syllabi look different.

Where I'm at, institutions also place more emphasis on research-based teaching and less on "intro" or survey courses, since those tend to be taught as lectures by the full professors. We aren't in a liberal arts system either, so there are few "gen ed" courses and students to be offered. It's not that I can't teach such classes. (In fact, I love teaching these kinds of courses.) But there is little opportunity for me to do so.

Likewise, it seems like valuable application material space is often spent explaining these differences - and/or why one has made one's career abroad and why one wants to enter/return (in)to the US academic system, when it seems to me that space could be better spent motivating why one is an awesome scholar and a potentially good future colleague.

International scholars can bring lots of really good things to the table and can be really great additions to a department, but I feel like they are often overlooked unless they are senior scholars who have already made their careers, or unless they attended a US/UK institution and went straight from there to the US/UK job market.

Are departments less inclined to give interviews to international junior and mid-career scholars? Any tips for successful applications?

Answering the "how do you balance...?" question

In our job-market discussion thread, anon asks:

I have an interview question. What kind of answer is suitable to the question "how would you balance teaching, research, and service?". Is this a question about time-management, priorities, or something else? Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Good question! I'd be curious to hear search committee members weigh in, but here are a few quick thoughts...

Answering 'how would you teach intro?'

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

What do you do when you get the "how would you teach intro" question? I can see at least three ways of answering this:

1) give the "classic" intro syllabus, heavy on M+E and historical texts, with some value theory thrown in

2) an intro syllabus substantially based around your AOS/whatever teaching needs they have advertised

3) a bold thematic or topic-based course on something that you've been thinking about but isn't necessarily represented in your AOS/AOC. I'm thinking something that might be really cool but also might seem completely off-the-wall to some, e.g. an intro course that has a weekly viewing of a horror film and organizes readings and discussions around the themes of these films.

These aren't the only strategies, but these are the ones I'm considering (I'm not considering the horror film one seriously...yet.) There are benefits and drawbacks to each strategy it seems, and a lot will depend on who is interviewing you. But in any case: thoughts on what strategy is best? Experiences with the "intro question?" Or other thoughts about how to answer that question?

In response, Vampire Killer wrote:

Sissy Fuss,
At many places, your horror film suggestion would be the nail in your coffin. Some questions are asked during interviews that give unstable or ... candidates a chance to tip their hands. This saves the department from having to deny them tenure later.

I'll be curious to hear what readers think--but I can't help but wonder whether Sissy Fuss and Vampire Killer might both be thinking about this issue a bit too narrowly. Allow me to explain.

'Merit' and the job-market: skewed values?

By Sam Duncan (Tidewater Community College)

I’ve noticed in discussions here and elsewhere that many people react with a truly remarkable degree of outrage at the mere suggestion that publications, especially publications at elite journals could ever hurt a job applicant. I’ve seen people say that this is a conscious choice to hire an inferior candidate and that anyone who does so deliberately sabotages their own department and institution. I think this is wrong, but what interests me here is that these reactions reveal some value judgments that, while common in academia, are extremely dubious and harmful to both the people who hold them and to our profession. I hope that by getting clearer on these judgments and explaining why I find the values behind them dubious and harmful I might spur a larger discussion about what our values as a profession are and what they should be.

However, before beginning I want to clarify something. My intent in writing this post is not to blame struggling job-candidates for their predicament, or otherwise ‘punch down’ at vulnerable early-career people seeking permanent jobs. As someone who suffered on the job-market in non-tenure-stream positions myself, I know all too well how unfair the job-market is. My aim in this post is to merely to suggest that a certain set of values—values commonly conveyed in grad programs, and which job-candidates often appear to espouse themselves—are misguided and bad for candidates, by leading them to misunderstand the market. To put it another way, my aim in this post is to be helpful. I want to explain why I think grad students, job-candidates, and the people who mentor them should question certain types of value-judgments about ‘merit’ in philosophy—and how questioning these values might put help job-candidates put themselves in a better position to be successful on the market.

What is evidence of teaching effectiveness?

In our most recent 'Ask a Search-Committee Member' thread, Throwaway Name writes:

Could search committee members discuss their thinking when they evaluate, on paper, whether a candidate is a good teacher? Do they weigh certain application materials more than others (e.g. teaching statement, letters of recommendation, student evaluations, etc.)? In their own experience, are strong application materials of a certain kind correlated to strong teaching abilities? Are strong application materials of another kind not correlated to strong teaching abilities?

Anon added:

I very much second "Throwaway Name's" post. "Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness" is often a standard phrase for jobs, but how is that evaluated? How does that stand out? I really think this deserves a thread of its own.

I think this is a really good query, as I think how search committees think about the issue may be changing a bit. Allow me to explain.

Time to TT job (by Leiter rank)

[Updated w/second graph]

Jonathan Weisberg (Toronto) posted this graph on social media today (compiled from the 2017 ADPA report):

There are a number of things interesting about this graph...

First, there isn't that much difference in the average time to getting a TT job from across the PGR. All across the spectrum, the average time to first TT job is somewhere between 1-2 years. However, a closer look at the graph reveals some other interesting things.

The second interesting thing about this graph is that the shortest average times to TT job are for graduates from PhD programs rated a 4 or 5 (which are top-ten programs in the Leiter report) but also programs ranked lower than 2 (which are unranked programs). In fact, although there are fewer data points, graduates from unranked programs (at the far left of the graph) appear to have the shortest average time to first TT job. Note that this coheres with data from the ADPA job-placement report, which indicated that unranked programs such as Baylor, Oregon, Florida, and Cincinnati have some of the highest placement rates of all graduate programs.

Third, the programs that appear to have the longest average-time-to-TT job are those rated between 2 and 3.5, which correspond to programs ranked 20-50 in the Leiter report. Incidentally, this corresponds to the hypothesis I ventured a while back that graduates from mid-ranked programs may have the most trouble on the job-market because they are trying to compete with PGR top-20 graduates for R1 jobs (a generally losing proposition), while at the same time potentially pricing themselves out of teaching jobs by focusing so much on research.

Fourth, it's interesting to me that in the entire graph, the least amount of variance appears to occur for graduates from programs rated lower than 2. In this part of the graph, every person who got their first TT job did so in about 5 years or less--something we find nowhere else on the graph. There also appears to be less variance on the far right side of the graph. Finally, though, the most amount of variance appears for programs rated between 2-3.5 (again, graduates from schools ranked 20-50 in the Leiter report). This also coheres with my hypothesis that graduates from these programs may have the most difficult time on the market.

Finally, it is worth reflecting on the fact that although a good number of candidates get their first TT job in their first year out (there is a lot of clustering at the bottom of the graph), a fairly large number of candidates take between two and seven years to get their first TT job. A lesson here, I think, is that grad students and candidates really need to disabuse themselves of the notion that they should expect a TT job in their first year or two out. If you head to grad school or head out on the market expecting to get a job in your first year or two, you have unrealistic expectations. Yes, quite a lot of candidates do get jobs that quickly--but a heck of a lot do not!

UPDATE: here's an interesting second graph Weisberg shared that is zoomed out and includes extreme outliers removed from the first graph.

Yes, that's right: this graph reports significant numbers of individuals who received TT jobs well before receiving the PhD, as well as people who got their first TT job after 20+ years on the market, including one person it apparently took 50 years. (!)

Non-standard publications and the market

In the comments section of our most recent 'Ask a search-committee member' thread, anon writes:

What would publications from https://1000wordphilosophy.com/ look like to a potential search committee members?

The editors do come right out and say

"We publish approximately 10% of essays that are submitted, usually after substantial revisions and editing.

Most, but not all, of our published essays are by professors of philosophy or advanced graduate students in philosophy.

Essays published at 1000-Word Philosophy are peer-reviewed publications. "

I realize not as much weight as journal articles but I 
am still curious.

Anonymous then chimed in as follows:

Hi anon--just one perspective here but my guess it is somewhat representative of folks on research-focused hiring committees: having a publication like this would make no difference to me one way or another when assessing a file. My guess is that some faculty at research-focused would (unjustifiably) count it as a very slight negative, because it makes you look "less serious" as a researcher or something, and that some would count it as a slight positive (but not much of a positive). I have no idea what people in other kinds of institutions/departments would think.

As far as research schools go, this sounds right to me. Research-focused departments are looking for top researchers, where is this typically understood as original work in top-ranked journals, book presses, etc. Since short 1,000 word introductory anthology pieces don't speak to that, my sense is that Anonymous is right: one of these publications is liable to make little or no difference in how anyone evaluates a file (and it could indeed be a minor negative). But what about more teaching-oriented departments?

Publications undermining market competitiveness?

In our newest "Ask a search committee member" thread, Nate writes:

I earned my Ph.D. from an unranked program in 2016. My sense is that the unranked school at the top of my CV pretty much disqualifies me from R1 type schools. However, I've published a lot for someone at my career stage in an effort to overcome the unranked program that I'm coming out of. To date, I've got 11 publications. 2 are in general journals in the 15-20 range on Leiter's recent poll, a handful are in good specialty journals, and a couple are in edited volumes. Given my publishing record, though, I'm now starting to worry that I've published myself out of some of those teaching jobs.

I've had some success on the market so far. I had a fair number of interviews the past couple years, and I got a handful of offers for VAP/Postdoc jobs this past year (I'm currently in a postdoc at a med school). However, I've been pretty much shut out of the TT market. My worry is that my unranked PhD means I'm not a candidate for research jobs and my publication record means that I'm not a candidate for teaching jobs. Is this a legitimate worry? If so, what can I do?

Amanda then responded, "I will just say this - yes, unfortunately, that is a legitimate worry. Whether it is a legitimate worry for you in particular is unclear, I would have to see your CV." I think Amanda is absolutely right here. But let me try to elaborate on some of the issues that I think may be at play here, as I think it may help Nate and others make better sense of their situation as well as what they might do to be more competitive.