The Philosophers' Cocoon

Deciding which recommendation letters to use

Over on Twitter yesterday, Jonny (a philosophy of science postgrad) asked, "Suppose I have 10 letters of recommendation for PhDs, how do I determine whose to use?" Someone suggested we hold a thread on this here, so here goes!

First of all, congrats to Jonny on securing 10 letters. That might be an all-time record! In response, Craig Agule wrote: "Although this advice is not wholly uncontroversial, you should have some trusted advisor read all 10 letters, both to catch accidentally bad letters and to help you choose." Although I've never tried it, this is what I've been told before--and I've heard if you have your letters uploaded to Interfolio, you can have them sent to a trusted advisor (though I wonder if there are some ethical issues here, given that letters are intended to be confidential). 

In any case, I guess my own answer is a bit more complex. I think if it's possible to get a trusted person to vet your letters, that's a good way to go. But I also think some strategy is probably in order for selecting the best letters. First, when it comes to jobs at R1's and prestigious SLACs, I suspect name recognition may matter a lot. If you have some letters from really eminent people in the profession, my sense is that (all things being equal) those are probably ones to prioritize. Conversely, if you are applying to jobs at a "teaching" school, it is not at all clear to me that the same strategy is wise. In my experience, prestigious letter-writers tend to write research-heavy letters--ones that may make a candidate look like a bad fit for a teaching school (conveying in effect, "this person really belongs at an R1"). When applying to teaching schools, one should always include at least one "teaching letter", and I think one should try to figure out which of one's letters make one look balanced (i.e. both a good researcher and a good teacher). Finally, I think that whenever possible, it is good to include at least one "outside" letter by a person not from one's grad department, as everyone recognizes that faculty from your grad program have a vested interest in your success (and hence reasons to "oversell" you relative to someone who has no such vested interest.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I have to confess that this is a problem I never really solved as a job-marketeer. I had seven letters, never had anyone vet them, and just decided on a case to case basis which ones seemed to best fit the jobs I was applying to (most of the time, my experience is that jobs have a three-letter cutoff). This probably wasn't the best solution, but it worked okay! I suspect this may be in part because (or so I've heard) search committee members these days often take recommendation letters with a real grain of salt, focusing more on judging your materials for themselves. As a four-time search-committee member myself, I can attest to this. When a candidate's letters don't match your own estimation of their materials at all (viz. "overselling" the candidate), I suspect the tendency is to go with one's own judgment. But again, this is just my guess, and I could be totally wrong!

What do you all think? It might be particularly good to hear from candidates who have grappled with this problem effectively, as well as from search committee members!

'Negative' remarks in research statements

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

When it comes to writing research statements, is it OK if one tries to eschew remarks about what others have not done, but what you have done in favor of simply explaining your projects. I know The Professor is In says to avoid going negative, but I wonder whether in avoiding negative remarks it might not be clear to those who do not work in your AOS what your contribution actually is. Presumably, some may want to know why your particular interpretive angle on X is worth pursuing, and you often cannot motivate that without saying what others have said.

I think The Professor Is In is correct about this. One of the tricks to a good research statement is learning how to convey the novelty of your research without 'going negative'. If you look at my research statement (a much earlier version of which was vetted by the Professor Is In, and which I just revised this morning), you will see that there is very little (if anything) that could be construed as negative. Instead, there are brief explicit and implicit contrasts with dominant views, as well as brief indications of how my work resolves some critiques. Here are a few examples:

"I challenge the dominant view that answers to moral and political questions can be discovered by theory or rational argumentation, arguing that sound answers to moral and political questions should be seen instead as created by fair, organic, real-world negotiation."

"Chapter 1 of my book argues that be truth-apt, moral philosophy should be based upon a new methodology: seven principles of theory-selection adapted from the sciences."

"In two subsequent articles...I argue that Rightness as Fairness has important implications for reducing social polarization and for solving the 'alignment problem' in ethical A.I. programming...Finally, in a second book manuscript, Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory (under contract, Routledge), I outline a unified theory of prudence, morality, and justice which reduces all moral and political norms to norms of prudence, arguing in turn that a wide variety of recent findings in behavioral neuroscience support the account. The revised version of Rightness as Fairness the book defends also resolves a variety of critical concerns raised to my first book."

"In addition to these two main projects, in two articles I have argued that several longstanding issues regarding human rights—regarding their number, justification, and action-guidance—can be resolved by distinguishing between (A) domestic human rights, which apply within states, and (B) international human rights, which justify international intervention."

Although I don't pretend my research statement gets everything right (if I learned one thing from the Professor Is In, it is that it is very hard to craft job-market materials that 'hit all of the right notes'), my sense is that this is probably the way to try to go about things. I have read research statements that spend so much time explaining how the author's view 'defeats' other people's views that it just comes across as 'getting too much in the weeds'. Leave that for your writing sample! That's where I want to see you argue against other people. What I want to see in a research statement is a crisp, concise picture of what you're doing. If what you're doing is interesting and original, my sense is that it should probably pop out to the reader without going into a bunch of detail about "why my view is better than X, Y, and Z".

But, of course, I am just one person, and I could be wrong about this! Does anyone who has been on the hiring side of things have any insight to share?

Interdisciplinarity: good or bad?

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

I am currently a graduate student and have been trying to develop a teaching portfolio at the intersection between philosophy, politics, and economics - i.e., teaching courses not only on political philosophy, philosophy of economics, philosophy of law, and so on, but e.g. on human rights policy and political economy as well. I am afraid, however, that search committees may think my profile is too interdisciplinary. Any thoughts in this regard?

This is great query. I'm not entirely sure about jobs at R1's or prestigious SLACs, where I've heard (albeit only anecdotally) that it can be important to look specialized rather than too broad or unfocused. At the same time, I can't help but wonder whether the specific kind of interdisciplinarity PhC mentions (PPE) might be an advantage at research schools. After all, they might be able to apply (and be competitive) not just for philosophy jobs, but also political science jobs in political theory or in business schools (I know a few philosophers in business schools at some pretty rarified places).

In any case, what I do feel pretty confident about is that interdisciplinarity in general is almost certainly a real advantage at teaching-focused schools similar to mine. My experience is not only that administrators at these kinds of schools tend to look very favorably on collaborative work across disciplinary boundaries. It is that philosophy departments value the ability of new hires to teach (and create) a wide variety of courses that might be of interest to students and attract majors--including political science majors, econ majors, law students, and so on.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have been on the hiring side of things?

Job-market discussion board (2019-20 season)

Given that the academic job-market is beginning to ramp up, I thought now might be a good time to start another job-market discussion thread. As readers may recall, each of the past two years, we have hosted two job-market threads:

1. A discussion thread where job-marketeers can discuss and commisserate about the market, discussing particular job ads, the market in general, questions about materials, interviewing, and so on.
2. A reporting thread where job-marketeers can share news about the market (i.e. first-round interviews being scheduled, on-campus visits, new hires made, searches that are canceled, etc.).

Although, like some other people I know, I think fixating too much on job-market boards can be counterproductive--both emotionally and in terms of time spent--I still think that discussion and reporting threads can play important purposes. They can provide candidates an outlet to share relevant information that might help them on the market, as well as a place to connect with and support each other, particularly (I think) when these discussions occur in a forum governed by a safe and supportive mission like our own.

So, then, without further ado I'd like to open this thread for job-market discussion for the remainder of the 2019-20 academic job-market season. Readers should feel free to discuss job-market matters as they see fit, provided the discussion conforms to the blog's mission. As a rough rule of thumb, readers are expected to refrain from posting aggressive comments that can be reasonably interpreted as undermining a safe and supportive environment. As moderator, I will intervene if need be to let people know why I have elected not to approve their comments, so as to keep the discussion positive.

A few final notes:

1. Please reserve job-market news (i.e. interviews, on-campus visits, hires, etc.) for the job-market reporting thread, which I will open in a few weeks.
2. A 'permalink' to this thread will be on the blog's right sidebar. -->
3. Because of Typepad's functionality limitations (which only permits 100 comments before starting a new comment page), readers may elect to bookmark each new page of comments (or update their previous bookmark) as each new page emerges. I recognize that is can be frustrating to scroll through page after page to get to new comments, and I think this is the best solution (Typepad does have an option for incorporating 'Disqus' commenting, but I intensely dislike that format!).

Anyway, feel free to job-market-discuss away!

Experiences with joint appointments?

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

Could someone share the experience of having a double appointment (Philosophy/Law, Philosophy/Economics, Philosophy/Women Studies, and so on)? Does it represent [an] extrajob? Any specific advantage?

I think this is a great query, but unfortunately it's one I have no experience with. Anyone with experience willing to share?

Conference presentations and the market

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

All things considered, how much does it matter when looking at a prospective candidate's CV that they have never been to nor presented at an APA meeting?

Mike Titelbaum replied:

At least for the R1 job searches in which I've been involved, what's helpful is that you have some experience at conferences, preferably not just grad student conferences. But APA conferences in particular bear no special significance to me on that front.

For what it's worth, I've heard people at R1's say similar things: that it's advantageous for candidates to have at least some professional (rather than grad) conference experience. I also expect that especially impressive presentation lists (viz. multiple invited colloquium talks at prestigious departments) are probably advantageous for candidates applying to research jobs. I'm curious, though, whether this is true of jobs in general. My own sense, having served on several search-committees at a more teaching-focused school, is that conference presentations and activity may play very little (if any) role in hiring committee deliberations. In brief, my sense is that this may be because committees at these types of institutions care most about two things: (1) a good enough publication record to get tenure, and (2) teaching/service. Because it's possible to present at a lot of conference but not publish much, my sense is that people at schools like mine may not attribute much weight to presentations. But, of course, this is just my sense, and it may be incorrect.

Any other search committee members willing to weigh in?

Is applying before job deadlines advantageous?

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

Here's a question I don't think I've seen discussed anywhere: as a job applicant, how much of a disadvantage are you putting yourself at if you don't submit your application until very close to the deadline? Do those submitting quickly after the job ad is posted get a de facto advantage?

Mike Titelbaum replied:

While I can imagine situations in which prompt submission might make a difference (suppose an emergency has come up and a department is looking to fill a job quickly), for your standard job search it makes no difference what order the applications come in. I have often been on search committees that don't even begin to read files until after the deadline has passed.

I am not so sure about this. Although Mike has been on committees that don't read files until after the deadline is passed, I know of cases where candidate files are read before the deadlines--and in these cases it seems to me it may be advantageous to get one's application in sooner. To see why, put yourself in the shoes of a search-committee member in this position. You know you will have hundreds of applications to read, so you want to get started evaluating them sooner rather than later. Suppose that several weeks before the application due date, you have seventeen candidates in the pool. Since you've begun looking at files early, you're not pressed for time: you have plenty of time to read those seventeen files. After reading the files, you may already have a few "favorites": candidates you feel like you want to interview even before anyone else has applied. Then suppose the deadline comes, and you get a few hundred applications basically all at once. Will you have the same amount of time and energy to read them thoroughly? Probably not. And will your earlier judgments (about the first seventeen applications you reviewed before the deadline) play an outsized role on who you choose to interview? Maybe. Given the existence and pervasiveness of primacy bias (people tend to favor the first sources of information they receive), as well as the anchoring effect (bias in favor of using early judgments to influence later judgments), it seems not at all implausible to me that applying early could be an advantage.

In short, while there may be cases (like Mike's) where applying early confers no advantage, I think there are plausibly cases where it does confer a real advantage. Since there is no real way for a candidate to know which of the two situations they are in, I'm inclined to think the rational thing to do is to apply as early as possible, on the off chance that it might pay off. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?

TA-ing vs. solo-teaching experience

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

How important are TAs positions for one's CV and teaching portfolio? I'm currently a PhD student and have the choice between a prestigious TA position with a renowned professor and teaching a course as sole instructor. What would be best?

Mike Titelbaum responded:

Cleinias, I'd suggest you think in terms of what your total TA experience is going to look like when you're done with grad school. It's useful at some point to have been sole instructor of your own class. (At least once, if not more than once.) Personally, when I look at a job application it's not so important that someone TAed for a renowned professor versus a no-name professor. It's more important what kind of teaching experience they have and what I can expect them to be able to accomplish in the classroom.

I agree with Mike that it probably doesn't matter whether the professor one TA's for is renowned. My experience is that when it comes to evaluating candidates as teachers, search committees care about the teaching statement, rest of the teaching portfolio, and quality of the candidate's teaching recommendation letter (specifically, what the letter says about the candidate's teaching). 

However, I think Mike's point about TA-ing versus solo teaching understates things a bit. In terms of being competitive for jobs at 'teaching schools', my sense is that it is very important to have solo teaching experience. This isn't to say it is a necessary condition for getting hired at such a school, nor that candidates who have only TA'd never get hired into these kinds of positions. However, my sense is that search committee members can be pretty skeptical of the probative value of TA experience. TA-ing is wildly different--both far less involved and less challenging--than teaching one's own course. To teach one's own course, you have to put an entire syllabus together, design your own assignments, manage the classroom on a daily basis as the instructor of record, and so on.

The only time I think it might make sense to TA rather than teach solo is if (1) you already have solo-teaching experience, and (2) the course you're TA-ing for gives you experience in some other area (i.e. AOC) that you wouldn't otherwise be able to get (because, let's say, there are no opportunities for grad students to solo-teach in that area). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search-committees?

Postdoc after professorship?

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

Is it usually possible to get post-doc fellowships after holding a professorship? I'm currently unhappy with my tenure-track position (I started last year) and have been considering to apply for post-docs this fall.

Amanda responded:

If you are within the allotted time period post-graduation (anywhere from 2-6 years, usually) then there is no reason why you couldn't get a post-doc. I suspect your application wouldn't be treated much differently than others, but I could be wrong.

I'm not entirely sure. I've heard it said that search committees can be biased against candidates applying for more junior positions. I wonder whether it might make sense for someone like Professor to email the search-committee chairs of potential postdocs to scope things out, and perhaps explain why they are applying so that the committee understands why they are applying from a more senior position. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have hired postdocs?

 

Experiences with jobs overseas (in autocracies)?

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

Could someone share the experience of teaching philosophy at American colleges overseas where the regime is (at least partially) autocratic? I'm thinking about institutions such as Yale-NUS or NYU Shanghai, for example.

I'm actually really curious about this, not just the case of American colleges overseas under autocratic political regimes, but overseas jobs more generally. Are any readers with experience here willing to share their experiences? What has your experience been? Positive? Negative? In what respects? I'm really curious to hear!

Jobs in history of political thought?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'Am I a Philosopher?' writes:

I'm pursuing a PhD program at an European university on the history of political thought (19th-20th centuries). I gather that Anglo-American philosophers don't consider what I do as political philosophy, but as political theory or intellectual history. Is that possible to get a position in political philosophy in the US without producing normative-oriented research?

My sense is that jobs in the history of political thought are really rare in philosophy, and that it is probably difficult (if not impossible) to get a job in political philosophy without doing normatively-oriented research. My guess is that someone in this person's position is probably more likely to be competitive for a job in political science. However, I'm not very clued into that job-market. Anyone out there have any insight?

What's your mindset in a TT job?

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

I am curious to see people's mindset in their first TT job.

I am currently having a TT position at a state school. The job is good but not ideal. I feel very lucky and thankful to get this position given how competitive the market is. I also know how hard it is for a department to create a new position. So, my mindset is that unless there is a perfect job, I will stay here. And I am ready to stay at my current job for my whole career. There are probably always a few *better* jobs, but I will not apply for them unless some are perfect ones.

After meeting and talking with people, I find they are more eager to move than I thought. They gave me the impression that they always applied for better jobs (maybe just 1 or 2 per year). This makes me think about whether I should do the same. I know that it largely depends on the individual. I am just wondering how people think about it.

Although this is just my sense from interacting with various people, I definitely get the sense that although just about everyone feels lucky just having a TT job, a lot of people in tenure-track jobs are looking to move. Alas, I also get the sense that it can be very hard to move--that specifically, unless you are something of a 'star', lateral moves can be difficult to obtain.

In any case, it might be good to hear from people. If you have a TT job, what's your mindset? Are you happy where you are, or are you looking to move? If it's the latter, why? What are your reasons?

 

Continental Programs & the PGR

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, Cautiously Optimistic writes:

I start my master's in three weeks, and I am already thinking of the next step...After looking at the PGR, none of the ranked programs are continental programs. This is disappointing because I am partial to phenomenology and existentialism, and the programs they recommended FOR continental philosophy were stronger in epistemology, logic, etc. than my desired area. I worry that people take the PGR too seriously considering its bias. Is it best to apply to PGR programs, or non-ranked continental phd programs that have good placement? I am interested in Stonybrook (who have Steinbock) and Penn State (who have Nicolas de Warren), but neither Penn State nor Stonybrook are top PGR programs. Will this hurt me in the long run?

As Martin Shuster noted, "There are certainly non-ranked PGR programs that place quite well if not better than ranked ones (e.g., University of Oregon or Vanderbilt)." Indeed, the ADPA data make that pretty clear. I also personally know people who went to non-PGR-ranked Continental programs that have excellent placement rates who went on to get tenure-track jobs. So I'm with SPEP Grad Student, who wrote, "Take a close at placement data, if it is available." If I were entering grad school today, I'd be more concerned about the placement rates of the programs I was interested than I would be concerned program rank. 

But this is just me. What do you all think? It might be good to hear from current grad students and recent grads from the kinds of programs Cautiously mentions (Stonybrook, Penn State, etc.).

Should candidates have a personalized website?

In our most recent "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Anon asked, "Would an academia.edu count be considered a legitimate web site? Are these sites frowned upon?". My answer in that thread was as follows:

This is just my own sense (but I’ve heard others say it too), but my guess is that just having an academia.edu site can come across as pretty weak. First, a lot of people I know canceled their account with then, and I believe you need an account to log in and view other people’s stuff. But second, my sense is that it can just come off a bit lazy. I’m not sure having a website or not is likely to make the difference when it comes to deciding to interview or hire someone. And there are probably some search committee members who don't care at all. But I think search committee members do visit them quite a bit and that having a good one might make a difference. And here, as elsewhere, my guess is that the difference it is likely to make may be less about your accomplishments and more of what it might seem to indicate about you as a *person* (viz. “this person is conscientious, has their act together, and knows how to present themselves” vs. “Wow, this person didn’t even bother to set up a decent website for themselves?”).

This, again, is what I think too many job candidates just don’t seem to get: that hiring committees are just as interested in the kind of person you are as what kind of philosopher you are. And make no mistake about it: your non-philosophical skills and personal qualities are job relevant. My department has dramatically increased our major numbers. Why? Well, we have faculty members who are motivated enough to put together, design, and distribute attractive and informative materials about the major. And we also have a faculty member who runs our department webpages. These things—not just philosophy—are a part of this job. So it can be important to show that you are the kind of person who is conscientious enough to design a good webpage...

In brief, while I suspect one's having or not having a website, or merely having an academia.edu site, is probably unlikely to be a deciding factor of whether one is interviewed, I think it may impact how search-committee members think about the person, perhaps playing a non-negligible role in how the search committee member 'ranks' the candidate in their mind relative to other candidates. However, 'Publish, please' then weighed in with dissenting advice:

You would be far better off on the market if you spent your time publishing a paper in a good journal, than grooming and updating a website. You will never get a job if all you have is a nice webpage, and no publications. But people get jobs with publications and no webpages. Stay focused. Too many people are spending too much time on really trivial things, like webpages, when what people really want to see is that you can do (and publish) philosophy.

Amanda seemed more persuaded by my position. However, I'm curious to hear what others think, particularly people who have served on search-committees. Although I know it is hard to reliably introspect our own decisionmaking processes, what is your sense: does a candidate's website, or quality of website (a well-designed, personalized one vs. academia.edu), ever make any difference in how you evaluate a candidate?

Listing courses one can teach on a CV?

A reader wrote in yesterday:

Quick question: My placement adviser recommended including a list of courses I am prepared to teach directly on the CV after the list of courses I have solo taught. Is that something people do?

I replied as follows:

[O]ffhand my answer is that I think your placement adviser’s advice is strange. A candidate can say they can teach anything. But that is not what is relevant to a search-committee member. What is relevant is whether there is any evidence elsewhere in the CV that you actually are qualified to teach the relevant course. By my lights, that evidence comes only comes in the following forms:

1. 1. Your publications and professional presentations
   2. Your solo-teaching (and to, a lesser extent, TA) experience.
   3. Your graduate coursework.

I think it is a good idea for recent PhDs to list graduate coursework for this reason—but the point is, once this stuff is listed on your CV, the reader has all of the information they need to know. Explicitly listing the courses you are prepared to teach will either look redundant (if there is other evidence you can teach in the area), or it will look dubious (if there isn’t). Either way, it’s not clear to me that there is anything to be gained from it. 

However, I noted that this is just my sense, so I offered to share their query here for discussion. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on search-committees? Does it make sense for candidates to list courses they are prepared to teach on their CV?

Tailoring your job-market strategy to your situation

Long-time readers of the Cocoon may recall that I've wondered on a few occasions whether many academic job-candidates end up adopting a sub-optimal job-market strategy. First, last year I floated a hypothesis that job-candidates coming out of lower-ranked PhD programs may have a tendency to adopt a job-market strategy that fails to make them competitive for R1 jobs (since top-ranked programs fare best with those) while simultaneously 'pricing them out' of teaching-focused jobs. Second, I've often floated the idea that one fairly common piece of conventional wisdom--that publishing in low-ranked or no-name journals 'looks bad on the market'--is just false when it comes to jobs at teaching schools. My clear sense, both as a job-candidate for many teaching jobs and (more recently) as a search-committee member at a liberal arts university, is that a lot of people at these kinds of institutions could really care less about journal rankings. And, as luck would have it, a recent study appears to bear out my skepticism: publications in 'weak journals' appear to help, at least if you publish in good places too.

Anyway, a recent exchange I had with a friend got me thinking this morning about a more general issue: namely, the potential importance of tailoring your job-market strategy to a realistic picture of your 'situation' . Allow me to explain.

Mentoring program: mentor feedback

Earlier this month, I shared feedback that Helen and I have received from mentees in last year's cycle of our Job-Market Mentoring Program. Today's post reports the feedback we have received to date and been authorized to share from this year's mentors. As a quick reminder, we will be running the program again this year. We will just be getting the program started a bit later than usual due to preexisting commitments that Helen and I both had. Our plan is to open new signups next Thursday, August 1st. Helen and I will then move forward with matches as quickly as we can! Also, as we normally hadvemore mentees sign up than available mentors, I'd like to encourage the blog's tenure-stream (and tenured) readers to consider whether to sign up given the feedback below. Our aim, as always, is to help as many job-candidates in need that we can (over the past three years, we have matched exactly 90 candidates with mentors). 

For now, here is feedback we received from this year's mentors (who we thank deeply for their participation, and know many of our program's mentees thank as well):

Question 1 - Types of mentoring provided?:

“review of materials, especially CV. Checked in during job search season to offer encouragement. Had brief exchange about it and got an update from [Redacted].” – David Hildebrand (Associate Professor & Chair, CU Denver).

“Dossier material review, interview tips, general advice.” – Jerry Green (Assistant Professor, University of Central Oklahoma)

“I looked at dossier materials and provided advice on topics like interviews, tactics.” – Robin McKenna (Lecturer, University of Liverpool)

“Dossier materials, general strategy, encouragement.”

“dossier materials, suggestions for adapting applications to US institutions.”

“Comments on job materials.”

“CV and cover letter feedback.”

“Mostly emails about strategy for solving the two body problem, which writing sample to use, and which (kinds of) jobs to apply to. I sent [redacted] my application spreadsheet from 2017, so he had an idea of the kinds and numbers of positions, and their approximate deadlines and application material requirements. I think this was useful to him, because it was a lot of information that normally takes a lot of effort to harvest. [Redacted] received a position very early (by September!), and so we didn’t not interact a great deal. We sent a fair number of lengthy emails. But it wasn’t a long-developing relationship. This contrasts with my experience with [Redacted 2] last year, where we skyped on several occasions over the course of almost a year, sometimes for hours, about research, work, job market strategy, work-life balance etc. etc. I have now job-market mentored for two years, with two mentors [sic] each year (one through the Women’s programme, one through Cocoon). Both times I have developed a lengthy and in-depth mentorship relationship with one of the two, and had relatively small amounts of contact with the other. All four were positive experiences, but with [Redacted] it was just “less” of a relationship. Last year I interacted a lot with [Redacted 2], through the Cocoon system. This year I interacted a lot with my women’s mentor programme mentee.“

“feedback on a variety of dossier documents, general advice, letters of rec”

“Reviewed and commented on multiple drafts of dossier materials, including CV, cover letter, syllabus, teaching statement, and writing sample. Also, conducted a mock interview.”

“I read all (or at least virtually all) of his dossier; no mock interview or anything like that, but I did try to send him some questions and sample answers.”

“Reviewing and commenting on dossier materials.”

 

Job-Market Boot Camp, part 29: common mistakes with CVs

Now that we have discussed some common mistakes candidates can make with teaching statements, teaching portfolios, and research statements, let's talk about CVs. It might seem pretty hard to mess up a CV, and to a certain extent I think this is right. Insofar as CVs basically just list a person's accomplishments, there may not that much to mess up. Still, allow me to share what I take to be a few common mistakes, and then open things up for discussion:

Listing papers under review as 'publications': I haven't seen many candidates do this, but seemingly every year I hear of candidates who do it (either because they say so on a blog somewhere, or from other search committee members). So I think it is important to discuss. Here is my general sense. There are a few 'kisses of death' that job-candidates can make--things that can potentially sink their candidacy immediately. This is one of them. Articles under review, or even in revise-and-submit, are not publications, and should under no circumstances be listed under that heading in a CV. Even if you note in parentheses that the article is "under review" or in "revise-and-resubmit", lising them under Publications can still come across either as misleading or obtuse, or both. Neither one of these things is a good look for a job-candidate. The only things that should be listed as publications are actual or forthcoming (i.e. accepted) publications. Finally, athough maybe some might disagree, I imagine that 'conditional acceptances' are okay to list as publications--but in that case it sure as heck better be a real conditional acceptance, not a revise-and-resubmit with minor revisions (there is a huge difference!), and you had better note explicitly that it is a conditional-accept. Job-candidates should stay away from putting anything in a CV that has even a whiff of dishonesty. Which brings me to...

Job-Market Boot Camp, part 28: common mistakes with teaching portfolios

In my previous two posts in this series, I presented what I take to be some common mistakes in teaching and research statements. I hope some more search-committee members weigh in, so that job-marketeers can hear other perspectives. But in any case, in today's post I'd like to discuss some common mistakes in teaching portfolios. For those less well-acquainted with teaching portfolios (e.g. new or future job-candidates), teaching portfolios are perhaps the most open of all job-market materials. Although they standardly include things like student evaluations and sample syllabi, some portfolios including much more, ranging from examples of assignments to sample lectures.

I myself don't have any settled views about exactly what teaching portolios should include--so I'm very curious to hear in the comment section below from other search committee members about what they think should or shouldn't be included, or how long teaching portfolios should be (particularly given that I've heard some people have teaching portfolios upwards of 50 pages, which seems to me too long). But, for now, let me offer a short list of what I take some 'common mistakes' to be:

Portfolios that look hastily thrown together: which can result from several converging sources of evidence...

1. 1. No table of contents.
   2. Inconsistent formatting.
   3. Overly-short, uninformative syllabi: although I've heard it can be a good idea to provide several course outlines (consisting merely of a course title, course description, and reading schedule), I think it is probably very important to include one full syllabus in a teaching portfolio, and for the syllabus to be detailed regarding course policies, assignments, and so on.
   4. Merely including raw student-evaluation reports: As people have noted on this blog before, search-committee members can be really strapped for time. They typically have hundreds of applications to wade through--so anything that makes their job easier is, prima facie, good to do. Further, as I am sure many people who have served on search-committees can attest, raw student-evaluation reports can be confusing to wade through. They can be full of all kinds of numbers and unfamiliar questions (my own university's student evaluations have 36 separate items!). Consequently, although I think it is good to provide some raw reports (so as to, again, not look like you are 'hiding anything'), I think it is again a really good idea to include some kind of overview summary to make things easier on your reader.

Job-Market Boot Camp, Part 27: common mistakes with teaching statements

Last week, we had a new thread in this series examining common mistakes in research-statements. In today's post, I'd like to discuss common mistakes in teaching statements. Then, in my next post, we will examine teaching portfolios more broadly. I will begin by sharing my sense of what some common mistakes are, based on my experiences on search-committees and as a job-market mentor. I will then open up the thread for further discussion, and hopefully some other search-committee members will weigh in.

Without further ado, here's my sense of some common teaching-statement mistakes:

Verbose teaching statements: Search-committee members are very strapped for time. They typically have hundreds of applications to review. Consequently, overly long materials can frustrate them, whereas nice and concise materials can come across as 'sparkling' and thoughtful. I have read some very good 2-3 page teaching statements--so it is certainly possible to have an effective teaching statement that long. However, my sense is that many teaching statements are far longer than they need to be, in ways that don't reflect well on a candidate. They not only make things more difficult on the reader. Given that most of us think it is important to teach our students to write concisely, a verbose teaching-statement may make it look like one has a bad sense of what writing effectively involves--a bad first-look for a teacher! Anyway, I was advised by a job-market consultant to keep my teaching statement to one-page, and it served me well. So, I think this is one common mistake. Try to err on the shorter side of things. 

Generalities without concrete examples: As I've mentioned before, I learned from my consultant that the single biggest error that candidates make in teaching statements is writing in generalities (e.g. 'I diagram arguments and have students do group work in class'). Given that the vast majority of other candidates write more or less the same thing, statements like these do these do little to help a candidate stand out or enable a search-committee to form any kind of clear picture of what the person is actually like in the classroom. Give concrete examples: of actual in-class assignments you have given, how the assignment led to a productive discussion, and so on.

Overly-emotive language: Saying you are a 'passionate' teacher 'strongly committed' to such-and-such may seem rhetorically effective, given that as a candidate you want to impress upon readers that you have these qualities. In practice, however, these kinds of rhetorical moves can come across as banal cliches. Just about everyone regards themselves as a passionate teacher committed to X, Y, and Z--or, if not, just about everyone can say they are in a teaching statement. The problem, again, is that so many people say these kinds of things, without giving a clear picture of how they actually are these things. I was taught by my consultant to "show, not tell". Just explain in concrete detail the things you do as a teacher and the pedagogical rationales for why you do those things. My sense is this will show (and illustrate) one's passion for teaching and commitment to students and student-learning in ways that saying one is passionate or committed don't do. 

Little to no discussion of assessment: Many teaching statements talk about what candidates do in the classroom (e.g. Socratic dialogue, group assignments, and so on), how they structure courses, and the readings they assessment, but say very little about forms of assessment or their rationale. Like it or not, many people at teaching-focused institutions--ranging from people on hiring committees, to administrators, to tenure-and-promotion committees--care a lot about assessment, taking it to be pedagogically important. You don't need to discuss every form of assessment you use: quizzes, exams, term-papers, and so on. That would probably come across as pedantic in teaching statement. What I do think is a good idea is briefly explaining at least one assessment central to your courses, and the rationale for it. In my statement, I explain briefly but in detail the several components of daily reading responses, along with the pedagogical rationale for each component. I also mention--in a single sentence--another form of assessment I use to develop student meta-cognition. My sense is that these kinds of brief but clear illustrations of assessment pedagogy can be important, as there are some people on the hiring side of things who care about these things.

Underdeveloped pedagogy: My final sense is that too many teaching statements come across as though relatively little thought has been given to pedagogy. In today's intensely competitive job-market, my sense is that candidates for jobs at teaching-focused jobs cannot expect to be very competitive with teaching statements that say (more or less): "I stand in front of the class, diagram arguments, and engage students in Socratic dialogue." If you mostly use Socratic techniques, that's fine--but my sense is that candidates need to find some way to distinguish themselves, illustrating (again, through concrete examples) that they are particularly thoughtful about how they do it, in ways that have given serious thought to pedagogy and assessment.

Anyway, these are just a few things that I suspect are common mistakes in teaching statements. What do other people who have served on search-committees think? Is my list mostly accurate in your experience? If not, what do you think I have gotten wrong? And are there any other common mistakes you think candidates should be aware to avoid?

How forthright should cover letters be?

In our thread on prior credit toward tenure, 'Going Up Tenure Year' writes:

Question re: going up in your tenure year. I am going to be doing that -- is there something particular that you put into your cover letters? I am on track to get tenure here and my letter writers from here will mention that ... should I also mention it? 

My initial reaction is that this is probably not the sort of thing to note in a cover letter, as it should be easy for anyone reading a file to infer. Still, I'm not sure, and in any case it raises an interesting more general question: namely, how forthright should one be in cover-letters? To see what I mean, consider the following scenarios:

1. Applying for jobs elsewhere when going up for tenure as a 'backup plan' in case one doesn't get tenure.
2. Applying for jobs elsewhere when coming up for tenure because one is a 'sure thing' for tenure.
3. Applying for tenure-track jobs elsewhere well several years before coming up for tenure because one thinks one would be a better fit for a different kind of institution.
4. Applying for junior-level tenure-track jobs with a 'two-body problem' (i.e. spouse or partner).
5. Applying laterally for tenured positions because of a two-body problem.
6. Applying from tenured position to untenured positions because of a two-body problem.

How forthright should one be about one's reasons for applying for a position? I have to confess that I'm not sure at all! On the one hand, my sense is that in some cases a search-committee might find some kind of explanation in a cover letter helpful. Without any explanation, a search-committee in cases (3) or (6) might wonder, "Why in the world is this person applying for our job when they are already progressing well toward tenure at their current institution?" In these cases, some kind of explanation in the candidate's cover letter could help a search-committee better understand the candidate's intent in applying. On the other hand, providing such an explanation could be taken as "giving too much information" or prejudice the committee against the candidate. 

What do all of you think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees? Should "Going Up Tenure Year" mention that they are going up for tenure? Again, I'm inclined to think not, but I could be wrong. Alternatively, what do you all think about the other kinds of cases?

European program-ranks and the market

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

I have a friend with a BA from a Canadian institution, and MA in philosophy from a US institution, who, for compelling personal reasons, wants to do a PhD in Europe (non UK). They have US and EU (non-uk) citizenship. I am putting this here because I wasn't sure what advice to give. Ideally, my friend would like to create the best possibility of being competitive for US jobs once the degree is complete (they are not ruling out Europe jobs, but those are limited).

1.Is there a clear philosophy prestige hierarchy in Europe? If so does it carry over into the United States?

2. The vague impression I get is that search committees often treat all non-uk European PhDs the same, kind of like a low ranked US program, although there is often the disadvantage of lacking teaching experience.

3.Somewhat in conflict with what I just said, other times I get the impression that, especially at research schools, a European PhD is much preferred to a mid to low ranked US PhD. This seems to be because the former has a negative reputation (among elite research schools) while the latter really has no reputation. There is also some sort of plus from the mysteriousness of it all.

4.The more elite liberal arts schools often like the diversity this would bring, especially if you speak multiple langues (again, this is just my impression that is not based on anything known to be reliable.)

If anyone is knowledgeable about this, that would be great. Other things of interest are odds of getting accepted from the US (but with EU citizenship) and odds of getting funded, how long it takes to finish, etc.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they are great ones to ask. Indeed, I'm very curious what the answers are myself, as I've recently noticed some people (including a few people I know) get great jobs in the US coming out of European programs. Anyone have any insight on Amanda's questions?

Job-Market Boot Camp, Part 26: common mistakes with research statements

Our recent discussions of cover letters and teaching statements got me thinking it might be a good idea to add a few threads to the Cocoon's Job-Market Boot Camp from several years ago. Although that series examined cover letters, teaching statements, teaching portfolios, research statements, CV's, writing samples, and letters of recommendation, I thought it might be a good idea to focus some new posts on common problems (or 'mistakes') with each. That, at any rate, is what my next several posts adding to the series will aim to discuss. As with the rest of the series, I don't imagine that everything that I say is correct. I will just report my own sense of things, and then open things up to other people who have served on search-committees to say whether they agree, disagree, or have other ideas. My hope is that simply having these kinds of discussions will give current and future job-candidates a better idea of what search-committee members think constitute 'mistakes' in various materials. 

Let us begin, then, with research statements. What are some common 'mistakes' candidates make with them, at least from a search-committee member's point-of-view? Here, in my experience, are some potential mistakes:

Prior credit toward tenure?

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

I have a question about moving from a VAP to a TT-job. Is it possible, in your experience, to count the years you have been VAP in the tenure clock when you move to a TT-job? For instance, if you had been VAP for 2 years, then you get a TT-job and you can go for tenure after 4 years. I'm interested in this especially in terms of articles published during the VAP period. Thanks!

A very good question. It's important to know the answer to, and my sense is that a good number of job-marketeers don't know much about it. 'Tenured' answered:

The rules around "prior service credit" as it is sometimes called, vary widely. I was able to get some credit for prior service at other institutions - for 5 years, they gave me three years credit, the maximum the institution would give. It does, though, add pressure to you. You are expected to earn tenure on the publications you do AT the new job (at least at some places). But I have seen people told they cannot count post doc positions, and other temporary positions as prior credit. So some institutions only count years at another tenured positions, or years in full time employment (ie. where your title is Visiting Assistant Professor). So count on nothing. In fact, I was not told how much prior credit I would get until AFTER I started the job!

My experience is that Tenured is right on a variety of counts. Some schools have very strong policies against awarding 'prior credit'. They may have policies not only against cutting the number of years before one can go up to tenure, but also policies against counting anything you have done before being hired toward tenure. Other schools may be willing to shorten time to tenure, but still not count previously published work and the like. In cases like this, it might sound great if a school tells you that you can come up for tenure after four years. But in that case, as Tenured notes, you'll be under even greater pressure to publish a ton during those four years, since your previous publications won't count.

Query about relocation expenses

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

This job-market season, I accepted a tenure-track job at a large state teaching-focused university. I am coming right out of graduate school. I was very happy that part of the offer included relocation funding.

But, the relocation funding is provided through reimbursement. This is a problem for me because I have been a graduate student in a major US city for the last 6 years and as a result I don't have the money to spend on relocation such that they can reimburse me.

Is reimbursement typical or standard in academia when it comes to funding moving or relocation expenses? If it is typical or standard, this practice seems to assume that graduate students have access to thousands of dollars of cash or credit.

Amanda then replied:

I dealt with the same problem. It is indeed typical to not pay up front and assume the hire has the money or credit to pay for everything. And this will most likely be true for everything in the future, notably conference travel.

When I signed my contract I was told it would be easy to get moving money paid in advance. I then followed up on this, and was meet with massive layers of bureaucratic red tape and apathetic administrators. In the end, it just wasn't going to happen. So I got rid of all my furniture. Put the rest of what I could fit in my car, and drove across the country staying in Motel 6's.

And yes, everyone assumes you have thousands of dollars on credit cards. They absolutely assume this, and they assume that if you don't, then you can apply for a credit card and get one...

I'm curious whether anyone else has experience with this, and particularly whether anyone might have helpful advice for Relocator. My own sense is similar to Amanda's: that universities typically expect you to pay for things first (e.g. on credit) and then reimburse you later. In the past, when I was in debt, this posed problems for me too. However, I had enough open credit to deal with it, so that's what I did. But, as Amanda notes, not everyone has access to credit. What should relocator do? Do universities ever give advances on relocation expenses?

What looks good in teaching statements?

In our most recent "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Postdoc writes:

I'd like to know how search committees read teaching statements. I'm familiar with the standard advice on teaching statements from The Professor is In (give concrete examples, don't be saccharine, keep it down to one page), but I am curious what people on the other end are actually looking for. What can a search committee learn about a candidate from their teaching statement? What role - if any - does a teaching statement play when determining whether a candidate would be a good teacher? And, for good measure, what are some things that SC members find annoying?

Great questions! As readers may know, we've discussed teaching statements a few times. However, Postdoc is asking for a more detailed indication of what search committees look for. So let me offer a few thoughts and then open things up for other search-committee members to weigh in.

Mentoring program: mentee feedback

Updated July 25, 2019.

Readers may recall that Helen De Cruz and I have been running a Job-Market Mentoring Program for job-candidates the past several years. This was our third year running the program, and we were able to match 35 job-candidates with tenure-stream mentors. Although we will be getting the program started a little late this year (due to preexisting commitments Helen and I have), our plan is to open signups for this year's market cycle on August 1st.

Anyway, the past several weeks we have been collecting feedback from this year's mentors and mentees. This post will share the feedback that the mentees we've heard back from have authorized us to share. I will also continually update this post if and when we receive additional feedback. Next week, I'll share the feedback we've received from mentors. For more information on the program and previous years' feedback, see here.

Feedback from this year's mentees

1. Types of mentoring received (e.g. dossier materials?, interviewing, etc.):

“Cover letter help, interviewing, advice on publishing, general job market strategies.”

“I have been advised on all aspects of the job market, from dossier materials and interviews (both skype and on-campus).”

“[Redacted] reviewed my dossier materials, reviewed semester workplans that he incited me to prepare, read some of my work and answered my general questions about the job-market (Should I write a book? What do you think of press x? How do you perceive book chapters v. articles? How should I approach big conferences? Etc.).” – Étienne Brown

“dossier materials.”

“extensive feedback on dossier materials and mock interview.” - Joao Fabiano

“general advising via email.”

“Comments on dossier.”

“Dossier materials, general advice.”

“Dossier materials, interview advice, how to present and pitch my research and teaching.”

“CV, cover letter, teaching portfolio, research statement.”

"Advice on CV, cover letter, research statement and other job materials."

"Review application materials, prepare for interviews."

What search-committees look for in cover-letters

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

Cover letters for me are to some extent the most mysterious part of the application, so much so that I think they shouldn't even be required.

I have read here already that you can tell just by reading someone's cover letter that they are or are not a good fit.

But what are you really looking for in one?

Are you looking for the cover letter to convince you of fit for the position mostly?

Are you looking for the cover to convince you I have tailored it sufficiently and done research about your school?

Maybe I am alone in this but I find this aspect of the application the most frustrating to compose, especially without just repeating thing that are found elsewhere in my dossier.

Do you have like a checklist for what might be considered "best practice" in a cover letter?

This is a great query. I will be curious to hear what other search-committee members think. But let me begin by sharing a few thoughts.

Do the little things matter on the market?

In our newest "Ask a search-committee member", grymes writes:

Here's something I'm curious about, looking back on the job market with at-least-closer-to-20/20 hindsight. My suspicion is that folks on the market (myself included) often commit the following fallacy: 'I'm competing against hundreds of well-qualified applicants for every job, therefore every minute detail of my application is likely to make a difference'. This fallacy (if it is one) tends to be encouraged by sources like The Professor Is In and, occasionally, posts on this blog, like the recent one about putting job talks on your CV. Frankly, I very much doubt that it makes a net difference whether or not you put job talks on your CV, or have a high quality photo of yourself on your website, or whatever. It may turn some people off, it may turn other people on, it will hardly be registered by most search committee members (including those who interview you). Ditto for a hundred other small decisions you make when putting your materials together. The things that land you interviews are (a) the big things that you can no longer control when you're tweaking applications in the Fall, (b) the idiosyncratic tastes of departments and individual search committee members, which you can sometimes appeal to by tailoring cover letters, but which are often invisible, and (c) luck. That's my hunch, anyway. I'd be curious to hear search committee members weigh in.

'Now' responded:

I agree. The most important by far is (a) the big things you can no longer control ...
If you still only have two conference presentations and no publications on your c.v. when you apply for a job, that will really determine how you will fare in the competition for that job. If you still have never taught your own course when your application goes in, all the hypothetical course syllabi in the world will not make a difference for most jobs at teaching oriented colleges. etc.

I'd be curious to hear search-committee members weigh in too. I'm inclined to agree that the big things matter the most: one's publication record, research program, teaching experience, service experience, and overall 'fit' to the department. Nevertheless, I am also inclined to think the small things matter too--particularly how one comes across in one's materials. Allow me to briefly explain.

AOS, job-types, and placement: a hypothesis

Several weeks ago, I shared some interesting findings that Jonathan Weisberg (Toronto) compiled on academic job-placement. Weisberg has since updated his findings, including the following figures:

One thing that Weisberg didn't include in either of these figures is unranked programs. However, he did report findings for them, and the findings he reported are really interesting. Although he found unranked programs in general had only a 29% tt-placement rate (on par with the lowest-Leiter-ranked programs above), some unranked programs had TT placement rates well above many of the highest Leiter-ranked programs:

PROGRAM	N			TT	PHD	PGR
The Catholic University of America	11			0.91	0.18	0
Baylor University	13			0.85	0.08	0
DePaul University	11			0.82	0.09	0
University of Tennessee	13			0.77	0.00	0
University of New Mexico	7			0.71	0.00	0
Vanderbilt University	9			0.67	0.00	0
University of South Florida	15			0.60	0.00	0
Florida State University	12			0.58	0.08	0
University of Oregon	12			0.58	0.00	0
University of Kansas	9			0.56	0.00	0

For what it's worth, the above findings as a whole seem to me to fit reasonably well with the hypothesis I floated several years ago: namely, that candidates from lower-Leiter-ranked programs (well, at least some of them) may have the most difficult time getting tenure-track jobs--due to them producing research-focused candidates who may be poorly-positioned to compete for research jobs or jobs at teaching institutions. For notice what the above unranked programs are doing: these programs aren't placing their candidates into R1 programs (with PhDs or Leiter-rank). They are instead placing 56-91% of their recent PhDs into TT positions at teaching institutions. Unranked institutions that focus in niche areas (Continental, Religion) and/or prepare their students as teachers seem to vastly outperform many (if not all) lower-ranked Leiter programs when it comes to placement.

Anyway, this got me thinking about the final figure that Weisberg posted:

The thing that is the most striking to me about this chart is the extreme variance of TT placement-rates the further one moves down the Leiter-rankings. Up toward the top of the scale, MIT and Pittsburgh are the only real outliers. Down between 2 and 3.25, on the other hand (which correspond to programs ranked 25-50 in the Gourmet Report), the variance explodes. For instance UC Riverside (ranked 32) places over 70% of its candidates in TT jobs, whereas Maryland (ranked above Riverside in 2006, which is Weisberg's focus) was found to place not even 20% in TT jobs. 

What accounts for these disparities? It could be a variety of things, of course. But let me hazard a hypothesis about something that might be going on: some kind of interaction between AOS, PhD program-rank, and TT placement. Let me explain. I have worked at a mid-sized liberal arts institution for ten years now. When I started here, my department only had two tenure-track philosophy faculty: one focusing in Asian Philosophy and one in Aesthetics (hired decades ago). The latter faculty member is now several years retired. Today, my department has five full-time faculty who focus in the following areas:

1. Asian Philosophy
2. Ethics and Social-Political
3. Feminist Philosophy
4. Philosophy of Race
5. Applied Ethics

Notice anything interesting? We do not have any full-time (let alone tenure-track) faculty in the department whose areas of primary focus are "core" areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, philosophy of mind, etc. Not a single one. It's not that we wouldn't like full-time, tenure-track philosophy in these areas. We would love it. It is just that these are not high-demand hiring areas at an institution like mine. I could go into some detail as to why this might be. In brief, I think it's probably a combination of two things. First, metaphysics, epistemology, language, logic, and other core areas don't tend to draw students. Second, insofar as just about everyone is trained in 'core areas' in grad school (in my day, we all had to take proseminars and other coursework in 'core' areas), we just don't need specialists to teach the only kinds of courses we need to offer in those areas: namely, lower introductory-level courses. In brief, although maybe things could change if our university continues to grow (and we have grown rapidly), it appears to be highly unlikely that we will do a tenure-track hire in core areas in the foreseeable future (side-note: I think similar issues make it comparatively unlikely that schools like mine will do hires in philosophy of science).

I suspect many other liberal arts institutions are not unlike mine in this regard. But now notice what this means: if you choose any 'core' areas as your AOS while in graduate school, this means that the vast majority of jobs hiring in your area will probably not be at schools like mine. Rather, the kinds of schools that hire in 'core' areas will be R1 universities. But now which kind of candidate is going to be the most competitive for those jobs, all things being equal? Answer: not candidates coming out of lower-Leiter-ranked programs. No, insofar as 'core' areas are often regarded as especially prestigious areas of philosophy (look at places like Rutgers and NYU), the kind of candidate far and away most likely to be competitive for 'core' jobs at R1's will be those coming out of top-10 programs. If this hypothesis is right, then if you are a grad student, your choice of AOS may have immense implications for your competitiveness. If you are in a top-10 program, then choosing metaphysics or epistemology as an AOS may be a fine choice. But if you are in a lower-ranked program? It may well be the worst choice you can make: one that may make you uncompetitive for any job (since you may be unable to compete well for R1 jobs and there simply aren't many 'teaching' jobs in those areas).

Anyway, I don't know if this hypothesis is true. But I suspect there is something to it. So I took a look at a few department pages. Here is what Riverside's grad program page says (my bold):

The Philosophy Department at UC Riverside is a nationally ranked program with a genuinely pluralistic emphasis.We have strengths in specific areas of analytic philosophy, 19th and 20th century European philosophy, and the history of philosophy (especially eighteenth and nineteenth century).

What is striking about Riverside's program, in other words, is that it has strengths in niche areas. If my above hypothesis is true, this may go a long way to explaining their program's high-levels of success in TT-placement. Here, in contrast, is Maryland's grad program page:

The Department offers a graduate program leading to the PhD degree as well as a terminal MA. The faculty have a wide range of interests throughout contemporary analytic philosophy, with special strengths in the following areas:

• Aesthetics
• Moral and Political Philosophy
• Philosophical Logic
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Science

I don't mean to cast aspersions on Maryland's program in any way. They may be a great program. But notice the difference. As I expect we all know, basically nobody hires in Aesthetics. This means that of the remaining five areas Maryland lists as strengths, four are 'core' areas. If my above hypothesis is true, this may go a ways to explaining why Weisberg found Maryland's placement rate to be so much lower than comparative programs. Finally, while I did not do anything like an exhaustive survey, I did look at several other outliers and broadly found similar things (that lower-ranked programs with strong placement rates appeared to have strengths in niche areas, whereas those with weaker placement rates seemed more focused in 'core' areas).

Anyway, at this point, this is just a hypothesis. But I think it is one worth considering and investigating further--as it may be vital for grad students to understand, at least if they want to make wise decisions about what to specialize in to be competitive on the academic job-market given the type of program they are coming out of.

Listing job-talks on a CV?

In our newest "Ask a search-committee member" thread, Anon writes: Sorry if this has been answered before: should you list previous job talks (from campus visits) in your CV?

My sense is that quite a few job-candidates do this, but every time I have seen it discussed, the consensus answer has been: no, absolutely not. Further, this answer actually seems to me a no-brainer. Job-talks are not 'invited talks.' They are a part of a formal job-interview. Would you list all of the schools you interviewed at on your CV? If you were working outside of academia, would you list on your CV that you have interviewed at places like Google, Apple, and so on? Of course not (or at least I hope not!). My sense is that all that listing job-talks on a CV is likely to do is make you come across as a bit of a show-off (like, "Ha, look at all of my interviews!). Even if that's not what you intend, I don't think that's a look you want to go for. Now, I realize as a candidate you might want to fill out your CV, especially if it's a bit on the short side. However, I still don't think listing job-talks is a good idea. On the one hand, if you listed them in their own category (under the heading of 'job-talks'), that would just look bizarre. On the other hand, if you list them under 'invited talks', you look like you don't know what an invited talk is--as again, job-interviews just aren't 'invited talks': they're interviews. 

Anyway, maybe I'm wrong about all of this. If other people who have served on search committees see things differently, feel free to say so. But, for my part, I'd be very surprised if there turned out to be significant disagreement among search-committee members on this. To me, it seems like one of those obvious "don'ts" (like listing papers merely under review under 'publications', something which, alas, I've heard many candidates do too!).

Listing impact on CVs?

In the comments section of our "Ask a search-committee member" thread, I posed the following query:

... I recently heard a job-marketeer [ask] on social media...whether candidates with significant citation counts (viz. Google Scholar) or download numbers (at Philpapers, SSRN, etc.) should put these things on their CV. I recall the person suggesting it might be helpful, as it would provide search committees with evidence of scholarly impact (that they might not otherwise be aware of). But I also vaguely recall people discouraging the person from doing it. I think it might be good to hear from actual search-committee members what they think about this.

I'm actually really curious about this. Although my memory is hazy, I seem to recall most people suggesting that the job-marketeer not put this kind information on their CV. However, this seems strange to me...

Publications in edited volumes & the market

A reader writes in:

I was wondering if I could get The Cocoon's response to the following couple of questions: 

1) Is a single publication in an edited volume (put out by a good press) better than no publications at all when heading onto the market (assuming you also do have some stuff out and under view)? 

2) What is a hiring committees perception of a graduate student who has a paper in an edited volume?

I figure the answer to 1) is obviously "yes," so I guess 2) is the more important question. 

One comment before I leave you to it: I have heard people say that edited volumes are where good publications go to die, which I think is silly. I work primarily in the history of philosophy, and I often find that essays in edited volumes are much more interesting than essays in journals, since in journals you mostly find articles of the form "X said this Aristotle on motivation, Z said this on Aristotle on motivation, here I come, Y, and I will say this." Whereas in volumes, you find work that is exploring neglected views, or just taking some risks. In any case, I guess there is the worry that hiring committees might ask themselves: "If this is a publishable paper, why isn't it in a journal?" The answer is often: because it grew out of a conference that had a book contracted for the talks. But still, I could see this question arising. 

Good questions. Although this data is seven years old now, my sense has long been that candidates coming out of top programs don't necessarily need any publications in order to get a TT job (has this changed?). Indeed, when I was in grad school, the word on the street was that it was actually better to have no publications coming out of a top program than publications in "weak" venues. So, I'm not sure having a publication in an edited volume is better than nothing, at least for candidates coming from top-ranked programs. For other candidates, I think a publication in an edited volume probably is better than nothing. Indeed, having served on four hiring committees now, I can attest to this. However, even here I think there are several important caveats to bear in mind.

Pitching 'narrow' AOS's to search committees

In our newest "Ask a search committee member" thread, 'early career anon' writes:

If an applicant has chosen to work in a number of different areas of interest and is less specialized in one particular AOS than other candidates, how should they go about presenting that in the best light to search committees?

Although it's not entirely clear to me what 'early career' means here, I take it the case may be something like this. Suppose one's primary research programs are on free will, philosophy of perception, and vagueness--a number of different areas not unified under a single AOS. In that case, I assume one may list one's AOS as "Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology, Philosophy of Language." However, one's actual areas of research are much narrower than those broad categories suggest. If one is applying to, say, a job ad in Metaphysics, one will come across as 'less specialized in Metaphysics' than many other candidates (since one only does one thing in that area, free will). Assuming this is the kind of case 'early anon' is concerned about, how should a candidate like this pitch themselves?

How do search committees read files?

In our new "ask a search committee member" thread, Tom writes:

What do *you* read first in a file? What don’t you read at all? Do you even *have* a systematic way of going through files, or is it haphazard/varying/based on how much you’ve been drinking?

(My expectation is that the answers to these questions will be wildly different from SC-member to SC-member, so I’m more interested in the diversity of answers than any particular answer.)

Great questions. I expect it might benefit job-marketeers tremendously to hear answers. In the comments section of the above thread, 'One person' replied:

I read material in roughly, the following order: the application letter (some people already show they were not appropriate for the job in the letter), the c.v. (here one gets an overview of the candidate and their accomplishments and qualifications - it is the most useful piece of information), then the rest. The teaching material gives a sense of their teaching, supported by a teaching letter; letters are looked at, but with some degree of skepticism, as there is lots of inflation; the writing sample may be looked at then. Then if they have some sort of research statement outlining future plans - this is useful for when you choose who to bring to campus as point of discussion.

My own practices are fairly similar. I always read CV's first, as to me they are the most informative on the whole, especially when it comes to deciding whether the person meets the minimum requirements for the job. The very first things I look at are the person's listed AOS and AOC.

Ask a search-committee member (June 2019)

Last June, I ran a new series, 'Ask a Search Committee Member'. The basic idea is similar to our "how can we help you?" threads, except that the explicit focus is on posing any burning job-market questions you have to search committee members. Last year, we received a number of really good queries. So, given that the main academic job-market cycle is just a few months away, I thought now might be a great time to run the series again!

Anyway, in the comments section below, please share any questions you have for search committee members. I will then write up a short post in reply (based on my experience on search committees), and then ask other people who have served on search committees to weigh in.

Fire away, the more questions the better! 

Job-Market Resources

Given that the main academic job-market cycle is just a couple of months away, I thought it might be good to alert the blog's newer readers to some of the Cocoon's job-market series:

• Job-Market Boot Camp
• Notes from Both Sides of the Market
• Secret Lives of Search Committees
• Ask a Search-Committee Member
• Alt-Ac Workshop

Readers should also feel free to note any job-market queries they have in the comments section below. We're here to help!

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.