The Philosophers' Cocoon

Handling new-job jitters?

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

I recently was fortunate enough to land an amazing job that I've very excited about. Especially given the current market situation, I feel very lucky. But I also feel more nervous than I ever felt on the job market. It's not really concerns about teaching or publishing (well, at least not beyond the general anxiety I imagine everyone experiences about those things). I'm more worried that I'll say something wrong and all my new colleagues will start to dislike me. Honestly, it feels a lot closer to how I felt on the first day of kindergarten than it does anything else. I'm hoping the feeling will get better with time, but I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to make the transition to my new department smooth and how to be less nervous talking to people?

Good question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

You made it through the 1st day of kindergarten. You will make it through this one too. Generally, the selection process is so rigorous, the candidate who gets the job will do just fine. You are off to a great start to a wonderful career. (if you want something to worry about, you should be more concerned that the department is dysfunctional - hopefully not, though).

Moving/relocation tips for academics?

On Twitter, Alex Bryant (PhD student, McMaster) writes:

Early career academics: Presumably you have developed a kind of expertise related to moving (including problems common to grad students/academics, like moving books). What have you learned, what do you suggest, and what mistakes could you help others avoid?

Related: One way long-tenured senior people might be out of touch with the state of the profession is just how much of an impact frequent moves has on people who have to move from contract to contract, postdoc to postdoc, rather than picking up lifelong job out of school.

This is a good question that we've never discussed before, as in my experience moving between jobs can indeed have a serious impact on an academic's ability to get work done. The couple of times that I moved (first to UBC, then to Tampa), the summer that I moved was mostly a 'wash' where I wasn't able to get much research done. My experience was that there are just so many things to figure out and daily stressors having to do with it that it can be hard to focus.

Anyway, do any readers have any tips? Also, it might be worth hearing from readers on whether (and how), in their experience, senior academics may be out of touch here.

Using old teaching letters when TT?

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

I have a question about acquiring a teaching reference letter. I am a junior TT faculty member, looking to switch to another institution. My last teaching letter was acquired when I was teaching in grad school. However, I am more than several years out now, and I am not comfortable asking any member of my department for a teaching letter for another job (for obvious reasons). How problematic is it to use an outdated teaching letter? Finally, all of my current letters do address teaching in some capacity or another, would it be OK (given my circumstances) to not submit a teaching reference for a job that technically requires one? Could one address this in a cover letter?

Good questions. I'm inclined to think that it is probably fine to use an old teaching letter when applying out of a TT position, as it seems plausible to me that search committee members will think something like, "Oh, they are applying out of a TT position, so they probably can't get a teaching letter from their current place of work." At the same time, I think there may be a better alternative--or rather, a way to supplement your old letter in your application.

At my university (and, I suspect, at many other universities), it is not uncommon for TT faculty to have teaching observations, where another (usually tenured) faculty member sits in on one of your classes to observe your performance. Normally, in my experience, the faculty member who does the observation will write a detailed letter evaluating your performance--which you can then use in your tenure file to help make the case that you are a meritorious teacher. Further, as long as you perform well, these letters are usually positive on the whole--though they may contain some critical feedback or teaching suggestions. 

For these reasons, I think it might be helpful to include a letter or two like this in the OP's job applications, not as reference letter per se, but instead as supplemental materials in their teaching portfolio. I'm not entirely sure about this, though, so what do you all think? Is it okay for a TT faculty member to only include an old teaching letter in their application? If so, should they address this in some way in their cover letter? Should they try to include a teaching observation letter or two in their teaching portfolio?

Political philosophy & poli-sci job markets

I came across an interesting question recently, which is whether and to what extent political philosophers and political scientists who specialize in political theory are competitive for jobs in the opposite departments. For example, I know of a fair number of junior and senior political philosophers housed in political science departments--but I'm not sure that I know of any political science PhDs who have jobs in philosophy departments. 

Does this sound right to everyone? If so, I'm curious about the asymmetry. Why would political science departments be more willing to admit philosophers into their ranks than the converse? If you were on a philosophy search committee, would you take a Political Science PhD seriously if they specialized in political theory? Why/why not?

How many (outside) letters are optimal?

A reader writes in:

I have a couple of questions about getting job letters from people outside of your graduate program. 

First, when is it a good time to ask someone for a job letter? How well does a potential letter writer need to know you to write a sufficient letter? 

Second, I will likely have at least two external job letters when I go on the market. Is this enough or would more be better? How many letters does one need on the market?

Excellent questions. Here is how I replied:

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to the first question, as in my experience different people can have different standards for how well they think they should know you in order to write a good letter. So, here’s my suggestion: if you have some working relationship with the person and any reason to think the person knows your work and may think well of you as a philosopher, it doesn’t hurt to ask. The worst that can happen is that they say ‘no’—but the best that can happen is that they say ‘yes’ and write a good letter. I’ve had both happen to me, and while it’s disappointing when someone says ‘no’, the only way to get some ‘yes’ answers is to ask.

On the second question, I think two outside letters is more than enough, particularly for someone just coming out of graduate school. Indeed, given that many job application portals limit the number of letters that you can submit, there is such a thing as having ‘too many letters.’ I think four or five letters total (2 or 3 from your grad program, and likewise from outside) is probably optimal.

But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?

CV gaps and the market?

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

I struck out on the job market this year, no surprise. I haven't even been able to secure adjuncting gigs for the fall. And I have not had any luck finding employment outside of the faculty track, either. If I go back on the market, how bad will it look that I have no affiliation and no employment for the upcoming academic year? Will that lower my chances even further?

Good questions. It's not clear from the reader's comment whether they are just out of graduate school and this past year was their first year on the job market. If so, I suspect that they will still look like someone 'just out of graduate school' and the gap on their CV won't matter much. I suspect this is especially true right now, due to the COVID pandemic. Search committee members will be well aware that candidates just out of grad school faced a uniquely horrible market this past year.

On the other hand, my sense is that the longer one is out of grad school, the more likely it is that these kinds of gaps are likely to affect one's chances. Generally speaking, my guess is that you want to look like you are 'still in the game', publishing, getting teaching experience, etc. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? I'm especially curious to hear from people who have served on search committees.

Job-Market Boot Camp, part 30: teaching demos

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

One thing I didn't really see on the wonderful [job-market tips] compendium compiled above is something about giving teaching demos. Has there been a discussion of this on this site?

I'm really glad this reader asked, as I hadn't realized we skipped the teaching demo! What do you all think makes for an effective teaching demo? Things to do? Things to avoid? Allow me to share a few thoughts before opening things up for comments.

Job-market tips (a compendium)

Given that the main academic job season is coming up in the next few months, I thought I'd post a compendium of the Cocoon's various past series on job market tips. Hope some of you find it helpful!

Job-Market Boot Camp

1. Building a Strong, Competitive CV

2. Tailoring your job-market strategy to your situation

3. Writing a good CV

4. Common mistakes with CVs

5. Letters of Recommendation

6. The European job market

7. Job-market consultants

8. Developing coherent research program(s)

9. The Cover Letter

10. The Teaching Statement

11. Common mistakes with teaching statements

12. The Research Statement

13. Common mistakes with research statements

14. How to cultivate a professional online presence

15. When and where to apply for tenure-track jobs

16. Where and When to Apply (Addendum)

17. The Teaching Portfolio

18. Common mistakes with teaching portfolios

19. Writing Samples

20. The Diversity Statement

21. First-round Interviews

22. Zoom & Telephone Interviews

23. The British interview

24. The Campus Visit

25. Teaching demos

26. Negotiating

27. Emotional Maintenance

28. Finding support from a mentor

29. When Spring Term Rolls Around

30. Opting for a non-academic career - when, what and how?

Alternative paths to academic philosophy jobs?

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

The standard path towards landing an academic job in philosophy involves getting a doctoral degree in philosophy, and upon its completion, either securing a post-doctoral position in a related field or (if one is lucky) securing a fixed-term or tenure-track position within a philosophy department.

Now, I get the sense that there is some apprehension towards offering someone who has already obtained a doctoral degree (in a different subject) a place within the philosophy department to complete another doctoral degree, perhaps for reasons of fairness -- that given the competitive nature, it is only fair that someone who does not have a doctoral degree be offered a chance to obtain that degree than someone who already has a doctoral degree.

However, without a doctorate in philosophy, it appears difficult (much harder than it usually would be for people with a philosophy doctorate) to secure a post-doctoral position in philosophy, especially if the area of their original doctorate is pretty far from their primary(ish) research interests in philosophy. Even if one were to chance upon a rare instance where they do secure a post-doc position, it appears to be an uphill battle to convince a hiring committee that one indeed has sufficient philosophical background to teach philosophy at an undergraduate level (I have a suspicion that many would not consider having a master's degree to be sufficient). It therefore seems that, at best, one no more competitive within the job market after the end of that post-doc tenure even if they were to be lucky enough to land a post-doctoral position in philosophy without a doctoral degree in the subject (again, I suspect that one would, in fact, be less competitive on the job market because of the unconventional academic path).

So, more specifically, I have the following questions:

(i) is there an alternative path towards landing an academic job in philosophy that is just as effective/efficient as the standard path?

(ii) if the standard path is all that is available, what could someone who has already obtained a doctorate in a different subject (and is currently pursuing a master's degree in philosophy) do to make themselves reasonably competitive when applying for their second PhD so that their application is not dismissed on the account that they have already received a doctoral degree?

Interesting questions. I'm not sure that there is an alternative path toward landing an academic job in philosophy. But fortunately, I'm not sure there's any reason to think that PhD program admissions committees in philosophy are likely to be apprehensive toward admitting someone who already has a PhD in another field. Far from it, my guess is that admissions committees may find candidates like this especially interesting--as the person's expertise in another field could well enrich their department. Indeed, what could be better than having a new PhD student who has expertise in (say) physics, or psychology, or biology, political science, sociology, etc.? All of these fields (and many others besides!) have much to offer philosophy, and I imagine it might not only be interesting on a day-to-day basis to have someone like that in the department, but also educational, offering grad students and faculty alike fertile ground for expanding their horizons and knowledge-base.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Job-Market Mentoring Program: signups open!

Helen De Cruz and I are happy to announce that signups are now open for this year's iteration of the Cocoon's Job-Market Mentoring Program. Job-candidates in need and potential mentors are both encouraged to sign up for the program here. The full details of the program are as follows.

Program Description:

This program, associated with The Philosophers’ Cocoon, aims to provide job-market mentoring to all those in need (regardless of background). The aim of this mentoring project is just what it sounds like: a scheme to enable job candidates in philosophy who face special challenges, including members of historically-marginalized groups as well as those with little access to mentoring (e.g., because their department or advisor does not offer this), to receive advice and support from more experienced (e.g. tenure-stream or tenured) members of the profession.

Tips for being forward-looking on the market?

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

Over this year and the last I have had a few interviews for amazing jobs and a few great long lists where I had to choose to send in this or that writing sample. I have a really hard time not regretting my decisions—if only I'd done this instead of that in the interview, if only I'd sent in that paper...I know regretting is a pointless enterprise, not to mention a pretty draining one, but I can't seem not to fixate on things that I might have done differently. I suppose this is more a question for a psychologist, but maybe someone here has some strategies for becoming more forward-looking on the market. The stakes are so high that just hard not to think: that one thing would have really changed my life...

This is indeed a difficult question, and perhaps one that a psychologist might be best equipped to help with. Still, I'm curious whether other readers who have struggled with similar issues have any helpful tips to share. How do you deal with disappointment on the market, and in particular with being forward-looking? What have you found to be helpful for avoiding rumination and regrets about things one 'could have done differently'?

Sprezzatura in Academia: is the myth of brilliance the aesthetic of cool?

Baldasar Castiglione's Book of the Courtier (1528) is a series of dialogues between hip Italian Renaissance courtiers who stayed over at the court of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro and Elizabetta Gonzaga and who debated a range of topics over several evenings. Their discussions ranged on which sport looks good to play (apparently, tennis), which musical instrument to learn (not the trumpet, just don't...), what knowledge to acquire in the humanities, and how to behave towards peers, and social superiors and inferiors. 

The Book of the Courtier tells its reader how to be the perfect courtier. Re-reading this lively and creative work over the summer, I considered that a lot of Castiglione's advice for Renaissance noblemen and women be lifted out and go straight into handbooks for placement directors.

Where the non-TT jobs were (2020-21 season)

A couple of months ago, I gave my annual informal report breaking down last job-season's tenure-track jobs by AOS. Because of a confluence of events--ranging from professional deadlines to family issues--I had to put a report on non-tenure-track jobs on the backburner for a while. However, I've now completed it and report my findings below.

Today's post is based upon a PhilJobs search for 'fixed term' and 'contract open' jobs for ads posted between August 1st, 2020 and April 21st (so that the data would cover roughly the same amount of time as in previous years). A few quick notes on methodology. The methodology I've always used in this series works as follows. When I encounter jobs with two AOS;s (e.g. metaphysics, moral philosophy), I counted each job as '.5' jobs in that area (or in the case of 3 AOS, '.33' jobs, etc.). Although I recognize this is a bit odd, it seems to me to make sense, as a job like that could go to someone in any of the listed AOSs, not just one particular AOS. Because I did this with all jobs, the numbers seem to me to accurately weight whether a job is in a particular AOS simpliciter, or whether it was also available to candidates in other AOS. Second, I only counted "junior-level" non-TT jobs (i.e. postdocs, lecturer, and Assistant Professor positions), not senior-level tenure-track jobs. Finally, one quick note before proceeding: although I've done my best to collect the data in this post accurately, this is just an informal report, not a formal study, so if there are any errors, I apologize in advance (though, if there are any, I'm fairly certain they would be very, very minor).

Here's a breakdown of what I found (and here is a copy of my spreadsheet):

TOTAL # of non-tenure-track jobs: 210

• • Value theory (ethics, political, etc.): 81.5 jobs (38.9% of all jobs)
    • Ethics: 57 jobs (27.1% of all jobs)
    • Legal, political, PPE: 24.5 jobs (11.7%)
  • Open AOS: 56.6 jobs (27% of all jobs)
  • Philosophy of Science: 26.3 jobs (12.5% of all jobs)
  • 'Core' areas (Language, Logic, Mind, M&E): 17.9 jobs (8.5% of all jobs)
  • Marginalized groups & non-Western philosophy: 15.5 jobs (7.4% of all jobs)
    • Marginalized groups (race, gender, etc.): 11.3 jobs (5.4%)
    • Non-Western philosophy: 4.2 jobs (2%)
  • History of philosophy: 7.6 jobs (3.6% of all jobs)
  • Aesthetics: 2.2 jobs (1%)
  • Philosophy of Religion: 1.75 jobs (.8%)
  • Continental Philosophy: 1 job (.4%)

One interesting thing here is that in comparison to tenure-track jobs, advertisements for which dropped by nearly half relative to 2019-20, ads for non-tenure-track jobs did not fall nearly as much (there were 244 non-TT jobs in 2019-20). 

Graduate certificates and the job market?

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

A number of PhD programmes offer various graduate certificates (many of which involve taking additional modules in other disciplines). I'm wondering, how significant are such certificates for the job market? How do admissions committees view such certificates?

I'm not familiar with these kinds of certificates, so I'm not entirely sure how to answer. Can any readers fill us in on the kinds of certificates that are offered? Bearing my ignorance here in mind, I guess my initial reaction is that I don't think certificates per se are likely to play a significant role for most jobs, as most hiring committees seem likely to be more concerned with your overall accomplishments as a researcher and teacher, rather than a certificate. But I can imagine possible exceptions. One case here might be a job in 'clinical ethics' (i.e. ethics consulting in health care), where a certificate in the area might help, particularly it involved experience in clinical contexts. Another case might be artificial intelligence, as jobs in this area are often interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary hiring committees may very well be concerned with the kind of breadth of background understanding that a certificate might involve. In any case, if certificates are helpful, my sense is that it is probably not the piece of paper that matters so much (in most cases) as the extra education the certificate involves.

But again, these reactions are admittedly grounded in real ignorance on my part of what kinds of graduate certificates are offered and how they might be relevant to jobs. So, do any of you with more experience in these matters have any helpful tips or insights to share?

Handling troubles with dissertation supervisors?

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

I am about to go on the job market, and I did not enjoy working with my supervisor. I am therefore determined to avoid having to interact with them or rely on them for the next steps in my career, however I worry that such independence from one's supervisor, if one lacks a strong academic network beyond that of the supervisor, is impossible. I also worry that maybe some of my misgivings aren't about this person and their team in particular, but about certain power structures in academia altogether, and so perhaps I should just pursue a non-academic career. It would be great to hear from people who might have thoughts on any of this!

I suspect that troubles with dissertation supervisors or other dissertation committee members are not uncommon. So it might be good to hear from readers who have been through similar situations on how they handled it. It would also, of course, be good to hear tips from readers more generally. Although I admittedly haven't been through the kind of situation that the OP describes, here are a few quick reactions.

ADPA data on job-market competitiveness of candidates over time

Last week, I linked to a post by Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga) on when a PhD degree goes 'stale.' In my post, I noted that it is hard to know whether and to what extent the PhD goes stale without knowing how long academic job applicants stick it out on the market. Interestingly, a handful of readers chimed in noting that, like me, they actually seemed to become more competitive of the academic job-market over time. However, because these are just anecdata and real hard data is important data to know, I reached out to Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced) of the Academic Placement Data and Analysis (ADPA) project and found out that this kind of data has already been collected and reported upon.

Specifically, I learned that back in 2017, the ADPA's comprehensive report (p. 23) indicated the following:

One’s chances of obtaining a permanent academic job in a particular year past graduation are as follows: 

• • 1 in 5 in the first year after graduation
  • 1 in 8 in the second year after graduation
  • 1 in 8 in the third year after graduation
  • 1 in 12 in the fourth year after graduation
  • 1 in 17 in the fifth year after graduation
  • 1 in 22 in the sixth year after graduation
  • 1 in 23 in the seventh year after graduation

Although the chances of finding permanent academic employment after one’s 7th year are very low, 22% of all 2009 and earlier graduates in the APDA database are now in temporary academic employment

Being open about mental health issues?

(Updated with links to additional discussions of related issues).

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

I am a PhD candidate who is about one year away from defending and entering the job market. I wanted to know how open I should be about belonging to a protected mental health and disability category (both in my application materials, and on my social media which is under a pseudonym, but could be linked to me with some effort). I have bipolar disorder one, and I know that there is a lot of stigma surrounding mental health in general (and even more acute stigma surrounding mental illness that can involve psychosis). In my personal life I am quite open about this - I think that telling stories about what it is like to live with this disorder is important for destigmatizing it. It is also important to me to be open about it because I think I stand as a good example of how it is possible to live a very happy and productive life despite having this kind of disorder. However, I do not want my condition to count against me when I go on the market! This question was raised for me most focally this month because I wanted to tell a few stories of my experience on a social media platform for Mental Health Awareness Month, but I am quite nervous about the kind of impact that might have on my job prospects down the line. Any thoughts you all have would be very much appreciated.

This is an extremely important query. Unfortunately, my experience is that there is real stigma against mental illness in the profession. As a case in point, another reader submitted the following reply:

First, the chief concern many hiring committees will have is that you might have a psychotic episode during the semester, and need to be hospitalized. Then they, your new colleagues, will have to scramble to cover your teaching - and they will often get no resources from the administration to do it. So imagine a five person department - now everyone's load is increased by 25 % because one person is on a medical leave. And there is no time to prepare lectures. And you might already being doing a 4-4 load ... and your own child is going through a teenage crisis, etc. No one wants that. Second, from my experience, it pays to indicate on the HR forms that you belong to a protected group. I have seen cases where HR intervened and insisted that files be considered.

I've known academic philosophers who have been very open about their mental illness, and at least anecdotally (from what they have reported), it may have very much worked against them on the job-market, impeding their ability to secure a permanent academic position. I've also known many academic philosophers (including tenured ones) who keep their mental illnesses a secret out of fear of discrimination. To be clear, I think this is awful. Mental illness is a veritable epidemic in academia, yet social norms in the profession incentivize people to keep their illnesses a secret. So unfortunately, my sense is that one has to make a very difficult choice: one can either be open about one's health and be an advocate against stigmatization--but at a potentially serious risk to one's career--or one can keep it a secret. I'm not sure there is any 'right choice' here. One must, I think, simply make a choice one can live with. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Update: Justin Weinberg (South Carolina) kindly drew my attention to these two Daily Nous discussions of mental health in academic philosophy.

Schwitzgebel on trends in the tenured job-market

Over the The Splintered Mind, Eric Scwitzgebel (UC Riverside) has a great new post up on trends in the academic market for tenured positions in philosophy. In the post, Schwitzgebel compares trends for senior philosophy positions to trends in the reports on junior tenure-track jobs that I have given here at the Cocoon over a similar period of years (see here). Here are two graphs summarizing his findings (note: there was one year that I did not collect or report on the junior TT market, so that's the gap in the orange line on the second graph):

Long story short: there are a lot more junior tenure-track jobs each year than senior tenured ones--but the overall trends seem similar. There were a lot more senior jobs in the early 2000's. However, since 2015 both job markets have been relatively 'flat', with a steep drop off in both types of jobs (but especially junior TT jobs) this past year due to the COVID pandemic. Anyway, kudos to Schwitzgebel for collecting and reporting this data!

Moving pre-tenure: getting research to count?

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

The recent discussions here about mid-career moves are very helpful. It is obvious that pre-tenure moves are way easier than after-tenure moves. I am wondering for those who moved before tenure, how much research at the previous institution was counted toward tenure at the new institution? I am especially curious about the kind of case in which one has already met the tenure standard at the new institution, and wondering how much more one is expected to do. But knowing about other cases, such as moving from R2 or SLAC to R1, would definitely be helpful too! Thank you!

Good question. Mike Titelbaum submitted the following reply:

The details are complicated, but the general answer is if you’ve done enough research to meet the new institution’s standards, it won’t be a problem that you did it while somewhere else. As for the details, they depend a lot on the rules at the new institution. Here at UW we recently had two experienced Assistant Profs start and go up for tenure after just over a year. The tenure committee focused on their work during a “probationary period”, which was defined by our university’s tenure rules, but stretched back a number of years into their previous employment. Exactly how that works will vary from place to place, and may be a bit obscure even to administrators at a given institution. But this is a great question to ask someone at a potential employer to figure out the specific answer to during the interview process!

It would be great to hear from readers with some experience here!

Using a non-academic offer for leverage?

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

I am a junior person on the tenure-track at a large-teaching-focused-state school. This school is an area of the US which has very high cost of living and the pay at my institution has not kept pace with inflation.

My question is: Can I use a non-academic job offer to try to get my current institution to give me a raise in salary?

Before I got into philosophy, I had a 10+ year career in a specific business or industry. So, I could get a non-academic job offer. My worry is how my department, dean or administration will receive this. On one line of thought, if they want to keep me, they will make an offer.

On another line of thinking, they may not treat this kind of job offer like they would an academic TT job offer. But I am completely unsure about this.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

[F]rom my experience if you approach the administration at a university/college in the USA with an offer of a job outside the academy they will say "God Bless, and good bye". You are conveying to them that you really are not that interested in the academy and THEIR college. There are, after all, hundreds of hungry adjuncts dying to work for peanuts. They do not need someone who is slumping around for the next 30 years thinking they are unpaid (even if they are).

My sense is that this is probably true of teaching-focused institutions like the OP mentions. However, I'm not sure whether things might be different for R1's, who might want to hold onto 'star faculty.' I realize this is probably an uncommon situation, but do any readers have tips or experience with this issue?

 

Navigating 2-body problems in different markets?

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

What options are there for navigating the two-body problem for junior academics? Suppose the couple in question are both junior academics (less than 5 years out of PhD), both in analytic philosophy, but different areas of specialisation.

The most relevant job markets in my case are the UK and European ones. I've heard some rumours about things like joint hires, or job shares being a possibility, but I am unclear about the logistics of this. For example, would one apply for a single post, and then try to negotiate? If so, would this negotiation occur at interview or offer stage? Or would one be strictly limited to applying to job searches where there were at least two positions available? Thank you!

This is a great query, as a lot of philosophers (and academics more generally) face this kind of difficult situation. One reader submitted the following (disappointing) reply:

I work in Europe, and where I am it is almost wholly impossible to expect a second position for a partner. At best, where I am, you can get a three year contract position for your partner, and then hope a permanent position is opened in their area. But then they have to apply for it. My sense is that this sort of negotiating is easier in the US.

I'm curious to hear from other readers. What options are there for navigating two-body problems for junior academics? Obviously, it would be great to hear about the UK and European markets, since those are the ones the OP specifically asked about. But it would also be good to hear about other markets too, since this isn't just an issue that academics face in the UK and Europe. Any tips, experiences, or insights?

Salaries for TT & full time non-TT positions?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a 3rd year PhD student asks:

What are salaries like for tenure track positions? Full time non-TT positions? It occurred to me that in many cases, people might get super lucky to land a TT job and then get stuck with a mid range salary with nowhere to go. This thought makes it much easier for me to want to leave sooner than later.

These are great questions. We actually had a thread on this way back in 2013, but a lot could have changed between then and now, so I think discussing things again could be really helpful. Two readers submitted the following replies:

This is a good source for data on faculty salaries. You can also check out other higher ed pay: https://www.higheredjobs.com/salary/ - Submitted by Casey

I've seen starting salaries (for assistant professors in philosophy) anywhere from in the low 40s in low cost of living areas, to 90k at relatively prestigious universities in high cost of living areas. I would guess that the average is around 65k. There is a lot of variation here—I would also guess that the standard deviation is high. - Submitted by Salaries

Given that the OP appears to not only be concerned with starting salaries, but also with the prospect for salary levels as one's career progresses (they're concerned about 'a mid range salary with nowhere to go'), I think it could be good to hear from readers at different job-levels (e.g. Lecturer, Assistant Prof, Associate Prof., Full Prof.) at different kinds of institutions (R1s, R2s, liberal arts colleges and universities, and community colleges). 

What salary did you start at, and what's your salary now? Readers should of course feel free to report anonymously, but I expect it would be helpful if, in addition to your salary and institution-type, you share some general details about location (e.g. major West-coast/East-coast city in the US, small college town in mid-America, etc.), as well as whether your institution is a private or public school. It would also be good to hear from readers about two things: your starting salary when you accepted your first position, and your salary now (at whatever academic level you are currently at). Finally, I think it would be great to hear from readers in different parts of the world (i.e. different countries and continents) so that we can get a picture of how salaries of academic philosophers compare across the world more broadly.

3 lecturer positions at Baylor

Paul Carron (Baylor) wrote in drawing my attention to the following ad for three interdisciplinary 1-year lecturer positions:

Baylor University - Interdisciplinary

• Full-Time Temporary Lectureship (1 year with the possibility of renewal) in Interdisciplinary Studies
• 3 faculty positions available in the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core, an academic program within the Honors College
• Teaching: 4/4. Interdisciplinary Studies. Teaching assignments could include courses within World Cultures, Natural World, Social World, and/or the World of Rhetoric sequences.
• The successful candidate will hold a terminal degree and have previous teaching experience in the teaching discipline of interest.
• Doctoral degrees in any field of the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities are encouraged to apply. We particularly encourage applications from the fields of Classics, History (especially non-Western), Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, and Biology.
• Strong candidates with a Ph.D in philosophy will have, for example, a background in the social or natural sciences, an AOS in a historical field with strong cultural knowledge of the historical period (non-Western fields especially encouraged), or experience teaching rhetoric, writing, and argumentation.
• Baylor is an “R2: Doctoral Universities – High research activity” University with a strong Christian commitment.
• Apply through Interfolio: https://apply.interfolio.com/84176
• Deadline: 24 May 2021 

Retaining motivation while on the market?

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

I have a question about motivation.

Some of you (those who run the Cocoon) have mentioned that you were on the market for years before getting your TT position. During that time, how did you maintain the motivation to continue publishing, continue working, despite multiple rejections.

For me, I'm struggling with finishing my book, completing some of my submissions because of the relentless pile-on of rejections, and the way that staying on the market via adjuncting might not be sustainable for me.

So, is there any advice for folks in my position?

This is a great query, and I'm curious to hear how readers answer. I definitely empathize, as I spent a long time (7 years post-PhD) on the market, and struggled with this myself. Allow me to briefly share my experience before opening up things for discussion.

Getting a job at a university that isn't hiring?

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

Is it ever feasible to try and get a job at a university that isn't hiring (sounds silly I know)? For example, suppose I really want to live in location y, but the only university in y is not hiring. Is it a total waste of time to approach the university and try to sell myself anyway? Has anyone ever gotten a job this way? I know this happens all the time in the private/non-academic world. I'm wondering if it ever happens in the academic world.

Interesting questions. I expect it could be possible, but only if you are a really in-demand candidate (i.e. a 'superstar'), and maybe then only if you're a tenured person who is a big name of sorts. But I don't really know. This is really just me speculating. I do know that, at universities like mine, approval of tenure-stream lines is a big process that has to go through the Dean, Provost, President, etc., so I think it's highly unlikely that approaching the university to try to sell yourself would work. At most, the university might approve a tenure-stream line the next year, and you'd have to apply like everyone else. Also, on that note, I don't know how other universities work, but mine seems to have a standing policy of making all hires international, open searches. I think there may even be equal opportunity laws that require this, but I'm not sure--as I do know that sometimes research universities just make offers to (usually senior) people without doing full searches. 

What do you all think? Anyone have any better inside information than me here?

How Long Should You Stay in the Game?

Recently, I’ve been contemplating a question that one of our readers asked a several weeks ago. The core of the question was this: at what point after beginning your job search does it become unrealistic to expect to land a tenure-track job? Marcus cited some data on this and some caveats with interpreting that data. (In a nutshell, your chances of getting a tenure-track job appear to drop off significantly after your second year on the market, but it’s hard to determine how much is attributable to lots of people quitting the job market after 2-3 unsuccessful years.) He also noted the importance of keeping one’s trajectory in mind.

I want to add a bit on this subject because it is a question I have considered often in the last few years. The moment when the question was most prominent in my mind was in April 2019. At that particular moment, I had submitted more than 100 job applications and gotten many interviews, but none of them had turned into an offer. So the immediate question was “What should I do if there’s no academic job waiting in the fall?” But there was also a further question: “Should I try again in the fall, or should I move on?” Now readers familiar with my posts over the years know that this bleak situation had a strangely happy ending. But that was far from guaranteed, and when I’m back on the market in the upcoming fall, there’s no certainty that a fortuitous outcome awaits. So I have already considered how much longer I’m willing to run the job market gauntlet. But I’ll admit that I’ve not developed a complete answer to that question yet.

Where the TT jobs were(n't) in 2020-21

I know that COVID-19 has upended everything, including the academic job market. However, every few years (including last year) I've gone though PhilJobs and tallied up job-market ads to see what the year's academic job market has been like, and I was curious what this year's market was like so I've gone and done another tally. I realize that PhilJobs isn't a complete sample, as a good number of jobs may only be advertised elsewhere, such as at HigherEdJobs. However, collecting and collating this kind of data is really hard work and PhilJobs is the easiest to work with (by far)--so that is the sample I use each year. One quick note before proceeding: although I've done my best to collect the data in this post accurately, this is just an informal report, not a formal study, so if there are any errors, I apologize in advance (though, if there are any, I'm fairly certain they would be very, very minor).

Anyway, this year I've decided to break things up into two different posts: one on TT jobs (today), and another on non-TT jobs (hopefully next week). Today's post is based upon a PhilJobs search for 'tenure-track (or similar) jobs for ads posted between August 1st, 2020 and last Friday, April 9th. This is about a week-and-a-half less than last year's search (which I did from August 1 to April 21). But, given that very few TT ads are still coming out, this search seems to me to give a pretty good picture of what this year's TT market looked like. In any case, this year's search yielded 127 total ads. Because a few of the ads were for senior or open-rank positions--and jobs not obviously suitable for philosophers (one is a job in Art History)--the actual number of junior TT jobs in philosophy advertised this year on PhilJobs appears by my tally to be 118, down from 224 last year. So, unfortunately, compared to last year, junior TT jobs this year appear to be roughly half of what they were last year.

A few quick notes on methodology. The methodology I've always used in this series works as follows. When I encounter jobs with two AOS;s (e.g. metaphysics, moral philosophy), I counted each job as '.5' jobs in that area (or in the case of 3 AOS, '.33' jobs, etc.). Although I recognize this is a bit odd, it seems to me to make sense, as a job like that could go to someone in any of the listed AOSs, not just one particular AOS. Because I did this with all jobs, the numbers seem to me to accurately weight whether a job is in a particular AOS simpliciter, or whether it was also available to candidates in other AOS. Second, as noted above I only counted "junior-level" jobs (i.e. postdocs, lecturer, and Assistant Professor positions), not Associate or Professor level jobs. Third, I only counted academic jobs (leaving the very few non-academic jobs advertised on PhilJobs to the side). 

In any case, here's a summary of what I found:

TOTAL (junior-level) TT jobs advertised in philosophy = 118

• Open AOS: 29 jobs (24.6% of all TT jobs advertised)
• 'Core areas' (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 7.5 jobs (6.4% of TT jobs)
• Value theory (ethics, social, political, law) = 51.6 jobs (37.8% of TT jobs) 
  • Ethics & Applied Ethics (biomedical, environmental, AI ethics, etc.): 38.25 (26.3%)  
  • Social, Political, Law, Econ: 12.13 jobs (10.3% of jobs)
• Science (including philosophy of technology & AI) = 13.8 jobs (11.7%)
  • Philosophy of Science: 4.2 jobs (3.6%)
  • Philosophy of Technology: 6.1 jobs (5.2%)
  • AI/machine learning: 1.25 jobs (1%)
  • History of life-sciences: 1 job (1%)
• History = 7.15 jobs (6.1%)
  • History (open): 2.75 jobs (2.3%)
  • 18th-19th Century: 1 job (1%)
  • Medieval: 1 job (1%)
  • Ancient: 2.4 jobs (2%)
• Social identity (race, gender, feminism) = 8 jobs (6.8%)
  • Feminism & gender: 3 jobs (2.5%)
  • Race & African-American philosophy: 5 jobs (4.2%)
• 'Non-western': 7.7 jobs (6.5%)
  • Non-western: 2.45 jobs (2.1%)
  • African philosophy: .5 (.5%)
  • Asian philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)
  • Buddhist philosophy: .5 jobs (.5%)
  • Caribbean philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)
  • Chinese philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)
  • Indigenous philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)
  • Islamic philosophy: 1 job (1%)
  • Latin American philosophy: 1 job (1%)
• Continental philosophy = 1.4 jobs (1.2%)
• Philosophy of Religion = 1.5 jobs (1.3%)
• Aesthetics = 0 jobs (1 job in Art History)

Some quick reactions:

1. This was a terrible year on the whole due to COVID - hopefully next year will be better.
2. Value theory jobs (particularly ethics) are dominating TT job ads more than ever (43.7% of all jobs are in Ethics/Political/etc.). If we add in Feminist Philosophy and Philosophy of Race (which don't only focus on value theory, but do so substantially), a full 50 44.6% of all TT job ads on PhilJobs this year were in areas that focus substantially on topics relating to ethics.
3. 'Non-Western' philosophy, philosophy of race, and philosophy of technology all had 'banner years', at least compared to previous years (though their absolute numbers are still relatively small compared).
4. 'Core areas' (metaphysics, epistemology, mind, logic, and language) are still on a downward trajectory (only 6.4% of TT jobs advertised, down from 8.3% last year, 13.1% in 2017, and 10% in 2016).
5. AOS: open remains a substantial proportion of TT jobs.

Anyway, as depressing as the overall TT jobs numbers have been this year, I hope some of you find this summary helpful. I hope to present this year's non-TT numbers in a week or two.

Approaching soft job market years in a postdoc

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

How should one think about soft job market years while on a postdoc? Should you take one every year, or relax if you've got a few years to go? How time consuming are they, and what other factors should be considered?

These are good questions, which apply equally well to VAPs (Visiting Assistant Professor positions), and I'm curious to hear how readers respond. I'm apt to think that because the market is in many ways a lottery--and you never know how your luck may play out year to year--it's probably a good idea to apply each year, all things being equal. Applying each year may simply be the best way to maximize your overall chances of getting a permanent job. Still, not all things may be equal. Let me explain.

Teaching portfolio syllabi: full or abridged?

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

I have a really small question about the sample syllabi one includes in a teaching portfoli. How full should these syllabi be? My full syllabi include all sorts of info about grading, course expectations, description, info about plagiarism and writing help resources, etc. Am I right to assume potential employers don't want to wade through all of this, and so I should strip down the versions in my teaching portfolio to the essentials (maybe reading list, course description...what else)? If so, what should I include and not? 

Good questions! I'm not sure on all of them, but I would think that info on grading and course expectations are good to include, as I've known search committee members who care a lot about how things are graded, how grading is distributed in the course (across different kinds of assignments), and so on. I'm not sure about other things, though, such as plagiarism policies, etc. What do you all think?

Tips regarding academic jobs in Italy?

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

Folks have asked about jobs in various European places before and the discussions are usually interesting. But on a quick search of the site I don’t see much about working in Italy. If anyone knows anything I’d love to hear it. Specific questions to get the ball rolling: how does the hiring process work? Are there job ads or do you just gotta have your ear to the ground? What’s pay like? What’s work like? Are professors respected in Italy? Stuff like that.

Great questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

I'm Italian, working in another European country. All jobs are listed here: https://bandi.miur.it/ You have to search per area of specialisation, which are quite strict (Moral philosophy, Logic and Phil SC, etc). The majority of jobs will require proficiency in Italian and, I'd say, many jobs have internal candidates. For jobs that don't need Italian proficiency, you'll hear from the usual channels such as Philos, philjobs, etc. To be eligible to apply for Associate professorship, you need a national habilitation (called Abilitazione Nazionale). You need to meet some requirements in terms of publishing (most of the major philosophical journals are included in a list that a committee will consider) and service. For publishing, it's either a book or 10 articles/chapters in the past 5 years; a book and 3 articles from prestigious journals; or 10 articles/chapters and 3 articles from prestigious journals. Requirements of service are not really clear. There are also a few tenure track jobs: they are called 'ricercatore a tempo determinato b' (rtd b). When you get one of these jobs, you are promised a tenured position after 3 years, pending the achievement of the Abilitazione Nazionale. Pay is not very good, if compared to nearby countries such as Austria or Switzerland. Just anecdotally: when I was a VAP in the US, I made more money than an associate professor. However, unless you live in Rome or Milan, life is cheap and the quality of life is just great. Overall, I think that philosophers in Italy, if they are tenured, live a pleasant and intellectually stimulating life (at least the ones I know). They have tons of time for research and, in general, very few people cares about teaching (but that's something characterizing Europe overall). Moreover, I'd like to add that in my field (philosophy of science), there are great and competitive scholars.

This comment is really helpful, and enlightening to boot (as an outsider, it is always interesting to hear how things work in different countries!). Any other readers with experience in philosophy in Italy have any other helpful information to share?

Can one remain competitive while teaching K-12?

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

I have a question about "staleness" and the job market.

I just defended my dissertation. Last year I got a position as the Logic/Philosophy (and Latin) teacher at a middle/high school. My PhD was a major factor in my being hired, outweighing my lack of an Ed degree or significant K-12 experience. So I'm employed as a philosopher in a FT academic position, but not in a traditional way.

I love my job and at this point I feel like I could stay here forever. But I don't want to assume that's what's going to happen, and I could see myself wanting more time for research someday, so I continue to watch the market.

So suppose for the next several years I teach middle/high school philosophy, publish 1-2 articles a year (given I'm teaching 6-8 classes at a time and have a family), adjunct here and there, and then apply for TT positions. Would I be seen by committees as an early/mid-career philosopher making a lateral or upward move, or a "stale" PhD grad who never "made it"? Or how do I prepare and present myself so as to appear (as I actually would be) the former rather than the latter?

(FWIW The program here is pretty rigorous. Students take a year of informal logic and two years of formal logic in middle school, so once they reach high school they're better prepared for a philosophy class than the vast majority of college students I've taught.)

Great questions! I'm curious to hear what readers think. I'm inclined to think that if a person in this situation really does publish one or two articles per year while teaching K-12 and adjuncting at a university, then sure, they could remain competitive--at least for jobs at teaching focused universities and community colleges. Further, I can't help but wonder whether, if they found a way to publish in top-ranked journals, they might remain competitive for postdocs or research jobs. But I'm inclined to think that (A) a lot turns on whether they do in fact continue to publish (which might be difficult while teaching K-12), and (B) whether they keep adjuncting (as I expect universities will favor candidates who have more university-level teaching experience over candidates with less). 

But these are just my reactions. What are yours?

Criteria for hiring a VAP?

A reader writes in:

Maybe you've talked about this before, but I'm wanting to hear from those who have served on search committees who were hiring a one or two year VAP, and what particular dynamics are in play in this kind of search as opposed to a TT search. For instance, what are some of the criteria used to make a first big cut in this kind of search? Do they differ from other searches? Do those hiring for such positions, especially when they're just a sabbatical replacement, or where there's very little chance of extension, still look at one's publication record and weigh it heavier than teaching experience and performance? I'd assume teaching fit matters a lot here, but then again I'm not sure. I also wonder whether these kinds of positions often receive the same high number of apps as TT positions. 

Given that these positions look to be more prevalent (in fact, a decent amount or starting to trickle in now), I figured this might help more people than just me? 

Good questions! My own experience hiring VAP positions at a liberal arts university is that teaching is our #1 priority. But I wonder if the same is true at other universities, particularly R1s. Any readers with experience hiring for VAPs care to weigh in?

Joining editorial boards while non-TT?

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

I have a general question about joining editorial boards/working as a journal editor while one is in a postdoc or a non-TT position. In short, is it worth it? Does having something like that on your CV look pretty good, enough to offset the responsibilities that come with it? Or is it generally better to wait until one is securely employed (and maybe tenured) before taking on that level of service to the profession?

And here's another more narrow question: if you - a non-TT philosopher - do interdisciplinary work, and you get invited to join an editorial board for a (reputable) journal in another field, should you do it?

Interesting questions! I'm inclined to think that it depends a lot on the journal. If it's a prestigious journal, then I'm inclined to think it may look impressive - as it indicates that well-recognized people in the discipline think highly of you and consider you an expert in the area. However, how likely is it that you'll be approached to join an editorial board at a journal like that while you're in a non-TT job? It seems unlikely to me, and that the more likely case is that you may be approached to be on an editorial board of a less-prestigious journal. And in that case, I'm not sure it's worth it, in terms of 'looking good' for the job market and later tenure decisions if/when you get a TT job. By a similar token, I'm not sure joining the editorial board of a reputable (but not particularly prestigious) interdisciplinary journal is likely to help much on the philosophy job-market.

So, since editorial responsibilities can be time-consuming, and the primary things you'll be judged on while you're on the market or a tenure decision will be research and teaching, I'm inclined to think that in most cases, it's probably not worth joining an editorial board while non-TT. Indeed, I've known junior people who have worked for journals, and I've heard it can be a lot of work (without, again, a lot of 'upside'). For these reasons, I'm inclined to think that it's generally better to wait until tenure to join editorial boards - unless, of course again you're invited to join a particularly prestigious journal (in which case that is, I think, a different story).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

How does 'networking' help?

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

I've been inspired by the discussion about ways to flourish in the profession as an introvert.

While many people have mentioned the importance of networking, I am wondering if people can share some concrete examples of the benefits from networking, especially for graduate students and junior faculty members.

I can see that networking could help a person find external members for their committee and have letters for the job market (grad student) or for promotion (junior faculty). I have a hard time seeing other benefits besides abstract things like knowing your name and knowing your work. For example, do people get invited to apply for some jobs or get invited to submit to a journal because of networking? Any other concrete examples?

These are great questions! I'd love to hear concrete examples not only from grad students and junior faculty, but also from senior faculty, including (for example) those who have served on search committees, edited books or special journal issues, etc. If you're a grad student or faculty member, do you know of any concrete examples of how 'networking' helped you? And, if you're a senior faculty member, do you know of concrete examples where it helped junior folk? 

Contacting profs before applying to postdocs?

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

After washing out on the job market twice now, I'm contemplating a strategy for being a bit more proactive and selective in what I apply for, going forward.

I'm thinking about reaching out to professors (for European postdocs, where the norm is to be attached to a specific professor) in advance and just telling them a little about myself, and then asking them whether they think I might fit for the position they're looking to fill. This would be primarily to ascertain whether I should even bother applying. This could benefit both parties: me, because I could hopefully figure out quite cheaply whether to invest substantial time into the application itself; and them, because it would help them preemptively manage the pile of applications they'll receive. In this respect, it's a win-win.

However, I'm worried that, if this is just not really done, it might come off the wrong way. On the other hand, if a lot of these postdocs get filled through networks anyway (and I have some evidence, here and there, that that might be rather common), is this really problematic?

Can readers who have relevant experience in the European postdoc market weigh in?

Two readers submitted replies:

I work in Europe and I am familiar with the post-doc culture. I would NOT contact someone unless they have a post doc position advertised. I get contacted by two types of people about post doc positions: (i) those in foreign countries who want to get into a program with financial support (which I do not have, if there is no advertisement); and (ii) those in certain countries who may have funding from their home government and want to consider coming to work at my institution. Wait for an ad to be posted. Then contact the people. That is the normal way. - Submitted by Euro

It's a good idea, but the wrong method, I think. Conferences, seminars, and workshops are much better ways of finding out if more senior people are interested working with you. - Submitted by William Peden

I'm curious what other readers think. Euro seems to think it's fine to do after a job ad has been submitted. But I share the OP's and William Peden's concern that it could come off poorly. Then again, given how much time and effort it does take to apply to jobs, it also seems to me like a legitimate thing to do. It might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees (particularly for European postdocs), as well as from people who have either tried what the OP describes or who have been contacted by people in the OP's situation. What do you all think?

When to give up on the academic job market?

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

Here's a question that I could use an answer to. When is it time to give up on the tenure-track job hunt? I understand that in one way this depends on personal circumstances. That's not what I'm asking. I'm wondering at what point, after years of rejection, can you be reasonably confident that a tenure-track job is not going to happen.

I have a CV that's good enough for tenure at most R1s. At this point, will more books or articles or teaching experience help? I'm beginning to doubt it. I have gotten a lot of helpful feedback over the years, and the things I know would really help, like different demographics, I do not have control over.

These are good questions. As this philosophy job-placement graph illustrates, the job-market is basically a toss-up: depending on what kind of PhD program you graduate from, your overall chances of getting a tenure-track job are somewhere between 20-60%. Then there's the following graph, which I first posted about here: 

Ideal publication record for getting a non-R1 job?

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

What's an ideal publication record for someone who's not aiming to end up at an R1 institution?

Here's why I ask: I just defended, and I lucked out to get a one year postdoc that's research oriented. I've also been lucky, in that I've had success publishing (3 publications in journals that are top ranked in my field... however my PhD isn't from a notable department). I've got more papers I could send out to journals. However, my worry is that if I publish too much, too soon, I might make myself look unattractive for jobs that are teaching orientated (even though I've taught a fair amount too). Might I inadvertently give the impression to search committees at teaching schools that I'm only interested in research? Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy in a dept. without big research expectations - not to mention, because my PhD isn't from top tier department, it's really unlikely I'd ever be able to land anything close to an R1 job anyhow.

What's the best approach to take?

This is an excellent question - though I'm not sure there is anything remotely like a determinate answer to it. For example, the OP notes that they already have 3 publications in journals that are top-ranked in their field. While I suspect a publication record like this may already price the OP out of some jobs--specifically, jobs at small, non-elite SLACs whose focus is on teaching--I suspect there are plenty of other non-R1s where those kinds of publications are likely to be looked upon favorably. Indeed, my sense is that research expectations and norms can differ dramatically across non-R1 jobs. So, I'm not sure there's an 'ideal publication record' for getting a non-R1 job. Rather, I suspect that something like the following rule of thumb is the best way for candidates to think: the more highly-ranked publications you get, the less you may look like a good 'fit' for a non-R1; the more lower-ranked publications you get, the more you may look like a 'good fit' for non-R1 jobs. Here's some anecdotal data for thinking this is true, and it certainly fits with my experience on the market.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be especially good to hear from people who have served on hiring committees at non-R1's, as well as from people who got jobs at non-R1's on what their publication records were like at the time they were hired!

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

Hi Everyone,

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

A few notes before I list the numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing a gap year due to COVID?

A reader writes in:

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

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

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

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

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Accept a postdoc or wait?

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

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

Another reader submitted the following response:

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

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

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

Where things should go on CVs?

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

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

Another reader helpfully responded: 

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

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

 

 

Choosing between US and UK jobs?

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

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

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

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

Lewis Powell's (Buffalo) tips on CVs

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

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

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

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

Weaknesses in recommendation letters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Job Application Materials Arms Race

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

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

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

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

Getting over the job-market hump?

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

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

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

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

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

Checking in with search committees?

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

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

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

Postdocs, relocating, and the path to a FT job

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

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

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

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

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

Discussing leaving the market w/significant others

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

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

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

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

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

So please, serious responses only.

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

Tips applying to UK jobs?

A reader writes in:

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

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