The Philosophers' Cocoon

Summarizing student evaluations from different institutions?

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

How does one summarize raw quantitative data from teaching evaluations across different institutions and therefore different evaluative scales? Does one include one summary per institution in the teaching portfolio?

Good questions. Indeed, the most common approach that I've seen is to separate out quantitative summaries by institution. I've also heard that some people think it is bad to try to merge quantitative data from different institutions, both for technical reasons but also because it can be useful to search committee members to see clearly how the candidate's evaluations were at different institutions. So, I think separating things out is the way to go. But what do you all think?

What materials should hiring committees require?

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

Serious proposal: every job should only ever require a CV and Cover Letter.

Only request more documents at the short list stage.

Less work on the candidates and search committees.

Although this isn't exactly a question, it still implies a good query: namely, which materials should academic search committees require, and why? What do you all think? Here are a few quick thoughts in reply...

A job-market dilemma: teaching and having an affiliation, or publishing in a non-academic job?

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

What is more helpful in terms of landing a TT job - teaching experience and having an affiliation or publications?

Here's why I ask: I'm nearing the end of a year long research postdoc. My publication record is pretty decent, as is my teaching record (4 publications in good journals, multiple years of teaching different courses at 4 different institutions). I am, of course, applying to jobs now but I'm operating under the assumption that I'm not going to land anything. Assuming that's the case, I'm going to be faced with a choice. I can adjunct while trying to keep up with research, but if the future is like the past, the amount of teaching I'll need to take on to keep the lights on will almost guarantee that my research progress will come to a halt. Alternatively, I can take a non-academic job that pays reasonably well that would allow me to keep writing and trying to publish. But from the outside, that will look like I left philosophy. How much does being unaffiliated hurt you on the job market?

I realize the answer to this question likely depends on whether one is trying to land a job at a teaching school or a research school. However, I'm just trying to land any job I can get. I also realize that, ideally, I'd just teach and research. Unfortunately, adjuncting means taking on 6+ courses per semester at different institutions, commuting 400+ miles a week, not to mention while having no benefits. Under those circumstances, I just won't be very productive research-wise.

What's the best route to go with an eye to making myself as marketable as possible?

This is a really good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, if the OP has a good publication record and teaching experience, then I don't see any clear reason why they shouldn't be competitive for jobs if they take a non-academic job and continue to publish. But, on the other hand, search committees don't always act as they should, and I could well imagine them being biased toward candidates who have an academic affiliation. So, I'm not sure what the best strategy here is for being competitive on the academic market. But I guess this leads to my main thought, which is that given how much the academic job market is like a lottery, maybe the thing to do here is not to wager on which of the two job-market strategies is likely to be the most effective (since it's really hard to know). Instead, maybe the thing to do is to pick whichever path forward offers the best immediate rewards, such as a good salary, benefits, and quality of life. This is sort of what another reader suggests in a follow-up comment:

ADPA data on non-academic careers

Over at Daily Nous the other week, Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced) provided a 10-year update on the Academic Placement Data and Analysis (APDA) project, the purpose of which "is to collect, analyze, and distribute data on job placement for graduates of PhD programs in philosophy."

As a member of the ADPA's board of advisors, I volunteered to discuss the ADPA's findings on non-academic job careers for philosophy PhDs. Eric Schwitzgebel (UC Riverside) should be discussing demographic data at The Splintered Mind.

What, then, has the ADPA found about non-academic careers for Philosophy PhDs? Here is a quick summary:

(1) How many philosophy PhDs pursue non-academic careers? 

Over the past ten years (2011-21), the ADPA surveyed 6030 PhD graduates. Of those surveyed, 2606 (or 37.6%) are now in permanent academic jobs, and 846 (or 14%) are in non-academic jobs. The remaining philosophy PhDs are either in part-time academic positions or did not report.

(2) What kinds of non-academic careers are philosophy PhDs in?

Top-ten words used to describe positions (in order of frequency): Director, Manager, Senior, Associate, Assistant, Analyst, Research, Software, Teacher, and Consultant.

Top ten industries (in order of frequency, of around 800 in database): education, technology, law, health, consultancy, government, university administration, finance, non-university education, and non-profits/NGOs.

(2) What kinds of salaries do philosophy PhDs make in non-academic industry?

• Mean salaries reported 
  
  • Academic: $79,237 (n = 477)
  • Non-Academic: $179,833 (n = 42)
• Median Salaries
  
  • Academic: $73,000 
  • Non-Academic: $100,000 

(3) What kind of job-placements do PhDs prefer: academic or non-academic?

Of those who received academic jobs, 84.8% reported academic placement as their priority. However, of those who entered non-academic jobs, only 52.9% preferred academic placement, 17.6% percent preferred non-academic placement, and 29.4% reported no strong preference.

(4) Do PhD programs support students seeking non-academic placement?

• Of those who received non-academic employment (n = 63), only 17.5% felt unsupported by their graduate program.
• A plurality of (all) respondents felt their program was neither supportive or unsupportive (n = 27 or 42.9%).
• However, individuals without placement information (n = 11) unanimously indicated that they felt their graduate program was very unsupportive of pursuing non-academic careers.
• Some qualitative responses: 

The faculty of my department were unprepared to offer support for students pursuing non-academic jobs. If anything, they looked down on such students.

Nonacademic jobs were mentioned in the professional development seminar, but no real guidance was offered beyond that. There may have been other resources available, but I did not know about them.

Pursuing professions other than teaching philosophy is discouraged. Several of my fellow students did not disclose that they were interested in professions other than teaching, for example, pursuing a law degree.

Program officials and some professors have made comments supporting non-academic jobs and they occasionally offer a talk on this. However, there is no focused and continued support.

My department has taken some pretty good steps to help us with this. But during the times where I have thought about not pursuing an academic career I have felt like I had to keep it secret or the department would take me less seriously, give me less support, etc.

(5) Are philosophical skills and knowledge job-relevant?

84.1% of those in non-academic jobs found philosophical skills to be relevant to their non-academic career (n=63). Only 53.2% found philosophical material to be relevant (n=62). 

Some qualitative responses:

My work in narrative ethics informs everything I do from managing business functions such as HR, to fostering community values, developing student leadership as well as developing our marketing strategy and posting on Instagram. Everything we do as humans involves stories and sharing experiences - I have never doubted that my PhD research was valuable, practical and of ongoing benefit to me as a person and as a CEO.

Doing logic and looking at formal systems made the transition into coding and data analysis quite easy.

None of my research was directly applicable, but studying logic helped prepare me for a career in tech.

The vast majority of the topics you study in philosophy are irrelevant to work in the business world. However, the skills you develop and the techniques you learn through the practice of philosophy are invaluable. Being a strong and logical thinker is a huge asset in a business environment.

I engage in textual analysis and rational argument on a regular basis in my employment as a business lawyer -- skills that I acquired and honed in my philosophy graduate education.

The skills of reading and thinking carefully, and communicating well orally and in writing, have helped make me more effective in my position as an academic administrator.

In a generic way, the critical thinking, writing, teaching and public speaking skills I have gained have all set me apart in the workplace.

What should we take away from these findings? As with any study using non-randomly collected samples, we must be careful making strong inferences about the total population. Still, bearing this in mind, here are a few hot takes:

1. About 1 in 7 philosophy PhDs in this sample report working in non-academic careers: that's a good number of people!

2. Philosophy PhDs can end up in a variety of good non-academic careers, some of which involve learning computer programming, but many of which appear to be in well-paying, non-STEM areas (government jobs, consulting, etc.). 

3. Philosophers can make a lot of money outside of academia: of course, it is hard to know exactly how accurate this sample is, as the sample sizes are small and those who are underemployed could be less likely to report. Further, there is presumably wide variance among the salaries of those in non-academic industries. Still, the fact that philosophers can achieve high-salary positions in industry shouldn't be too surprising. Philosophers are as a rule highly talented, conscientious people who can think slowly and carefully as well as quickly on their feet; can understand and grapple effectively with very complex problems, speak persuasively in front of groups (viz. experience in teaching and seminars), etc. Moving from academia to non-academic industry can be difficult for philosophy PhDs--but clearly, it can have real upside, as my Philosophers in Industry Directory also suggests.

4. There is significant variance on the kinds of jobs that philosophy PhDs want: Yes, according to the ADPA's 10-year sample, a supermajority of those who have academic jobs desire and academic job. And yes, a slim majority of those who leave academia have a strong preference for an academic job, as well. Still, a significant proportion of PhDs in the sample report being less invested in academia, either wanting non-academic work or reporting no strong preference either way.

5. Most PhDs reported that their programs were neither supportive nor unsupportive of non-academic employment, and a significant proportion reported that their programs were very unsupportive. Further, qualitative responses suggest that PhD students may fear even disclosing an interest in pursuing a non-academic career -- and in general (with a few exceptions), it doesn't seem that many departments do very much to help their PhDs pursue non-academic jobs.

6. Philosophical skills (and, to a lesser extent, philosophical knowledge) seem to be job-relevant outside of academia: the kinds of skills philosophers cultivate (reading, writing, thinking, speaking, logic, creative problem solving) are widely reported by those outside of academia as directly relevant to their careers. And over 50% of those who reported said that philosophical material is job-relevant too (such as knowledge of ethics, etc.).

Finally, here's one more hot-take, to echo some points I made a few weeks ago:

7. It probably behooves academic philosophy (and grad programs) to do far more to support students seeking non-academic work. Placing students into good careers not only reflects well on the discipline (including to administrators, parents, prospective students, taxpayers, etc.). It may also be conducive to philosophy-supporting philanthropy. Humanities departments (including philosophy departments) are being closed and or otherwise threatened left and right--and like it or not, for better or worse, we live in a time when public and philanthropic support for academic disciplines are increasingly crucial. Many other academic disciplines realized this long ago, and have cultivated industry ties in ways that help their disciplines and departments thrive. The more that philosophers thrive outside outside of academia, the more likely (it seems to me) the philosophy will survive and thrive in academia. Or so it seems to me.

But these are just my hot takes. What are yours? 

On the market with mixed student evaluations?

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

I'm about to go on the job market and my student evaluations are not the best. I mostly have averages from 3.5-4 out of 5 (at my university 4.2 is the overall average). I don't want to lie or obscure this fact, I want to own up to it and discuss how I plan to do better in future. But I don't know if that is a good strategy.

I'd love to hear from anyone who has been in this position, and how they handled it. Or if you have hiring committee experience, how you would think about someone who has somewhat below average scores discussing that fact.

A couple of notes:

1. I know that student evaluations are not a good indicator of student learning. And student learning is the most important thing.
2. I suspect my student evaluations aren't great mostly for personality reasons and because of my own social anxiety getting in the way of engaging the students well.
3. However, there are plenty of people who are both great teachers and get great student evaluations, and I believe we should all aspire to that. Students can learn from and like you.
4. I believe that given some time and without the direct stress of a thesis I will be able to work on the issues that I think are affecting my student evaluations and do better, while also teaching more effectively. But I'm not there yet.
5. This wouldn't be an issue for someone with an outstanding publishing record. But my publishing record is good (2 paper in top 15 journals) but not outstanding.

This is an excellent query, as I expect there are quite a few job-candidates in a similar situation. On the one hand, my sense is that many people on search committees take student evaluations with a grain of salt, as most of us know the mixed (at best) empirical findings about them. On the other, given that there will probably be other candidates with stronger evaluations, mixed evaluations are presumably a prima facie disadvantage. So, what to do?

Which writing sample to use?

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

I have a job market question I've been struggling with. So, suppose that I work on X and Y, but my dissertation and best work is mainly in X, but the job is in Y. Do I submit my best work, or the work that falls more squarely within Y (which I think is less good etc).

Perhaps relevantly, X and Y interact a lot throughout my work, and other parts of my file will make the clear. But my best work is more squarely on the side of X.

What have people done in this situation? Also curious about people who have used 2 writing samples to navigate this -- e.g. sending one paper in X and one in Y (and in that case, which would you use as your primary and which as secondary)?

I think we may have discussed this issue once or twice before, but since it often comes up, it's a really good question! I used to think it best for candidates to simply submit their best work, even if it's not squarely in the AOS advertised in the job ad--at least if the rest of their file shows that they genuinely have an AOS in Y. However, now I'm not so sure, for a couple of related reasons:

1. I've heard anecdotally of cases where committees "really want" someone who is a perfect fit for and does excellent work in the advertised AOS. So, if you don't send in a writing sample on Y, then you run two risks: (A) not really looking like a good fit, and (B) looking like your work in Y really isn't excellent (after all, if it was, why didn't you submit a writing sample on Y)?
2. Candidates are so strong across the board (with similar publication numbers, teaching evals, etc.) that small differences between candidates (such as one candidate looking like a better overall fit for the position) can really make a difference in decisions on who to interview or hire. 

These two considerations seem to me to speak to submitting two writing samples (one in X and one in Y). However, I'm not sure how search committees feel about that, as most job ads request one writing sample, and if a candidate submits two they might look like they don't know how to follow directions or are trying to give themselves an illicit advantage over other candidates (who did follow directions). My sense is that search committees can care about evaluating candidates fairly, and so a candidate who seems to be trying to give themselves an unfair advantage could (in principle) have that held against them. But here too, I'm not too sure. How many search committees (and individual search committee members) care about this? I have to confess: I don't know.

So unfortunately, I'm increasingly uncertain abut what to advise here. My gut tells me that, all things being equal, candidates who look like they are a perfect fit for the advertised job (viz. their CV, research statement, and writing sample all focusing on Y) are likely to have an advantage over someone who looks like they do their best work in X. Then again, if the latter person is really spectacular, then all bets are off--as committees can very much be interested in hiring the best person they can get (broadly in the areas advertised). So again, I'm not sure. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have served on search committees? 

Interdisciplinary job ad (St. Leo)

A friend of mine at St. Leo University brought my attention to the following interdisciplinary job ad, which philosophers may be competitive for but isn't advertised on PhilJobs:

The Department of Interdisciplinary Studies invites applications for an assistant professor in Interdisciplinary Studies at our university campus in Saint Leo, Florida. A Ph.D. in a relevant field is required.

The Department is home to three majors (Contemporary Studies, Medical Humanities, and Veteran Studies) and several minors, including Philosophy, Women and Gender Studies, and Environmental Studies. Our faculty prides itself on the collegial, collaborative, and active engagement we demonstrate with each other, our students, and in programs and initiatives across the university and in the community. The result of this positive culture is the creation of innovative classes and programs. Our most recent achievement is the launch of the first Bachelors in Veterans Studies in the nation.

Candidates for this position must be deeply interdisciplinary in their outlook and teaching, flexible, and possess a strong background and experience related to Medical Humanities or to Veteran Studies, in addition to their primary area of study. Topics covered in these areas often have to do with leadership, diversity, transition, trauma, and health. As our classes are delivered in a variety of modalities to a diverse student body, candidates must have experience using and devising innovative pedagogy that creates rich, equitable learning environments We encourage veterans to apply to this position. Spanish language fluency is desirable, but not required.

Candidates should have a passion for undergraduate teaching and employ a wide variety of pedagogical strategies to meet the diverse needs of a campus population that includes many first-generation, military, international, underrepresented, and other non-traditional students. While most of the teaching for this position will be in a traditional classroom setting, there are opportunities to deliver courses online as well. Experience designing online courses is a plus.

Faculty appointment is for nine (9) months with a normal teaching load of 12 credit hours per and will be focused on classes in our majors, minors, and in our University Explorations general education curriculum. Enthusiasm for program and course design, particularly with an emphasis on interdisciplinary study and inclusivity, is a significant asset.

https://saintleo.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/SLU/job/University-Campus/Assistant-Professor-of-Interdisciplinary-Studies_R5842

How the academic job market looks: several sets of comparisons

I know a lot of people have been interested in how this year's job market would compare to last year's, given how uniquely horrific things were due to COVID last time around. So, now that job ads have been posted for next year for about two months (job ads usually begin in early August), how do things look so far? Here are a few interesting comparisons (August 1st-September 30th):

Total Job Ads on PhilJobs

• 2021: 133 ads
• 2020: 65 
• 2019: 146 
• 2018: 156 
• 2017: 135
• 2016: 155
• 2015: 136

The good news, then, is that there are more than twice as many job ads this year as last year, and that this year's job market is fairly close to how things were pre-COVID. The bad news is that, compared to before COVID, this year's market so is still on the lower end of the spectrum. One other potential positive thing I've noticed this year, however, is that there seem to be more ads than usual that advertise more than one job (for example, a few ads advertise 2-4 jobs apiece!). I don't have time to compile data on this right now, but is worth bearing in mind.

What about 'tenure-track (or similar)' job ads? Here again are some comparisons:

'Tenure track or similar' ads on Philjobs

• 2021: 75 ads
• 2020: 22 (!)
• 2019: 80
• 2018: 106
• 2017: 83
• 2016: 95
• 2015: 88

Applying again to jobs that rejected you?

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

I got a virtual interview a few years ago for a TT position. I did not advance to the next round. They have advertised a similar position this year. There is a slight difference in emphasis for the job this year. Still, should I bother applying again?

This is an excellent question, and I've heard it asked more than a few times before. Here's my hot take, as someone who has served on 5 search committees now: yes, you should bother applying again. In fact, even if you didn't get an interview, apply again. Why? Here's a short list of reasons:

1. Search committees aren't always comprised by the same people. Even if you weren't at the very top of the list of last year's committee, the committee might be a little different this ear.
2. Search committees can sometimes wish they had decided differently. Seriously, suppose they invited a couple of their top candidates and neither of the candidates impressed. Or suppose they hired their top candidate, and the person then left for a job at another university. This year's committee might be worried about 'hiring another flight risk' - so they might weigh things differently when evaluating candidates.
3. How committees 'rank' candidates depend upon the candidate pool. Maybe you were the committee's third or fourth choice the previous time you applied, but they could only invite 2 people to campus. Given that this year's applicant pool is different, you could well end up ranked higher and get an on-campus interview.
4. If the committee liked you enough to interview you, they may do so again...and anything can happen. Perhaps last time you interviewed, you only came across decently in the interview. Maybe this year you'll knock the interview out of the park. And maybe the other candidates that the committee ranks higher than you bomb their interviews. Seriously, I've seen stuff like this happen. You never know what will happen at the interview stage.
5. Your dossier might be better: maybe you've added things to your CV. Maybe you have a better research statement, teaching portfolio, etc. If it's been a year or a few (as the OP implies), this is probably the case--so you may be a more competitive candidate on your merits.

I'm sure that I'm leaving a few things out here. But anyway: what do other search committee members think? Should candidates who applied for a job with you previously apply again? If not, why not? If so, why? For the kinds of reasons I gave, or for other reasons?

Where to put non-standard items on a CV?

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

I have a question concerning where (and if at all) to mention philosophy teaching experiences that fall outside of the academic setting on a CV?

To give a personal example, I was recently given the opportunity to teach an introduction to philosophy to refugees and asylum seekers. Although this teaching experience is not academic, I feel it is worth mentioning on my academic CV. However, I am unsure where exactly to fit it in. Moreover, beyond my specific example, I am sure there are many similar cases of teaching philosophy outside of the university setting.

Very curious to hear what others think about this.

Good question. It's not clear from the above comment whether they taught an entire introduction to philosophy course to refugees and asylum speakers, or just one class. If they taught an entire course, I guess it might be appropriate to list it in their CV under 'Courses Taught' along with all of their other courses. Alternatively, they could list it under 'Service to the Community & Profession' or some such. Regardless, I think teaching service like this is a really great thing to do, reflecting really well on a job candidate. What do you all think? Where and how should these kinds of things be listed on a CV?

Job-market reporting thread (2021-22 job season)

(Updated 10/3/201)

As I noted in opening this season's job-market discussion thread, I had planned to wait until October 1st to open this year's job-market reporting thread. However, given that I have already received some requests to open up the reporting thread, I hereby open this thread for job-market reporting. 

The current thread (below) is only for reporting news on the market (i.e. reporting interviews, flyouts, offers, hires, and so on), so please, report away! If you would like to discuss the job-market, please comment on the other thread. Permalinks to both job threads will remain on the right side-bar of the blog through the end of the job season. 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 as each new page emerges. I recognize that it can be frustrating to scroll through page after page to get to new comments, and I think this is probably the best solution given Typepad's functionality limitations.

Finally, although it should go without saying, commenters are asked to please remember the Cocoon's supportive mission while reporting. Thanks, and best of luck to all on the market!

Update: please do feel free to report on jobs in other departments that philosophers can be expected to apply to (political theory jobs in political science departments, AI-ethics jobs in interdisciplinary departments, etc.). Just make sure you specify the institution and department so that other readers and commentators don't confuse them with jobs in philosophy departments.

Non-standard types of reference letters?

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

I am in the dissertation phase of my Ph.D. and will be going on the job market soon. My question is about references, specifically teaching references. Before leaving to pursue my Ph.D., I taught high school for just over a decade. I had a very good relationship with my principal and she was able to see my growth as an educator, directly observe my classroom, and receive feedback from students and parents about my teaching. Moreover, she also knows the positive nature of the relationships I had with my colleagues. My question is this: Would it be prudent to ask for her to write a reference letter for jobs in higher education? I have professors in my current program who would write me a positive teaching recommendation, but they would not be able to write as strong a letter as my former principal. Would a letter from a high school administrator be looked down upon?

To be clear, I have professors who are willing to write recommendations. If I included a reference letter from my former principal, it would be in addition to these.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would not recommend this. You are expected to have a recent letter on teaching from a peer (a university faculty member). Your former principal is not a university educator, and the fact that they will speak of something some time in the past will raise concerns. For example, people will wonder whether you have alienated everyone at your programme, and cannot get a teaching letter. Or they may think that you will teach undergrads as one might teach students in a US high school.

Unfortunately, I think this is exactly right. One of the main things one needs to do in a job application is demonstrate that one understands the norms of the profession. In this case, the norm is pretty clear: letters of recommendation should as a rule be from members of the higher-education academy (i.e. professors). This in part because people on the hiring side of things may believe that teaching at a university level is vastly different than teaching at a high school level, but also because--when it comes to evaluating university-level teaching--part of what one is evaluating is the instructor's ability to present a particular subject matter (in our case, philosophy!) with accuracy and expertise. This, in general, just isn't the sort of thing that someone without an MA or PhD in philosophy (such as a principal) is presumably in a position to evaluate. On a similar note, I've heard people ask before whether it is a good idea to get a teaching letter from a student. Here again, I think this is the wrong call. It would come across as strange to see letters like that in a teaching portfolio, in part because students aren't experts at philosophy or pedagogy.

More generally, when it comes to job-markets (both academic and non-academic), there exist a variety of standing norms--for better or for worse--and violating the relevant norms is risky for that reason alone. In a more ideal world, perhaps, this wouldn't be an issue. But I think it is an issue in our world, and so, in cases like these, to do what the standing norm is: get teaching letters from (and only from) professors in the academy. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

What is the perceived value of invited pieces?

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

[W]hat is the perceived value of invited contributions to peer-reviewed volumes? My thoughts on this are that, on the one hand, such papers should be greatly valued since they show that the author is good enough/ respected enough to be invited to contribute to the volume. On the other hand, my impression is that the peer-review standards are not that high when it comes to edited volumes compared to regular journals. I have the impression that it is very hard to get rejected once invited to contribute. What are your thoughts on this topic?

I think we may have discussed this before, but these are very good questions that it's probably important for graduate students and job-candidates to get good answers to. What do you all think? For obvious reasons, it might be good to hear from people who have served on search committees or tenure and promotion committees. Having served on both kinds of committees myself, here are a few quick thoughts.

PhilPapers publication metrics?

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

I am wondering what - if anything - is the use of one's "Publication metrics" on PhilPeople. For those who aren't aware of this feature, PhilPeople provides users with their percentile rankings (Q1, Q2, Q3, top 5%, top 1%, etc.) for their publications, paper downloads, and citations, both overall and in specific subject areas. The rankings are relative to "pro" users, which are users with either a PhD in Philosophy or at least one publication in one of the "Most Popular" journals according to PhilPapers. Using this feature, you might learn that you are in the top 1% of downloads in say, Social Epistemology in the past five years, or that you are in the 90% percentile for publication volume in Value Theory.

I find this feature kind of neat. However, I can't imagine a situation where I would actually tell anyone about my publication metrics - if I did, I am sure it would be seen as being in bad taste. But at the same time, it seems like these metrics would be be useful information for search committees or for tenure and promotion cases: it's a decent way of showing whether or not people are actually engaging with your work, and how engagement with your research compares with others working in a similar area. Publication Metrics on PhilPeople is a bit like one's h-index and citations on Google Scholar, which I have heard of people mentioning for T&P, but PhilPeople has the advantage of being specific to the discipline, or even the sub-discipline. One issue might be that - unlike Google scholar citations and h-index - these metrics aren't public: as far as I can tell, one can only see one's own metrics, not those of others. I'm not sure why PhilPeople doesn't make them public, but doing so would mean that they're worth more than simple navel-gazing.

This is an interesting query. It does seem like these kinds of statistics might be useful in some regards when it comes to hiring or tenure and promotion. After all, the statistics do in essence 'compare you' to other specialists, indicating how much you publish in your field and how interested other people are in reading your work. On the other hand, I wonder how useful hiring or T&P committees might find this kind of information.

In any case, because I'm about as unsure as the OP on all of this, I'll open discussion to all of you: what do you think? Is this kind of PhilPapers information useful in any way above and beyond 'navel-gazing'? If so, how? Do you know of cases where it has been used (e.g. in hiring, etc.)? Should PhilPapers make the information public?

How many papers do you/should you write?

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

I am starting a TT job in a research heavy institution and have not done my PhD in an elite US program so I have what are likely silly/self-evident questions: how many papers do people work on at the same time? Or, how many papers do people typically write in a year? I am sure it varies tremendously but I wonder if people start one new paper a year and keep working on the ones who are going through review or if they start more projects than that, esp. while being on the TT. Thank you for your help!

These are great questions, especially given that some people are starting new jobs right now. I think there are two important sets of questions here:

1. How many papers do people write in a year, and work on at the same time?
2. How many papers should one write a year at an R1?

Here's my own quick answer to (1). I looked in my paper draft folders last night, and found that I now write, on average, something like 4-5 new papers per year. Because I often end up revising those papers over several years, this means that I often find myself with 10 paper projects at a time. I'll often bounce around between them, revising papers that are already written while beginning new ones. It wasn't always like this, though. Earlier in my career, when I got my first job, I worked much more slowly--on maybe like one or two new papers per year. Why the change? I think there are two explanations: it gets easier to write papers over time, but also, I wasn't publishing enough early in my career, so I had to increase my output.

Questions on teaching letters

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

How bad is it to not have a teaching letter, in R1 positions? While I do teach, and haven't heard any complaints yet, I have almost exclusively done so as sole instructor, and the only senior person at my institution who has actually seen me teach is affiliated in the same research project as me. I worry that if I told her I'm applying elsewhere, she wouldn't take it well.

Connected question: how are letters from non-philosophers received? Are they useless? Say, a letter from a psychology professor who really likes your work on perception?

Good questions! I don't know about the first one, as I don't work at an R1. But, in response to the other questions, I'm inclined to think that a letter from a non-philosopher may be fine. A non-philosopher might not be well-positioned to discuss your understanding of philosophy per se (though if they work on the same research project as you, they might!). However, they can probably speak to a lot other, more general aspects of teaching that hiring committees are likely to care about, which is how you engage with students, run in-class discussions, how clear and well-organized your lectures are, the kinds of assignments you give, and so on.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It could be especially helpful to hear from people who have served on hiring committees. What do you think?

Job-market discussion thread (2021-22 season)

As many readers of the Cocoon may recall, each job season the Cocoon hosts two job-market threads:

1. A job-market discussion thread (the present thread): to commiserate about the market, discuss particular job ads, the market in general, questions about application materials, interviewing, alt-ac opportunities, and so on.
2. A job-market reporting thread: to post news about interviews, on-campus visits, offers, rejection notices, etc.

Because someone always asks, "Why two threads?", there are a couple of reasons for it. First, some people may want to discuss the market but not stress over daily news regarding which jobs they still do or don't have a chance for. Conversely, others may not want to discuss the market but just want news about the jobs they've applied for. Second, these threads can get very long already, so I think the best way for people to get the information they want in a well-ordered format is simply to have two threads.

A few final notes:

• This thread (the post you are reading right now!) will be the home of this year's job-market discussion thread. So, if you want to discuss this year's job-market, just comment below.
• Please reserve job-market news (i.e. interviews, on-campus visits, hires, etc.) for the job-market reporting thread, which I will open on October 1st.
• A 'permalink' to this thread will be on the upper right of blog's right sidebar for the rest of the job season. -->
• 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 as each new page emerges. I recognize that it can be frustrating to scroll through page after page to get to new comments, and I think this is probably the best solution given Typepad's functionality limitations.

Finally, as always, readers are asked to please bear in mind the Cocoon's safe and supportive mission. I try not to moderate with too heavy of a hand, as I don't like to squelch reasonable discussion and debate. I also realize that the job-market can be an emotional roller-coaster, and that passions can run deep on job-market issues. But the Cocoon has always been intended to be an unique oasis of sorts: as a refuge for early-career philosophers to support each other and discuss issues related to their careers and the profession in productive, supportive way. So, I will moderate carefully to ensure that these threads remain a welcome environment for everyone--and, of course, if anyone has any concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

All that being said, discuss away!

Challenges in making a lateral move?

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

I'm looking for insight into whether there are different challenges for faculty looking to make a "lateral move" from assistant professorship to a more appealing assistant professorship and (as I suspect there are) advice on how to overcome those challenges.

For those questioning the morality of such lateral moves, my current workplace is toxic.

This is a good query, though I'm not sure that I have much insight to offer. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I do not think there are special challenges for lateral moves of the type you describe. I witnessed these at my own former institution (in fact, I helped one get out!). You need to be competitive - that is, you need a good publication record in good journals. And you have to be prepared to get NO CREDIT on the tenure clock for your previous work. You may be able to negotiate something, but do not count on it at all. But if you are in a toxic workplace, you should really look into moving. (in the meantime, keep good records of the ill behaviour, in case you need it). I left a toxic place at a senior level. The key challenge for me was that I was not prepared to make a lateral move with respect to university ranking. I was determined to move up (or move into administration). I was lucky to be able to do the former. Good luck!

This seems right to me. Having served on multiple hiring committees, my sense is that people on the hiring side just want to hire the best person they can get who they think might stay in the job. One small thing, though: search committees can wonder why a candidate is applying for a job (particularly if the candidate is already tenure stream), so my sense is that it can be good to say something in the cover letter. But I'm not entirely sure what is the best kind of thing to say in Julia's case. What do you all think? Do any readers have insights relevant to Julia's situation?

Partner hires across disciplines?

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

I am a junior tenure-track faculty member. My partner is a post-doc working in the life sciences. They are searching for TT positions, but they do not want to work at or near my school. Our ideal scenario is that they will get a TT position and also get me a full-time job at the same school--either a TT job or a full-time lecturer position. I would, of course, prefer a TT job, but if the school is a good enough fit for my partner, I would be happy with a full-time NTT position.

If my partner is able to get a job offer, how likely is that scenario? Does anyone have any experience with partner hires across disciplines and fields?

I will add that I am a good job candidate in general--I have several publications, I have secured some research fellowships, lots of teaching experience, I specialize in a field where departments always need teaching. I'm sure that doesn't hurt, but I don't know how much it helps.

Any advice or accounts of personal experience in this arena would be appreciated!

These are excellent questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I am in a similar position, though it is my partner who is the TT in the sciences while I am in a postdoc. In our case, my partner's institution was not accommodating in the least. The philosophy department there refused to hire me except as an adjunct (despite my having a strong cv), mainly because I do a very different kind of philosophy than they are used to. My partner has been forced to seek out external offers in order to get leverage for some kind of retention offer from their institution, which has made things unpleasant for them in their department. Meanwhile, I have generally been unable to do anything about the situation, with all the burden falling on my partner. It has been extremely difficult. I haven't had much success in this area, but my advice would be to refuse any offer of a short-term position for you (e.g. 1-2 years), because when that position expires you won't have any leverage to get something better.

Unfortunately, this response seems right to me. My sense is that non-permanent non-TT positions are probably not a good option. I personally know several cases of people who were lured to universities by a non-TT job for a spouse or partner along with the hope (and encouragement) that it would turn into something more--but unfortunately it never did, and in the end the couple were in a worse position than before. Of course, if the non-TT job is permanent (e.g. a permanent full-time lectureship or teaching professor position), then that may be a different story. But generally speaking, it seems (sadly) that for a couple to have a real hope of getting something good to work out, the couple must have real leverage somehow--usually, as the last comment indicates, a competing offer by another university. Still, even there, my sense is that unless both partners are considered highly desirable candidates, the university may just be willing to let the couple walk, as it were. 

But this is just my sense, and may be overly pessimistic. Do any of you have any helpful experiences or insights to offer? 

Is an unpaid 'postdoc' position misleading?

A reader writes in:

I was unable to secure academic employment before graduating from my PhD program this past summer. As a result, I may have no choice but to go on the 2021–22 job market without any academic affiliation. 

I've noticed that some colleagues in similar situations have asked their former PhD programs to list them as "postdoctoral researchers." As far as I can tell, this is as easy as sending the department chair an email asking them to add one's name to a list. It would be a "postdoctoral" position in name only, which isn't competitive and doesn't come with any financial benefits. 

However, I'd worry that some search committees would easily see through this and view it as an underhanded attempt to hide the truth: that one failed to secure a paid academic position. Is it safer to simply use one's home address and present oneself as lacking academic affiliation? How should recent graduates in my situation approach their cover letters and other job market materials when they currently lack academic employment? 

Good questions. I hadn't heard of this before. I have heard of PhD programs offering their former students paid postdoc positions to support them in situations like this, but not unpaid ones. I also know that it is not uncommon for people to get 'Visiting Scholar' posts to have an affiliation, though I think it is common knowledge that these are usually unpaid positions (whereas the general assumption, I think, is that postdocs are paid positions). What do you all think? I'm inclined to think it is probably better to have an academic affiliation than none, but I don't know if it looks sketchy to list oneself as a postdoc if its not a paid position.

How does the academic job market look so far?

Given the catastrophe that was last year's academic job market, readers may be wondering how this year's market looks so far. Here are the results of some quick searches that I did for job postings during the month of August for the past handful of years:

• 2021: 35 jobs
• 2020: 17 jobs
• 2019: 53 jobs
• 2018: 42 jobs
• 2017: 35 jobs

In short, there's more than twice as many jobs advertised this year than at the same point last year, indicating a significant job-market rebound. However, compared to pre-COVID levels, the market is still on the lower end of things. Hopefully the number of postings accelerates, as I know of some jobs that could have been posted by now that haven't been posted yet. I'll keep readers updated!

How to list items on your CV?

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

I am going on the job market this year, and recently had a paper accepted at a conference that, in practice, publishes all its proceedings in a journal. However, the paper is not yet officially accepted in the journal since it must first go through another round of review, and I doubt the review process will finish before I have to submit my materials. Does anyone know how I should put this on my CV?

I'm glad this reader asked this question, as in my experience these are very important things to get right, but also things that a fairly substantial proportion of job-candidates get wrong. Indeed, based on my own experience and past discussions, it can really irritate (or even offend) people if you list things on your CV incorrectly, particularly if the error makes you look as having a tangible accomplishment that you don't yet have. Errors like these can come across as positively deceptive, which is the last way you want to look to a hiring committee. How then should one list different kinds of things on your CV?

How to leave philosophy (Guest post by Greg Stoutenburg)

By Greg Stoutenburg

I recently announced on Facebook that I left my NTT position for a non-academic one and offered to talk more about it. Marcus then asked if I might write something up for PC, which is something I am very happy to do!

It is very easy to get a non-academic job. All that you have to do is contact a friend who can get you hired and ask that friend to get you hired. Then, you interview with some people, possibly as a formality, and eventually, you get hired.

***

But the process of getting to the point where one can call upon such support can be frustrating and time-consuming and feel at times demeaning and hopeless. I started looking casually at non-academic positions a few years ago and much more seriously over the past few months. Looking back at various relevant conversations, interviews, and activities over the past couple of years, and the strategy that I cobbled together from others and applied in fits and starts, I now think that I could have successfully transitioned out of academia into an interesting and rewarding position in six months or less. The same should apply to you.

What I will do from here is state some things that I’ve learned and provide some personal commentary on each. These will be tidbits, and I hope to revisit this topic in more detail later. Although it makes me a little uncomfortable to offer advice, I am going to write this largely as advice, because that’s what I needed during my job search. I won’t spend any time on how hard it is in academia, or why a person would want to leave. I’ll write this for the person who already wants to leave. I’ll assume that’s common ground. I previously told the story of my academic search struggles here Sweat Equity on the Philosophy Job Market - The Philosophers' Cocoon (typepad.com).

Before I start, I do think it’s fair to say that mine is a success story. In the past month, I have been a candidate for a few positions in four distinct fields and had serious offers for further discussion about still other positions once I accepted the first offer. (Has that happened to you in philosophy? You tell someone, “I published yet another epistemology paper!” and they say, “Oh, really? We’re looking for epistemologists right now!”) The position I accepted is partly commission-based, so if I manage to make a non-zero commission, I will immediately earn more money than I did in my philosophy job, and potentially 50% more than in my philosophy job—at that’s all just the first year, while my philosophy job would pay the same until I die. On a personal note, I love the outdoors, and I am excited to finally be able to go camping in September again, which is impossible as an academic; I’ll be working remotely, so I can go anywhere I want to go and see my family regularly throughout the day; the work is interesting to me; and the career growth potential is astounding, especially in comparison to continuing in academia, where in your entire life you either get one promotion (two depending on how you count) or none (if you’re NTT, like me).

1. Having a Philosophy Ph.D. Is a Liability, Not an Asset

In one final interview for an analyst position at very well-known logistics company, the hiring manager I’d been talking with brought in someone who once held the same role and went on to climb the company ladder. After I had the opportunity to show in specific, clear, vivid detail how work I had done in my academic job, in epistemology, and otherwise applied specifically to the job requirements, she said, “You know, when I saw your resume, I said to [hiring manager], ‘Philosophy Ph.D.? Are you serious’ But when you explain it it makes sense.”

A senior HR director at a global marketing company said she would not have given my resume more than a second’s glance after seeing my education unless she’d already known more about me. I have had other interviews with similarly negative remarks about my education and academic work history. How many times was my application thrown out because of my education, which I always thought was a significant accomplishment?

Writing a good cover letter without publications

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

I've been reading over Marcus's advice about cover letters. He says to state your accomplishments and fit for the job plainly, without trying to sell yourself or talk yourself up. So my question is: I don't have yet have any legitimate publications. Is describing the papers that I have under review considered "talking myself up"? A couple of them are (I think) close to getting published, given the feedback I've been receiving. But I just haven't sealed the deal yet. Should I talk about this in my cover letter?

These are excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Here are my quick reactions:

1. Short descriptions of a couple of your best papers under review is probably a good idea. Given that you don't have publications yet, explaining what your best papers do is probably the best way to interest hiring committees in your candidacy as a researcher.
2. I would not suggest stating which journals the papers are under review at, nor do I think it is a good idea to try to explain how close you think they are to getting published, given the feedback you have received. My sense is that both of these things can come off poorly, as search committees are interested in tangible accomplishments, and anyone can place a paper under review at a journal and get positive informal feedback. The hard part--the part that hiring committees care about the most--is the 'sealing the deal' part (i.e. getting published).

Finally, although some data that I informally collected nine years ago suggested that people can still get hired at research institutions without any publications, my sense is that this may be rapidly changing. The job market is so competitive these days that it seems increasingly difficult to be competitive without publications. So, above all (although they probably know this already), I would suggest to the OP to get a bunch of papers out for review as soon as possible! But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Two postdoc positions in Hong Kong (philosophy of science / epistemology)

Darrell Rowbottom (Lingnan University) writes in:

I was recently fortunate enough to win a large grant for a project on Philosophy of Contemporary and Future Science. The abstract for this is as follows:

Science has changed considerably in recent decades and continues to change at a remarkable rate. Many of the changes concern how science is done. Computer simulations are used to make predictions and to propose explanations. Gigantic databases of information – collections of ‘big data’ – are analyzed for patterns, to generate and test hypotheses. New areas of interdisciplinary science are forming, which involve attempts to integrate approaches from the older natural scientific disciplines of chemistry, physics, and biology. And artificial intelligence (AI) is being used to perform tasks that humans simply cannot. On the horizon are AI scientists.

This project will involve philosophers and scientists working together. It will examine some of the difficulties created by these new approaches and emerging developments, and tackle some of the interesting questions that they raise about the future of science. Some of the results will be of practical significance for science, e.g. concern how problems in collaborations involving different areas of science may be addressed, and other results will be of intellectual significance, e.g. in understanding the limits of current and future science.

Some of the specific questions this project will address are as follows. To what extent can experiments done on computers – computer simulations – stand in for experiments done ‘for real’, in the laboratory or the field? How can conflicts about what counts as a good method of inquiry, between scientists working in different areas, be resolved effectively? How does the changing social structure of science bear on what we should expect future science to produce? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having AI perform specific functions in future science? How might AI best be deployed?

The project will involve a team of ten collaborators from the natural sciences and philosophy, based in HK and Europe.

I am now looking for two postdoctoral fellows to work on the project over the course of three years. (They will later be joined by another postdoc and a funded PhD student.) The ideal start date would be August 2022, but I have some flexibility about bringing that backwards or forwards. The fellows will be based in HK but spend some time in the UK on placements with scientists and philosophers working in cognate areas.

The ideal candidate would have expertise in philosophy of science or epistemology, and also have some background in biology, chemistry, or physics. Experience of working with scientists in the past or knowledge of interdisciplinary areas of science would also be advantageous.

I’d very much like to hear from anyone who is interested in these posts, including, of course, those who expect to complete their PhDs before the planned project start date. Please send me an e-mail with your CV – to darrellrowbottom@ln.edu.hk – and I’ll get back to you within the next couple of weeks.

Writing for a political website & the market?

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

I'm a PhD student who does some freelance writing to supplement my income. I've been offered an opportunity to produce educational philosophy content for a conservative website. I don't personally identify as politically conservative, but I think all audiences have a lot to learn from philosophy, so I'm considering taking the gig. However, I'm wondering if writing for a conservative publication would be a bad career move. I'm going on the market soon. Advice on whether this would look like a negative to hiring committees?

This is an interesting question. My understanding is that there have been some studies indicating that a good proportion of academics report being willing to discriminate in hiring on the basis of perceptions of a candidate's politics. See, for example, this study, which features the following graph:

Percentage of participants ''somewhat'' to ''very'' willing to discriminate in hiring, by academic area. 

It seems to me like the safe thing to do, then--at least as far as the job market is concerned--would be to stay away from contributing to websites that might give search committees an (erroneous?) picture of one's political orientation. Of course, it is a further question whether one should play it safe, and so a lot might depend here on the OP's tolerance for risk, what the website is, and what the OP would write for it. Then there is the question of whether the OP would really want to work with people who would discriminate against them on political bases. Obviously, I can't answer these questions, as I am not the OP. But they seem to me at least some of the relevant issues here.

What do you all think? It might be great to hear from people here who have expressed political views openly or written for conservative venues. Do you think it impacted your ability to get an academic job? It would also be good, I think, to hear from search committee members.

Justifying 'generic' teaching practices?

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

I'm going up for reappointment. I've been asked to describe the "aims of my teaching practices" in my reappointment narrative. But I think my aims are rather generic and I suspect that various deans and admins with backgrounds in pedagogy will see them as such. Any advice on how to describe what we do as philosophy teachers in a compelling way, without having to read whole books on uni-level pedagogy?

This is an interesting question, and I'm really curious to hear what readers think. At my university, teaching practices and pedagogy vary greatly. Some instructors utilize something like the class 'chalk and talk' lecture and open discussion with students (albeit, no longer with chalk, but rather with whiteboard markers that actually work for something like 15 minutes). Others use much more elaborate methods, including PowerPoint presentations, group activities, in-class debates, student presentations, and so on. Generally speaking (though I'm really not sure), I wouldn't be surprised if Deans and tenure & promotion (T&P) committees have biases in favor of the latter--as the more elaborate and creative the teaching practices, the more it looks like you are working hard an innovating, etc., etc. But I also know, for example, people who have served on T&P committees who teach in a more traditional way, and actually don't like PowerPoint presentations and the like. 

So, I don't know. I guess I sort of want to say to the OP that what they should do is to honestly explain what they do and why--and then, in turn, try to document in some way(s) that what they do enhances student learning. If they teach in a traditional, 'generic' way, why? Do they think it is valuable? Do their students respond well to it? Do they do other things as an instructor that is valuable, such as by giving extensive feedback on student work? I expect that if their student evaluations are strong (yes, I know, student evals are of dubious value), and the OP is generally doing good work (viz. research, service, etc.), then as long as they make a plausible case that they are teaching in a satisfactory (or even meritorious) way, they should be just fine in terms of reappointment. And, of course, if a dean of whomever wants to see any changes, I expect they will say so. This is, at any rate, something like what happens in our annual performance evaluations at my university (as well as in pretenure and tenure decision letters).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? (A final side-note: this may also be a relevant issue for job-candidates who use 'generic' teaching practices, as they presumably need to make a case in their teaching portfolio that departments should hire them!)

APA job-market webinar

This is just a quick note that the APA has an upcoming webinar for those heading out on the job market (see below). I think it is great that the APA is increasingly pursuing initiatives such like these (see also here), and think it is good to amplify and support these kinds of endeavors:

To help philosophers navigating the academic job market, as well as faculty advising students and colleagues about applying for academic jobs, the APA virtual programming committee has organized a webinar: Preparing for the Academic Job Market.

.....

This webinar will address what is expected in academic job applications: how do you determine your AOS or AOC, and what are the features of strong cover letters, diversity statements, or teaching portfolios? What do different kinds of institutions look for in a successful applicant? How has the academic hiring process changed in recent years? After the panel discusses these and other topics, the audience will have a chance to ask the panelists questions on their experiences and advice for academic job searching.

The panelists for the webinar are as follows:

• • Helen De Cruz, Professor, Danforth Chair in the Humanities and Professor of Philosophy, Saint Louis University
  • Richard Legum, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Kingsborough Community College of the City University of New York
  • Shannon Spaulding, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Oklahoma State University
  • Benjamin S. Yost, Professor of Philosophy (Adjunct), Cornell University (formerly Professor of Philosophy, Providence College)
  • Lauren Ashwell, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Bates College (facilitator/moderator)

The webinar will be held on Wednesday, August 18 at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time / 12:30 p.m. Pacific time. To participate, register on the APA website. Registration will be available until 10 a.m. Eastern time / 7 a.m. Pacific time on the day of the webinar, and access information will be provided to registrants at least one hour prior to the start of the webinar. Registration is limited to current APA members.

Register now.

Where to list summer schools on a CV?

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

Is there any conventional wisdom about where on a CV to list summer schools one participated in and/or presented at?

I'm not sure: maybe under "presentations" or "awards" (if e.g. the summer school had a competitive application procedure). What do you all think?

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?