The Philosophers' Cocoon

Typecast for coming from a religious institution?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, as a follow-up to the comment that inspired last Friday's thread on philosophy of religion as an AOS, a reader asks:

I got my PhD from a good program, but it's a religious institution. My advisor works on phil religion, though it's not their only area (and not what they supervised me in).

I've noticed that everywhere I've interviewed for TT either has someone doing phil religion on the faculty, or ends up hiring someone who does phil religion. Meanwhile, heavily secular departments ignore me.

Here's the thing: I am as atheist as I can possibly be. A hardcore naturalist. I think philosophical questions about God are about as interesting as philosophical questions about leprechauns. Am I being typecast, or is it likely coincidence? And if I am being typecast, what can I do about it?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

The religious school affiliation issue cuts both ways - it is an asset when you are applying to jobs that have a religious mission and tradition; it can be an impediment when secular and anti-religious colleagues review you application at non-religious schools (though such behavior may be questionable legally).

Given last week's discussion, it seems like the OP might be typecast, but then again, a lot might depend on what their CV looks like. If, for example, their publication list doesn't focus on religious issues (particularly issues that some search committee members may have biases against), then maybe they won't be typecast. Then again, as the OP says, they seem to be mostly getting interviews at religious institutions or for jobs that focus on religion, not at secular institutions.

So, what can the OP do? Any helpful tips?

Is there a stigma against philosophy of religion?

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

I'd love some frank opinions/advice about including Philosophy of Religion in one's AOS. I'm in a position where I can list it, but I don't yet have publications on the topic, so no one would likely know I do PoR if I didn't include it. I have been told by senior faculty across several universities (including those who work in PoR) that there some quarters where PoR is seen with disdain, and that I shouldn't pursue it openly until I already have a job. There's the further consideration, which I'm not asking about here, that there are few jobs looking for a PoR AOS; what I want to know is specifically whether people think there's anything to the idea that it is most pragmatic, where possible, to refrain from mentioning PoR as an AOS to dodge stigma among job committees.

As a follow-up, if folks agree that there *is* such a stigma, I'd be curious to hear what other topics would also be unwise to voluntarily disclose.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

About listing phil of religion on a c.v. - one reason to do so is that the department may have a course on the books, and they may think it would be nice to have it taught again. So it could be a reason to tip the scales in your favour. But there are a lot of people who regard phil of religion as of little worth. (to be frank with you, I am a philosopher of science who has no patience for any metaphysics)

What do you all think? Is there a stigma against job candidates who work in Phil Religion? Might there be places where it might work in one's advantage? Finally, are there any other topics/AOS's that would be "unwise to voluntarily disclose"?

APA blog posts and the job market

A reader recently wrote in by email:

I’m wondering if you know (1) how or even whether to list an APA blog post on a CV, and (2) what hiring committees would make of it?

Fair question. I suspect that you can always list it on your CV, and that if you do, you should probably do so under a unique heading (e.g. "Blog Posts").

As for how this will look to search committees, I'm not sure. I suspect that they probably won't count for much, and maybe some committees might even view it strangely. Then again, other committees might look at it as a nice little service to the profession, if for example the post discusses something of public or professional interest.

So, I don't know. What do you all think?

Doubts about continuing on in academia: to carry on, or not?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Questioning Their Career asks:

I'm close to finishing my PhD - I could be done this coming year if I so choose - and I'm not sure what to do next. I'm just not sure that I really like this work anymore. In the last month or so, I have absolutely dreaded the very thought of writing, and even just talking about philosophy, whether with professor, friends, or students, feels painful at times. I know this is a common reaction to finishing up a dissertation - none of my friends have liked their work by the end of it - and so this could just be the result of burnout. I also know that I now am closer to a professional philosopher than I've ever been, though. I have a much clearer sense of what the job is now than I ever did in the past. I don't think I should just dismiss my current antipathy because it might go away in the future.

I also currently have an opportunity to pursue a very different kind of work that I have good reasons to think I could find deeply meaningful and enjoyable, and my life on that path would be much easier if I started the pursuit sooner rather than later. I plan to finish my dissertation regardless, but my plans for going on the job market and all that would entail would seriously conflict with my ability to start on this alternate path.

This has all left me feeling deeply conflicted. I've poured so much of myself into pursuing this degree and a position in this profession. Being an academic feels like a deep part of me. I've also, historically, loved it. It's sometimes been bad just like any job, but that's never made me doubt that I should pursue it. It feels like I could be throwing something away needlessly because of a temporary setback.

I'm hoping for some insight into what sorts of factors have lead folks either to decide to carry on with academia despite some significant doubts or to leave the profession. I think hearing about others' experiences would help me to better understand whether what I'm experiencing now is a case of mere burnout or something more serious. Thank you all so much for any insight you might have!

I'm sorry to hear that the OP is going though this, and I empathize. It is a great and very understandable query, and I'm curious to hear from readers.

The publishing arms race for philosophy students

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

Can we have a thread on publication trends among philosophy students (including BOTH those already in PhD programs AND those yet to be admitted to PHD programs)? Apologies if this has already been discussed/over-discussed elsewhere, but I read in another thread about an applicant to PHD programs already having five publications prior to even beginning their PHD education. This strikes me as ridiculous but also, perhaps, understandable in light of the publication arms race.

So, a question (and one that I'm guessing has been entertained already on this website) is: what should we (can we) do about the publication arms race in philosophy? Perhaps it needs to be tackled in conjunction with the publication arms race in academia more broadly, but perhaps not...

Further, maybe some folks this [think] it's not a problem. If this is the case, I'd be curious to hear why. For my part, I'm tired and overwhelmed by the # of publications out there...even those that just relate specifically to my sub-sub discipline.

This is a good query. I personally know of several cases of students publishing multiple papers in good journals before even getting into a PhD program--and these days, my understanding is that, generally speaking, job candidates need publications to be competitive on the market, which has indeed led to a publishing arms race. Some job candidates these days may even have more publications than the people interviewing them!

What I'm not at all sure is what, if anything, can (or should) be done about this. Do readers have any thoughts?

Going on job-market after getting a TT job: how soon is too soon?

In our April "how can we help you?" thread, Cam asks:

How soon is too soon to apply to another TT job after getting one? I was blessed with the good fortune of receiving a TT job. How long do I need to stay in the job before applying elsewhere? Even if I like it, there are jobs I'll like more: it seems like sending off a few applications per year would be the smart thing to do, when particularly desirable jobs for my profile come up. Would it be OK to move on after say only one year?

Fair question! We actually had a thread related to this back in January, and while we didn't receive too many comments, the general sentiment (which I share) is: it's your career--no one has a right to your employment. As another reader writes in a submitted follow-up comment to Cam:

On the one hand, you are always on the job market. Everyone should be open to changing jobs throughout their lives. In fact, each of us may need to at some point. But, on the other hand, do not think that you will endure yourself to your new colleagues by going on the market. In fact, if they get wind of the fact that you are applying to "more desirable" places it will just reinforce any thoughts they might have had that you were a flight-risk. So be aware of that. It is can hard to hide that you are looking for a job. One former colleague discovered that a junior colleague was on the job market because the photocopier jammed on the weekend, trapping pieces of her applications in the machine until Monday, when my colleague found them.

While I think it is generally unlikely that your colleagues will find out that you are on the market, it's a risk, but one that one can probably mitigate by exercising due care!

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Doing a good teaching demo on critical thinking?

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

If you're asked to do a teaching demo on what you think is a difficult concept for students in a critical thinking course, is there an expectation you'll do something like necessary/sufficient; basic deductive proof; or is something outside the box potentially more acceptable given the nature of a CT class?

I am mostly concerned that the stuff I mentioned like necessary/sufficient, sound/unsound, deductive proof, etc, is actually pretty boring and overdone.

Good question. I'm inclined to think that "more creative is better", all things being equal, and that one should be all means get students involved in the classroom. But surely, it's important to do so in a way that is rigorous too. 

Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Can a candidate look 'too good' for a job?

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

A question I've been having recently is whether you can seem "too good" for a job in a way that raises red flags for the committee. (Of course, we applicants don't think this; we just want a job and would happily work at your institution! So really this is a question about the attitudes of the hiring committee).

To say a bit more, I don't quite mean "too good" in the flight-risk sense, though that certainly is related; I mean more in the "this person is from a different culture of philosophy, and probably won't 'get us' or be happy here" sense. I wonder if this is especially true for those trained at high-to-middle ranked Leiter R1s, but who wind up getting lots of interviews at smaller schools with faculty who are not from that world, but are instead from the world where you could get a job with, shall we say, a CV that looks much different than how it must look today for us on the market to even get an interview.

If this is a real phenomenon, what can candidates do about it? (And, again, let's assume they express genuine interest in the interview, are not intentionally coming off as pretentious, etc.).

Excellent questions. What do readers think?

Trends in areas sought on the job market?

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

Is it possible to create a thread on changes in what areas are being sought in the job market?

I can't find dedicated places discussing this issue, but it seems really important to me. LEMM hiring looks borderline dead, at least for people doing armchair (i.e. non-science-based), non-social-oriented LEMM. But isn't that what most people are trained in? And isn't that what interests most people who go on to do philosophy in the first place?

There's a lot of discussion about publications, prestige, etc., but I think we need more discussion about area. IMO it just seems like hiring in the most popular areas of philosophy is close to 0. Given that so many graduate students get into philosophy precisely to work in these areas, we need to start a conversation about it. Moreover, it would be helpful to discuss what things, if any, someone with that background could do to change how they are perceived. I worry that publishing a single paper on hotter topics just makes one look like they're "selling out" and not seriously interested, at least if one already has several publications on more traditional LEMM.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I think it is terrible difficult to "play the market" with respect to areas of specialization. The problem is that in the USA, for example, it can take 5 to 6 years to get a PhD. So, what was hot when you enter your PhD will probably be saturated by the time you go on the market. Right now - this year ... and maybe a few more - philosophy of digital technologies is super hot. There are many many jobs (especially in Europe). But soon every university that is going to hire someone in this area will have hired their person. So there will not be any more job openings for a long time. No worries though ... a new area will be hot. The important thing is to do interesting work, and get a strong education (which includes the sort of mentoring you can get at the elite universities). Whatever successes I have had have been due to my publishing ... place articles in good journals. And write on interesting topics.

This broadly right to me when it comes to particular research areas or "hot topics." However, I think it's also worth noting that some job market trends have been pretty consistent over time with respect to AOS's (see here and below):

In terms of what someone like the OP can do now to improve their candidacy (given that it seems like they work in LEMM), I guess I sort of do wonder whether it might help them to work on a hot topic. Then again, who knows? As I've noted before, I also often wonder whether working on currently-hot topics can backfire, as if one works on similar topics as most other candidates, then it may be hard to stand out in a crowded field. So, maybe the above respondent is right and the best one can do is to simply do good work. 

What do you all think? Are there particular trends on what is sought on the market that are worth bearing in mind or planning for? And what, if anything, should a LEMMing do to best deal with the fact that hiring in armchair LEMM fields seems to be moribund?

Norms of backing out of a VAP for a TT job?

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

I want to ask for advice about the norms, strategies, etc. for possibly backing out of a non tenure track job (e.g., a limited VAP) offer, in order to accept a tenure-track job. Say, if someone were to accept a VAP offer in early April, would it be okay to back out in late April to accept a recently received tenure-track offer elsewhere? Would you just tell the VAP school, "I'm very sorry ... but I can't turn down a tenure-track offer"? I'd appreciate any advice; thanks!

Good questions. I'd hope that any department/institution that offered the VAP would be understanding, given how difficult TT jobs are to get. But, does anyone have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

Using a conditionally accepted paper as a writing sample instead of published work?

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

Are there any norms around using a paper that is conditionally accepted/got minor revisions as a writing sample for a job? It would be much closer to the area of the job than my other published articles, and it would be one out of multiple writing samples (the others have been published).

I don't see any reason why not, especially if it's closer to the area of the advertised job! Do any readers think otherwise?

Leaving a TT job for a stable non-TT job?

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

I have a TT offer in hand. The trouble is that I'm not sure if I'll be happy there.

I have also been told I have a strong probability of being able to come back to my current institution (non-TT, but stable in the medium term, where I'm fairly happy) if things go badly in the TT gig. However, I wonder if this would look suspicious once I'm back on the market. Is it a red flag if a candidate has left a TT position for a temporary position? Is it the sort of thing that would prevent one from getting interviewed?

(Let's bracket cases from the same part of the world where the TT gig is...I do suspect those institutions would be concerned that a candidate had left a position nearby; but what about the wider philosophical world?)

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would certainly wonder what happened. If you were at the TT job for 5 or so years, I would assume you were denied tenure ... if you leave too quickly, I might also wonder whether you were not renewed (because of some sort of behavior). So, I would tend to set such a file aside, given the many other strong applicants in a typical pool.

I think I share these worries, but maybe one could address the issue in a cover letter? What do you all think?

Preparing for success in a UK job?

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

I appreciated the “preparing for success in a new job” thread a few days ago. I was wondering if it might be possible to have a post like this specifically for permanent jobs in the UK? I’ll start one in the UK next year and really feel totally in the dark about what it will be like and much of the info is geared toward US jobs.

Great question! Any readers with jobs in the UK have any helpful tips or insights?

Negotiating job offer tips?

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

I've looked through a lot of posts about negotiating on here, but I was hoping to get some more specific advice. First, which kinds of candidate attributes actually matter to admins when asking for a higher salary on the basis of coming in with more experience? I have a couple of fairly fancy research postdocs under my belt, but I'm not confident that whoever I'm negotiating with would be able to appreciate the distinction of getting a "fancy" postdoc by our standards. Do I try to just say that in making my case? I'm worried it'll make me sound pompous.

As another question that will probably be pretty widely relevant, how should we take inflation into account in our asks? I've managed to find a couple salaries from semi-recent hires that seem fairly reliable online, but when I punch that number into an inflation adjustment calculator the number becomes *much* bigger. Would it be unreasonable to try to ask for an inflation-adjusted salary based on past salaries? I'm worried about asking for too much up front and getting told off or even jeopardizing my offer.

Excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers! One reader submitted the following reply:

I think you misunderstand the conditions of negotiation. For background, I negotiated a very modest higher starting salary at my first TT job, and I negotiated some additional raises while in a job, above and beyond the standard merit raises, which occur in a institutional framework. No one is going to give you a raise for a post doc you had - in fact, a new hire from Oxford or Yale has no basis for asking for a higher starting pay than a new hire from Ohio State or Missouri. And even cost of living is a problematic starting point - if the University has a union, or the administration is thinking clearly, they are concerned with compression. They cannot let new hires start at a pay level higher than what those who were hired a 5 years ago are paid now. That will cause resentment. You need a basis for claiming to need or deserve more money. Ideally, you have another offer so you can actually walk away from this job if they do not meet your demands. But try something like excessive moving costs (because you are moving across the country or from another country).

I'm inclined to agree that trying to negotiate by mentioning "fancy" postdocs probably isn't a good idea, but beyond this I'm not too sure. Do any other readers with experience negotiating job offers have any helpful tips or other insights?

Preparing for success in a new job?

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

I finally got a TT job! What can I do over the next few months to set myself up for success in the fall?

Big congrats, and great question! I think a lot may depend on what kind of job it is. If it's a job with a low teaching load at an R1, then I'm not sure. If, on the other hand, it's a job with a pretty hefty teaching load, then I'd suggest trying to get a lot of research done and a few papers out to journals this summer. In jobs with a lot of teaching (especially your first year), you might find that you have very little time to focus on research, and if you don't have papers out at journals, you might begin to worry about "falling behind." Other than this, I guess I'd suggest asking new colleagues if they have syllabi that they are willing to share, as this might give you some idea what the norms around teaching are at the institution. Then again, it's been a long time since I started my first job, so I'm probably missing obvious tips that might help the OP.

What do you all think? Any tips for someone about to start a new job in the fall that will help them set themselves up for success?

How much do publications matter on the market?

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

I have a question about the job market. Recently on Twitter, I have seen quite a few people posting about either permanent jobs or good postdocs they have secured. However, when I then check out their CV, I am surprised to see that it doesn't align with what I have previously been told/seen about getting permanent jobs/postdocs. To give an example for each, I saw someone getting a permanent job when they had only a few publications, only one of which was a top ten (Leiter) and not top five, and the others were co-authored or lower tier journals. For the postdoc, I saw someone getting a good postdoc with actually no publications as well. At my institution I had been told that you need about three top five publications to get a permanent job, which struck me as close to impossible short of you being a generational talent. And for a postdoc I had been told at least two decent publications minimum.

So, is this a sign for optimism in that if you interview well or are good in some other ways, you can escape the "publish or die" mantra that I've so much heard about?

I'm curious to hear what readers think. I suspect there may be differences in hiring for different kinds of positions (e.g. permanent jobs and postdocs at R1s vs. SLACs, etc.). At R1s, for example, grad program prestige, letters of recommendation, and writing samples may go a long way. Conversely, at SLACs, things other than publishing (such as teaching) matter a great deal. Indeed, having served on a number of search committees at a SLAC, my sense is that people on the hiring side of things can very much take "the whole picture" into account with candidates. Publications matter--but they are by no means the only thing that matters. Teaching matters a lot too. So do your research statement and writing sample--and more generally, how interesting and promising a committee finds your overall research project. And, of course, interviews affect the hiring process too. At schools like mine, people generally want to see evidence that you know how to publish and are likely to publish enough for tenure--so, above and beyond a few publications, more publications may not matter tremendously. Finally, it's worth bearing in mind many people only get permanent jobs after a number of years on the market. It took me over 7 years, for example--so, over a period of time like this, you don't have to be a generational talent to publish a bunch of papers. 

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Tips from successful job candidates?

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

Here's a question: can we have a thread in which recently *successful* job applicants who have gotten TT jobs describe their own application process?

In particular, I'm wondering about time spent on materials. How much time did you spend personalizing your cover letter, e.g., or preparing for the first-round interview? (I'm wondering whether I've been spending way too little time on these initial steps, myself.) Does the process that went into a successful application compare in any notable way to the many unsuccessful applications?

But really, any tips from those who have been recently--especially within the last job cycle or two--successful in landing TT jobs would be much appreciated.

I think this is a nice idea. Do any recent job candidates who have gotten tenure-track jobs have any tips or insights to share? How much time did you spend on various materials, and how did you develop them?

Meeting w/book publishers while on the market?

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

I have been approached by an editor who works for an academic book publisher (somewhere in the middle of ranked publishers from the blog of the guy who ranks everything) who wants to meet me at an upcoming conference we are both attending and discuss publishing the project I am working on (not dissertation project).

I was wondering two things:
1) What should I be asking/getting to know about this publisher in this meeting? I'm completely new to this process and have no clue what to even be asking this editor?
2) What are people's thoughts on middle of the road publishers? I imagine they would help my chances at a permanent job, am I wrong in that assumption?

I think this should be ok in my situation since I would like to work at a SLAC, but I'd love to know what others think?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

It sounds like you do not have a permanent position - if that is the case I think it is a bad idea to try to publish a book. I have published 3 monographs, and edited 2 volumes (and finishing a 3rd). These are long term projects that are quite unpredictable. My monographs and one of the volumes is with one of the top 2 publishers. It is unrealistic to try to complete a monograph while you are still actively on the job market. I completed my first ONLY with the help of a sabbatical - and it came out in print three years later. If you need a permanent position, then you need well placed articles in highly ranked journals.

I disagree, based on my experience both as a former job candidate and many-time search committee member at a SLAC.

Competing against (much) more experienced candidates on the market?

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

I guess I'm looking for general advice here, as much as that is possible.

A couple times on the market I've made it to the flyout round for an Assistant Prof post only to lose out to a *much* more senior candidate. I'm happy to get the flyout, and I'm also wondering if there is anything I can do to be more competitive against candidates that have much more experience than I. I'm one year out of grad school in a respectable post-doc, and I'm just not sure I can present myself in a way that compares favorably to those who have been assistant professors for 3-5 years.

Thoughts?

Good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is other than perhaps the obvious: keep publishing, improving as a teacher, etc. But of course I realize this isn't super helpful.

Anyone else have any more helpful advice or experiences to share, either from the job candidate or hiring side of things?

Moving from a community college to a university?

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

I've got two related questions:

1. In grad school I heard that moving from a cc to a university is basically impossible. Is that true? If not, what will making such a move require?

2. Is there a way to gauge from job listings, or by doing a bit of research, how big a role research plays at a particular teaching-focused institution? Does it vary widely? (I'd exclude SLACs here because I'm enrolled in the PSLF program.)

A bit of explanation: By the time I entered my last year of grad school, I felt confident that I wanted a career at a community college. I loved teaching and, while I love writing, I am less enthusiastic about academic writing. So I only applied to cc jobs and was lucky enough to land a job at a cc in a great city. The year that I earned tenure there I left (for a few good reasons) after taking another cc job across the country. The new job improves on the areas that were of concern at the old job, but I am deeply unhappy living here so I'm back on the job market. For the first time, I'm looking at university positions with interest because of the additional opportunities that creates. But I'm unsure whether a position at even a teaching-focused university would be a good fit for me because I don't know how big a role research plays there and whether such an institution would even consider me.

I've built up a very good CV in terms of service and teaching, but I don't know [1] how that would be valued by teaching-focused universities, [2] whether my complete lack of research since the dissertation would disqualify me even if I attempt to start publishing now, or [3] what it would look like to be in a position that has a research requirement (all the university job ads ask for a promising research agenda but I can't tell how much research is a part of each of those jobs).

I don't know if making such a move even makes sense for me, but that's in part because I actually know very little about what life would look like at a university. Whatever I can learn will help me take informed steps forward, and I figured that putting out this feeler is a good start.

Another reader submitted the following rather blunt take:

I worked for a number of years at a typical state college - almost all programs were 4 year BAs. When we ran searches we would not have touch a file like yours in a hundred years - (i) it suggests that you have no interest in research and there is no evidence you could meet the (rather low) requirements for tenure; and (ii) there are just so many other that might be just like you, but have a publication of two. So there would be no good reason to consider a file from a candidate who has not published.

I suspect this is probably true for tenure-track positions at 4-year universities, as even at teaching-focused universities research matters, and a complete lack of research since one's dissertation would (as this reader notes) make the OP uncompetitive against candidates who do have some research productivity. However, I am less sure about non-tenure-track "Teaching Assistant Professor" positions, which appear to be becoming increasingly common at many universities. In my experience, these positions can have few (or even no) research expectations, focusing instead on teaching and service. Yet, I also have reason to believe that even when it comes to these positions, some people think that at least some research activity is necessary to keep up with the field as a teacher. So, I'm not sure about those positions. I suspect that if the OP does want to move to at least a non-TT job like this at a university, they should try to take some steps to start publishing. 

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

Are job candidates expected to be perfect?

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

My partner, a non-academic who has seen me suffer through the ups and downs of the market for a few years now, made what I thought to be an excellent observation this morning after we debriefed about another intense interview.

She noted that academic job interviewers (you, search committee member!) seem to expect perfection from their interviewees. She elaborated: 'In a lot of other jobs, you can slip-up in interviews, not say the perfect thing, and it's not like they won't hire you, because there is so much on the job learning, and they know that'. My immediate reaction to this was that she is absolutely right. It seems that philosophy search committee members in fact expect perfection in interviews, when that is just completely unrealistic. It also struck me that she was right to think academia does not encourage on the job learning of the sort implied by thoughts like: 'Well, they didn't show in the interview that they had that down, but that is ok, we can teach them; they'll learn'. Instead, we get: 'Well, they flubbed that question; they must be incompetent: they're out'.

Now to my questions: Are you expecting us to be perfect, because it feels that way? If so, why are you expecting perfection from us? And can you stop please? It is completely unrealistic, and just another instance of academic standards being utterly out-of-touch with how things ought humanely to go.

Interesting questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers. One reader submitted the following reply:

In the searches I have been involved with, we do not expect candidates to be perfect. In fact, usually, if the search has gone well, the department would be happy with hiring any of the finalists - even after their interviews. What the committee does is balance their needs with what each candidate has to offer. And small things can make a difference - because only one candidate can be offered the job. But perfection is not the standard.

This matches my experience in hiring. I don't think search committees expect perfection. Few (if any) interviews are perfect. When a candidate "knocks an interview out of the park", it can make a difference--but, even then, my experience is that committees tend to make decisions holistically, not just on interview performance but on the basis of the rest of their dossier. And, even when candidates don't give perfect interviews, they can still be at the top of a committee's list. We all recognize that people can flub a question or two, or even have a bad day interviewing. This is my experience, at any rate.

Are any other search committee members able and willing to weigh in? It might also be good to hear from job-candidates too, as when I was a job candidate sometimes I got flyouts after interviews that I thought went poorly, but didn't get flyouts for interviews that seemed to go well!

Job markets tips or warnings you wish you'd had?

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

I plan to go on the job market for the first time this fall. What are some tips or things that you were not advised or warned about that you wished you were? Also, thinking about the number of documents that are needed is daunting. Does anyone have a sense of how long it takes to finish a research statement, dissertation abstract, and other documents, and/or have any tips on how to write these documents?

These are all good questions. The Cocoon's Job-Market Boot Camp gave a bunch of tips on how to compose various dossier materials, but it would be great to hear some answers about them from readers, and especially on the question, "What are some tips or things that you were not advised or warned about that you wished you were?"

A pending recession and enrollment cliff: to stay on the market, or not to?

A reader writes in:

I have been on the job market for a few years and am seriously looking into quitting the profession this year. The alternative is that I hold out for another year or two in a visiting position. I'd appreciate hearing your readers' thoughts on whether the job market is likely to improve in the near-term. The US is likely headed for a recession, which many private sector firms are already planning for. And the anticipated "enrollment cliff" (dropping college enrollments due to a decline in birthrates post 2008 recession) will hit soon after that.

Because market conditions will likely only get worse for the next several years, sticking it out doesn't really seem to make sense. Can any of your readers speak (anonymously) to whether departments and universities are already factoring in a recession and the enrollment cliff in future hiring plans, and whether university administrators are already discussing hiring freezes?

An important question. I responded to this reader in private, but I'm curious to hear what readers think--and, in particular, whether any readers on the hiring side of things have any inside information relevant the OP's choice. One thing that I didn't mention to the reader in private, but which is probably relevant, is that aside from technology (which has been notably engaging in large-scale layoffs), non-academic job markets are historically strong right now and are unlikely to remain that way. As such, if there is any good time to transition from academia to industry, it seems to me that time is probably now!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Problematic job-market practices?

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

This is a request, rather than a question. Could we make a chart with all of the unhelpful, problematic things we see through the job market process for schools--to generate collective knowledge? e.g. Some schools are atrocious with spousal hiring. Some schools pitch salaries very low, expecting you'll negotiate. Some schools have departments collapsing because the financial health of the university is bad. Surely, this information would be helpful to future candidates.

In brief, doing this sort of thing at the Cocoon isn't consistent with this blog's safe-and-supportive mission. Further, although I'm not a lawyer, I imagine that making a list of which schools do various "problematic things" could be legally problematic, viz. libel (if false allegations are spread that damages a program's reputation). However, what I think would be consistent with the Cocoon's mission is for job candidates to enumerate in fully general terms the kinds of unnecessary indignities or problematic practices they have faced on the market, without naming or otherwise implicating particular individuals, schools, or programs, either explicitly or implicitly. Doing this could be helpful, first of all, by drawing attention to the kinds of things that job candidates find to be problematic--and so, secondly, by perhaps generating some kind of impetus (viz. raising public consciousness in the profession) for improving hiring practices.

So, this is what I propose instead. Job candidates: without naming or (explicitly or implicitly) implicating any particular individuals, programs, or institutions, what general kinds of things have you encountered on the market that you consider to be problematic and warranting correction, and why? The OP named a few: schools being atrocious with spousal hiring, pitching extremely low salaries, having bad financial health as institutions that imperil departments, etc. What other kinds of (potentially) problematic things have job candidates encountered, and what (if anything) do you think would be better?

Becoming competitive for teaching jobs from top PhD programs?

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

I'm a grad student at a program that mainly prepares its students for R1 jobs. I'm more interested in teaching-focused jobs. I've heard lots of advice about applying for teaching-focused jobs coming from an institution like mine - demonstrate a commitment to teaching (and there are various ways to do so, but mostly by having as much teaching experience as possible). Is this basically right? I've heard also that one of the ways in which one might demonstrate a commitment to teaching is by engaging in scholarship of teaching/learning. I suppose my specific question is how to get started in this sort of research with no background. Do I need to try to audit a course in the Education department? Are there philosophical pedagogy conferences/workshops I should keep an eye out for? Are there recommended readings or journals?

Good questions! I took part in a Teaching Hub session at the Central APA last week where these kinds of questions were discussed by various panelists who have hired at teaching focused institutions (I served on the panel myself), and a few main things seemed to be embraced by virtually everyone on the panel.

First, solo teaching experience is critical. People hiring at teaching-focused institutions want evidence that you can teach classes well as an independent instructor, not just as TA. So, getting as much experience as solo-instructor as possible seems like a good strategy (if your program doesn't provide many solo-teaching opportunities, you should seriously consider adjunct work at a nearby college or university).

Second, all of the panelists suggested that it is critical to come across in your application materials--including your CV--as though you would be happy at the institution. If, for example, you come across "like someone who belongs or sees themselves as belonging at a research institution" (because you've published in a bunch of top journals but have very little on your CV in terms of teaching), then that may count against you. So, I would think the OP would be well served trying to publish something on pedagogy in Teaching Philosophy, and then do whatever else they can to show in their CV that they care about and have sought out ways to become a better teacher. Any or all of the things they mention in the OP might help (I would love to hear from readers about conferences, workshops, etc., on pedagogy).

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people who have hired at teaching institutions what they think the OP should do to maximize their chances!

Additional cover letter tips?

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

Cover letters have been discussed before on the blog (see link below), but I am wondering if we might hear about the different approaches people take to ordering information in the cover letter.

We've all heard something like: teaching school/teaching job = talk about teaching first, emphasize it; R1 = talk about research first. But then I've also heard 'always talk about research first'. After all, you gotta show ya can meet tenure requirements at a teaching school, and maybe it comes off as disrespectful if you write as if the department must not care about research. Additionally, when I was looking back at another post on cover letters, there was some advice from Marcus to make sure you show you've actually read the ad and researched the institution. Fair enough. But do you, reader of my cover letter, want to see this demonstrated effort right up front, or can I mix it in, or what? Are you more interested in seeing that I've researched your department than hearing me describe my research?

Cover letters continue to be demanded. But do we really have a standardized understanding of what they are for? Be nice if we did.

https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2019/11/what-are-cover-letters-for.html

I guess I'm one of those people who think that it's not the order of what you put in the cover letter that matters, so much as the substance of the letter itself. If you're applying to a teaching focused institution, you never know how much individual search committee members care about research--so I think it's fine to start with research. The key is not to focus on it too much or come off in your letter like you belong (or think you belong) at a research university. Cover letters are, I think, there to show "you've done some homework" and are a good fit for the position. So, the more that you can speak to the things listed in the job ad, the better. Also, consider taking a quick look at the CVs of the faculty in the hiring department. How active are they in research? How active are they in pedagogical development? University service? That might give you a fairly good idea of where people's priorities are!

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?  

Postdoc opportunities for Black Scholars (Toronto Metropolitan University)

A reader from Toronto Metropolitan University wrote in encouraging me to share this ad for 4 postdocs for Black scholars at their university, which of course I'm happy to do. Here are some of the details:

TMU is implementing this program with the goals of building a more diverse and inclusive academe, and supporting the flourishing of Black scholarship. In particular, this program seeks to expand and advance Black scholarship and intellectual traditions, and support the academic endeavours of the Black community.

• • Available fellowships: up to four (4) beginning September 5, 2023
  • Amount: $70,000/year plus benefits
  • Duration: 24 months 
  • Field: Open
  • Deadline to apply: April 1, 2023
  • Decision: July 2023

Grappling with internal candidates as an applicant?

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

I thought I was very lucky this year and got three on-campus interview requests. I have found out through various channels that ALL THREE searches have an internal candidate.

Is this normal? Should I have asked "is there an internal candidate?" before accepting these interviews? It's my first year on the market so I was expecting to be crushed, but not in this way. I am graduating late (August instead of May) because of all the travel and prep. I'm trying to be grateful for all the practice, but mostly I just feel like I have been used and lied to.

These are fair questions, and I empathize. However, my sense is that while there are often internal candidates for positions, they do not always get hired, even when the job ad looks like it was "written for them." This may not be the case for all search committees, but in my experience SCs tend to want to hire the best person for the job. But this is just my admittedly anecdotal experience.

What's yours? It would be especially helpful to hear from search committee members.

A question on 'overlapping contracts'

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

What are the norms around potentially overlapping contracts?

I ask because when transitioning from a temporary position to another temporary position I've sometimes faced the problem that my contract a job X is supposed to begin before my contract at job Y has ended. Of course, all of my teaching duties, etc. at X have finished, but I'm still technically on their payroll. Is it a problem to have contracts overlap?

Another reader, a UK postdoc, just added:

I would also like to know what people's thoughts are on anon's question re: overlapping contracts. I've heard anecdotally that this is acceptable e.g. if it is a month in summer when there is no teaching/department activity, but would like to know what people think more broadly.

So, I figured I should probably run a thread on this! One reader submitted the following answer:

I have been in your situation twice. However, the overlapping jobs were, in both cases, in two different countries, and for only one paycheck. If you pay taxes in the country x, but then for a month you work in the country y, unless your salary is insane, it does not make a difference tax-wise. If you are in the same country, then it's just a matter of filing your taxes in the proper way - it's just accumulating income, I guess. Please take my considerations cum grano salis, as I'm not an accountant, and there might be complications if you are on a visa.

Anyone else have any tips, experiences, or other insights?

 

 

Salary info for negotiation?

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

I have been extremely lucky to receive a TT offer this job market season. The salary they are offering me is higher than I expected and I kind of just want to accept it and be done with the job market, but everyone tells me I should negotiate for a higher salary! I don't really know how to do this, especially since I lack other offers. I guess one thing that could help is an idea of what starting salaries people make elsewhere, but I'm finding this information pretty hard to find. Does anyone have any advice or a good resource? Some time back I remember coming across an excel document someone had shared collecting anonymized information about people's salaries in philosophy, but I can't seem to find it.

Congrats on the job! We had a thread on this a couple of years ago (see here), but aside from that I don't know of any good resources here. Anyone have any tips, resources, or other advice? 

Advice for job talks?

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

A question about the demeanor of giving job talks. Context first: I am much less good at the presentation side of things than the content side. I am also awkward in social situations.

My question is whether I should approach the audience as if I already had the job and were doing just a normal presentation (again, just demeanor-wise, not content-wise). I have the feeling that I am usually way more excited than I should be. However I also heard from a friend that many candidates didn't get a job because they do not seem excited about their work (which is super surprising to me: why would anyone not feel temporarily excited in a job talk?).

Any thought, advice, or anecdotes...?

Do any readers have any tips or insights on what comes across well or not so well in a job talk?

Thank you notes on the job market?

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

This came up in the job market discussion thread, but I'd love to see wider discussion: what is the etiquette for post-interview thank-you notes? Is it overkill to send a handwritten note to the search chair after an on-campus interview?

What does everyone think? I'm currently on a search committee, so I should probably avoid weighing in--but if anyone else has experiences or insights to share, please do!

Two-body problems with unmarried partners

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

I would be interested in hearing people's impressions on the following issue: How much (and in what ways) does it matter for the purposes of partner hiring whether the partners in question are married (as opposed to "merely" being in the sort of committed relationship where seeking a partner hire makes sense)? Is it more difficult to secure a partner hire if you're not married to your partner? If so, what's the source of the difficulty? Bureaucratic constraints? Narrow-minded administrators? Narrow-minded hiring committees? All of the above?

Great questions. Anyone have any helpful experiences or insights to share?

What kind of job talk is it best to give?

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

What is the best kind of topic for a job talk or for an invited talk? I work in metaphysics and do some metaphilosophy, and generally study/am excited about the kinds of topics others find very dry, but my subject matter also has relevance for many "applied," or "real life" issues, and it is easy for me to frame my main research topic as informing these more accessible questions. I would like to make a strategic choice of what to present in some upcoming talks... is it best to formulate a talk that I think will speak to the greatest number of people in the audience? Stick to what I find most exciting/what I am most knowledgeable about? I recently heard a job talk that was on another one such dry metaphysical topic, and I had mixed feelings. One one hand, I wanted to applaud the candidate for sticking to what excites him/his actual expertise, but on the other I wondered if he'd thought about how best to engage his audience. Thoughts?

Excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers. I've always heard the advice given that you should "present your best work", whatever it is. But I also imagine that some people might find some topics more exciting than other "dry" topics. Anyone have any helpful insights here? 

Listing supervision on a CV?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an anonymous postdoc asks:

A simple CV question: How, if at all, do you list supervision on your CV?

Should you list supervision at all? Does it matter whether it is MA or PhD supervision? Does it matter if you are chair or a secondary supervisor? Do you put it under teaching or in its own section? Do you give names of the students? Do you give the titles of their theses?

I ask because I am a postdoc at the moment with limited teaching experience on my CV. I am serving as secondary supervisor to two MA students. I wonder if I should include this in my teaching section and, if so, how I should do so (see above questions)?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

All the distinctions matter. Have a sub-list for PhDs separating those you are the supervisor for, from those you serve on the committee of; a sub-list for MAs, again, separated. List it under teaching, unless you are a leader of a team or lab with post-docs as well, then have a separate heading for Supervision. Whatever you do do not exaggerate your role to beef up your teaching. It will backfire.

I'm curious whether other readers agree. It does seem to me that it's good to list how much supervision one has done, as some job ads explicitly note supervision experience as a hiring priority. But, beyond that, I'm not sure. I'm also not sure whether it's a good idea to list names of students, as in the US at least my understanding is that all academic information falls under federal FERPA privacy laws. 

Anyone else have any helpful tips or insights?

Listing a course one has taught as an AOC?

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

i am an abd grad student. I thought I had my AOS/AOCs figured out, but my department threw me a curveball and is having me teach a class that is outside of those areas. i'm not really worried about teaching the class and i am interested in the material, but i don't research this stuff at all. i fear that adding it as an AOC will look a little strange, both because there are now too many and because it doesn't really 'fit' with the rest, but i also don't want to undersell my capabilities when the ability to teach a wide range of classes is valued. if anyone has faced this situation, or evaluated someone like this from a committee perspective, i would be interested to know what you think.

This is a good query, as people always seem to have questions about what constitutes a 'legitimate AOC.' My understanding has always been that an AOC is supposed to be something that one would be able and qualified to teach an advanced undergraduate course in, even if it isn't an area that one does active research (i.e. publishing) in. So, I would think, at a minimum, an AOC should be something that one either has graduate coursework training in, and/or something one has cultivated some advanced competence in by some other means (such as by teaching lower-division courses in the area regularly and developing a more advanced background in by reading more widely in that area).

Consequently, my sense is that it is probably not a good idea to list a course that one has merely taught a couple of times in grad school as an AOC. Fortunately, in many cases, I don't think that much is likely to turn on this for a job-candidate. If a department otherwise likes you, they want/need someone to teach X, and you have taught X before, then that's likely to be a mark in your favor, AOC or no.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from readers in general, but particularly from members of search committees!

Going on the market just after starting a job?

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

Two questions about job market etiquette:

1) Is it considered "rude," "in poor taste," or in violation of relevant norms to leave a job after only one year? One the one hand, I believe in employee freedom in a labor market; on the other, I get that people might be offended by this.

2) Is is a valid worry that your current employer might find out that you're on the market? I would hope that application materials are confidential, but I also imagine that philosophers, like the rest of humankind, like to gossip. Does anyone have experience of their employers retaliating in any sort of way after finding out they were applying out?

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following response:

I had a colleague who we hired leave after one year. I did not consider her rude ... I understood her motives quite well. But I am sure some of my colleagues absolutely hated her. We spent a lot of time doing the search, time we did not have. And then we choose her from among a number of fully qualified candidates - she deserved the job, but others were deserving as well. And then when she left we did not get the line renewed. It was lost ... for good! So do not expect your colleagues to be endeared to you if they find out you are on the market.

This sounds right to me, but here are my hot takes:

1. Sure, people will probably get upset if you leave after a year, as they hired you hoping and expecting you'd stay. But you have a right to leave for another job at any time (though if they asked during the hiring process whether you'd stay if hired and you were dishonest, then that seems bad, right?).
2. It's a worry for sure, but a "valid" one? I have no idea. I've never heard of employers finding out about this kind of stuff through the proverbial grape-vine, and think it would be an enormous wrong for anyone to compromise the confidentiality of a job application. Does it ever happen? I have no idea.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from people who have some experience with this kind of scenario, both on the job-candidate and hiring sides of things.

Why hire new PhDs over VAPs with better publication records?

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

In response to the VAP Treadmill thread, Patrick said the following:

In addition, based on anecdotal evidence as well as comments I've read elsewhere on this issue: being a VAP and having a decent publication record doesn't always trump a freshly minted PhD with a proportionate publication record. Ex. a VAP with 4 years post-PhD and 4-5 articles, in many cases, isn't going to be appear exceptional compared to a new PhD from a ranked program who has just one publication. To be sure, some institutions value a seasoned junior person with bona fide teaching experience but this is definitely not the case everywhere.

I am glad Patrick said this, because it speaks to an impression I have had, which is that for whatever reason a VAP one, two, three years removed from the PhD, who has been able to publish while teaching what is likely a heavy-load, nevertheless does not look as shiny ('exceptional', promising) as the graduate student with fewer publications (maybe none) and less teaching experience (again, maybe none). What is making them shiny then, other than that they haven't yet come out of the wrapper? It's almost like the fact that one is not yet in a job counts in favor of people, whereas it counts against some (e.g. VAPs, lecturers, etc.).

The help I am requesting is for a good explanation of this phenomenon, which appears to me to be utterly biased and irrational (like so much of this process), and what a VAP is supposed to do keep their shine on, if, as Patrick says, apparently publishing isn't going to do the trick.

Good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

Here's just my guess as a person who got nothing the first year out, a teaching-intensive job in the second round, and a permanent one in the third round. One can publish a lot based on one’s dissertation. I have published 4 papers based on it. But at some point felt that I’m getting close to milking my dissertation dry. So I started another research project and published a paper from the new research project, and have one completed draft under review and several other papers to be written. I think this speaks to future publication potential, which is good for the prospects of tenure or this thing called REF. My guess is thus the worry about having published most of one’s dissertation but having less clear evidence for the potential of future publications would make one look less competitive compared to someone who seems to have a publishable but unpublished dissertation.

While I do think it's a good idea to develop a research program beyond the dissertation if you are out a few years (and that this can indeed help one get a job), my sense is that this probably isn't the best explanation of what is going on here. The most common explanation that I've heard of why some departments hire people just out of grad school with few (or no) publications is this. Top research departments (e.g. at R1's) may be the most interested in one's overall "promise" as a researcher, and whether one might be "the next big star." Whereas candidates who are a few years out may have fine publication records, a "shiny new PhD" just out of a top program is less of a known quantity and thus "might be the next big thing." In this regard, the phenomenon seems not all that unlike drafting top sports prospects out of college programs. Although even the best college athletes drafted have never played a single pro game (and many of them fail!), teams still draft them out of the mere hope (and possibility) that they will turn out to be a big star.

Now, I personally don't think this is a good line of reasoning. As another reader wrote:

I was on a series of VAPs. And I was passed over a number of times. I had papers in PhilSci and Synthese and PSA. In one case, they were interviewing someone from an elite school who had been out two years with NO pubs ... ZERO! In another case, someone was offered the job before me ... now two decades later I have over 11 times the number of citations as this person. It is a sorry world. I have had a good career, but it has been hard all the way.

Fortunately, if there are any silver linings here, they are these. First, even though some programs hire people just out of grad school with few publications, other departments really want to see a robust publishing record. Second, my experience is that jobs at teaching-focused institutions care a great deal about teaching experience, and thus, all things being equal, are likely to prefer VAPs over new PhDs. Finally, in my experience there are many people just like this last commenter: job candidates who were passed over for new PhDs, but who ended up getting a good job and succeeding in the end. In fact, speaking from personal experience here, I think that as horrible as it was at the time, my long time on the job market was a bit of a blessing in disguise. If I had gotten a TT job right out of grad school, I think I probably would have failed. I didn't know how to publish, nor did I really know how to teach all that well--let alone do both effectively at the same time. So, while it does indeed seem profoundly unfair, I'd just say to the OP: keep fighting the good fight. There are no guarantees in this unfair world, and there is a ton of luck involved on the academic market, but if you publish and teach well, good things can happen.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be good, in particular, to hear from people on the hiring side of things.

Tips for asking for a retention raise?

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

I am curious about the mechanics and strategy of asking for a retention raise. I am a TT assistant professor. I might receive a job offer soon for another TT position. I would be willing to take the new job, but I would prefer my current position if my salary increased. How would I go about asking for a retention raise? Whom should I ask--my chair or the dean? Any other advice?

Fair questions! I've heard anecdotally that some institutions don't negotiate these sorts of things at all (they will say in essence, "good luck to you at your new job"), but if you are willing to take the new job, what's the harm simply telling your institution that you have an outside offer but would prefer to stay if they'd be willing to raise your salary $X? If you really are willing to take the other job, the worst that they can say is 'no.' In any case, my sense is that one should only do this if one actually has an outside offer and you're willing to accept it.

In terms of the mechanics, one reader submitted the following reply:

go to the Dean (at least) Every campus is different, and campuses even change over time. I worked at a place where you went to the Provost. I liked it. You had to have some gumption to think they would even meet with you, but if you did, and you made a case for yourself, she was a generous and appreciative leader.

This seems right to me. Go first to your Dean. Then, depending on what they say, maybe go to the Provost. But it would be great to hear from other readers here, particularly readers who have tried to negotiate a raise like this. What was the process like, and how successful (or not) were you?

Tips for on-campus visit meetings with deans?

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

Oh gosh this one is a bit time sensitive so I am not even sure it's worth posting but just in case: how should you prepare to meet with a dean at a flyout? What is going on in these meetings? What is the dean's role re: your prospects of getting an offer? Any advice at all about this would be so very appreciated.

Good questions! Unfortunately, it's been almost 10 years since I did one of these and I have terrible episodic memory, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. One reader submitted the following reply:

This really is a simple part of the process. The dean meets with you to sell you her institution. So do not be stressed. It is a chance to ask about the institution, the place of philosophy at the institution, etc. They will want to impress upon you things about the broader community - what a great place it is to live (it is quite unlikely that they will be a philosopher). In one case, though, I did ask the dean why they did an external chair search (where I am from, such searches usually signal that the department is a little fucked up).

I'm curious to hear from other readers: is this right? Are these dean meetings things not to be stressed over too much, or do deans sometimes play important roles in the hiring process that can make these meetings more important than this response makes them sound?

Any readers have any helpful tips, experiences, or other insights to share? 

Job market 'waiting-game' tips?

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

Any advice for coping with the interminable periods of waiting to hear back about job applications? How do you stay focused while navigating the emotional ups and downs? Do you have any strategies for maintaining focus, or for resetting when you find yourself distracted? It's my first year and I am struggling. Some days are fine...and other days I feel like a wreck with no self-control, opening zillow and refreshing my inbox, wondering and worrying, and not writing.

Excellent questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers. I have to confess that when I was on the market, I didn't have any special strategies for handling this stuff. I was pretty much stressed and preoccupied all of the time. But I've always been able to focus on work, so during work hours, that's more or less what I did: bury my head in writing, teaching, grading, etc. I also went for a lot of long walks and runs with my dog, listening to music--things which have always been calming for me. But again, I really struggled, as I suspect most job marketeers do.

Any of you have any helpful tips for the OP?

(How) do 'little things' make a difference on the job market?

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

In the post about the VAP treadmill, a commenter said the following:

"In my experience in our searches, probably the top 20-50% of the applicant pool would be successful in the job and be an adequate fit for the specific role. The differences between the person who gets the job and the person who is 15th on the list are often small and hard to characterize."

I would love to hear from people who have been on search committees (or ppl who were told by someone on the search committee why they were hired) some examples of the tiny little things that ended up making one candidate get the job over the other equally-qualified candidates.

If these reasons are silly or arbitrary (e.g., this person just "seemed cooler" or had one more publication than someone else), all the better, since it helps us to remember just how much randomness there is. If some of the things are tiny things that others (like myself) can somehow imitate, then that is great too!

This is a great query, and I'd love to hear those who are in the know weigh in. One reader submitted the following reply:

Not a really practical advice, but making one's CV and/or cover letter unforgettable in the right way helps. According to my future employer (I've explicitly asked why they decided to hire me), apart from a promising research project (from their point of view) and institutional fitness (which played a central role in the final decision), I received a prestigious prize during my phd candidature and this really helped me get into the interview stage. Judging from other people who got a job, prizes help. At least everyone I know who got a prestigious prize (like from a journal or from some philosophical association) eventually got a TT or permanent job.

And another reader submitted this:

[H]ere is a tiny thing that might matter - imagine a position is advertised for Business Ethics, with an AOC in history of philosophy. The two finalists are matched on Business ethics, but the one has a broader range of history competence (early modern AND 19 C); or the one has early modern and 20th Continental and the other has early modern and 19 C. - and you think, a course on Nietzsche will fill seats, let's go for that one. These are small things that cannot be anticipated, and when a decision for ONE and only one candidate is required they become the difference maker.

Any other readers have good examples of 'little things' making a difference in the hiring process?

The VAP treadmill?

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

I wanted to bump something to here that 'visiting treadmill' posted in the job market discussion thread, as I think it would be good to hear from folks on what they were saying, but no one responded there. I hope they don't mind!

visiting treadmill: Unsurprisingly, I feel a bit perplexed by the market. This is my fifth year on the market but I’ve held a visiting position every year. On the VAP market last year I had four interviews and two offers. I thought that maybe the VAP market buzz I experienced might be some evidence that I would have better luck on the TT market this year. But so far on the permanent market this year I’ve only had one first round zoom interview, which did not advance. It looks like that’s all I’m going to get, which needless to say is really disappointing. Anyone else have a similar experience? Is there such a thing as a VAP treadmill? Why would multiple departments (and I’m not talking R1 here) see a candidate as good enough for a visiting position but not a permanent position? Also, what’s the number to that truck-driving school again?

Good questions--it would be great to hear from other job candidates, as well as from search committee members. Do job candidates in visiting positions get pigeon-holed as good enough for visiting positions but not for permanent ones?

'Getting to know' departments when applying for jobs?

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

One piece of advice I often see for job seekers is to "get to know the department to which you are applying." This is great advice! I'd love to know how other people go about researching a department, its needs, its interests, and its preferences. It would be great if at least some of this advice did not involve tapping one's personal network, as many grad students/job seekers may not have networks that are similarly robust or knowledgeable about the ins and outs of other departments.

Interesting query. I'm not sure I think it is a great idea to try to research a department's "needs", "interests", and "preferences", as in my experience different members of the same department may have very different (and often deeply incompatible) visions about what these things should be. My sense instead is the "get to know the department to which you are applying" advice is to research and develop familiarity with what the people in the department work on and teach, features of the program (e.g. major coursework and minors offered), and features of the college or university (e.g., new initiatives, etc.). And I'm not inclined to think that one need tap one's personal network to get know these kinds of things.

Basically, my sense is that when people say, "get to know the department to which you are applying", they are saying this because it can be important to search committees to come across like you've at least done some research on the place you're applying to and the people who work there. For example, if you're on a campus visit, it surely looks far better to say to a member of a department, "I checked out your paper on X and thought it is interesting" rather than "What do you work on?", or "I know your department offers a minor in Y" rather than "What minors does your department offer?"

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. It would be great to hear from search committee members what they think about these matters, as well as from anyone else who may be in the know and have any helpful advice for the OP!

Lateral Assistant Professor moves and the tenure process: what can you negotiate?

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

How common is it for a lateral move at the Assistant level to have to 'start again' with respect to publishing for tenure? In other words, if you make a lateral move at the Assistant level is it common to negotiate that some of your current publications will count for tenure (perhaps with an advanced tenure clock)? Or is this really uncommon? I realize experiences will vary widely across different jobs and institutions but I'm particularly curious to know if folks are ever able to successfully negotiate previous publications counting for tenure at their new job.

Good questions. My sense, from what I have heard from friends, is that it is common to negotiate all of these things. I know some people who were able to negotiate a shorter tenure clock (e.g. 3 or 4 years instead of 6), and others who were able to get previous publications to count. But I also know of people at some institutions that as a matter of standing policy only consider publications for tenure that occurred while at their institution. So, it seems to me, negotiating these things is common, but as the OP notes, such things may vary greatly according to institution.

It would be great to hear from readers who have made lateral junior moves. What were you able (or not able) to negotiate with respect to the tenure process?

Adjuncting in grad school & the job market

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

I'm on the market for the first time. I have a good bit of teaching experience, but more and more I'm adjuncting at local colleges and not where I'm earning my PhD. Two questions. (1) How should one list adjuncting positions? I have a 'Teaching Experience' section of my cv that lists the courses and institutions I've taught at. But would it be good to also list 'adjunct instructor' under an 'Employment' section? My worry with this is that it'll just look cheesy or forced. (2) Will having adjuncted at a handful of schools hurt my prospects for a permanent position? My thought is that some search committees might look at my cv and think, 'Oh, nice PhD, nice publications, but this is just some professional adjunct.'

Fair questions, and I'm not entirely sure what the answers are for the job market as a whole. But I will say this: having worked and hired many times at a teaching-focused institution, I think the OP's experience adjuncting while in grad school will only help them (and may even help them significantly) when applying for positions at schools like mine.

In my experience, one of the biggest problems that new job candidates who are ABD or just out of grad school can have for jobs like these is simply not having enough solo teaching experience (particularly experience teaching multiple classes at the same time, which is much more difficult than just teaching one, as one typically does in grad school). The OP's experience adjuncting is likely to not only demonstrate greater experience in teaching, but also suggest to hiring committees that they value teaching (as they have chosen to pursue teaching opportunities rather than focus solely or primarily on research). Both of these things are likely to look good to hiring committees at teaching-focused institutions. So, if I were the OP and applying to jobs at SLACs or community colleges, I would by all means list their adjunct work under Employment, but list Employment beneath Education--as that will highlight the fact that they are still in grad school and adjuncting at the same time (which, again, I think is likely to look great for teaching-focused jobs).

What the OP should do for jobs at research institutions, on the other hand, is not as obvious to me. Should they list their adjunct work under 'Employment', or simply indicate it in the teaching experience section of the CV? I tend to think that CVs should be as perspicuous as possible (and that since adjunct work is employment, it should be listed as such), but then again, maybe that would "send the wrong message" to hiring committees at research institutions? I have no idea (maybe teaching experience will look good to them too!).

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Anyone else with suitable experience with these matters (particularly those who have served on search committees) care to weigh in?

Working at an R1 with an MA (but no PhD) program?

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

I'd be really curious to hear from those who teach at R1s without doctoral programs. In particular, I feel like the vast majority of scholars I know (and hear about) are at schools with PhD programs or those with no graduate students at all. I'd love to know the ways in which having a Masters program is and is not similar to having a PhD program and is and is not similar to not having grad students at all.

[A]nything that people might offer on teaching with a masters program (as compared to other setups) would be most appreciated!

Interesting query--any readers have any helpful insights?

Is being an international job-candidate a disadvantage?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an Australian PhD asks:

Just out of curiosity. I applied for many jobs. My estimation is that more than half of the jobs I applied for are in North America. Three years on the job market and I've been through 17 interviews. 5 are for North American jobs. (All first round, no final round compared to all other interviews being for final rounds.) So basically my interview rate for North American jobs are much lower than that of for Uk, European, Australian, New Zealand, and Middle Eastern jobs. Is this a common experience for those who got their degrees not in North America?

Fair question, though I have to say that this person's three years on the job market seem pretty spectacular to me (17 interviews is quite a lot!). It would be great to hear from other job candidates, as well as from search committee members. Is being an international candidate a disadvantage on the US market?

Peer review and special journal issues: should early-career people publish in them?

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

When a journal does a topical special issue volume with guest editors, do those editors tend to do R&Rs like an ordinary journal submission, or are they more likely to simply accept or reject? I realize this will probably differ depending on the SI in question, but I am just trying to get a sense of what the process is like before I submit to one for the first time. Do acceptances/rejections tend to happen faster than the usual rate at that journal? Or are they slower/the same?

Relatedly, as an early career person with a real need for more publications, how do special issue pubs look on a CV to search committees? I take it that they aren't as highly valued as ordinary journal publications, but how much lower are we talking? Is it even worth submitting to them if you're early career with minimal publications?

These are all excellent questions. I don't know all that much about exactly how much the peer-review process for special journal issues differs from standard journal submissions, including whether acceptances/rejections tend to happen more quickly for the former. However, I do know that R&Rs happen (I've had some myself), and my (admittedly anecdotal) sense is that when it comes to invited submissions to special issues or edited volumes, there may be some presumption in favor of publication (whereas there is no such presumption for normal, non-invited submissions), and of course the editor for the special issue will know who you are, so the peer-review process won't be triple-anonymized.

In terms of how publications in special issues look to search committees, this is a tough one. A big part of the problem is that a search committee really doesn't know exactly what (or how rigorous) the peer-review process was. My sense is that (rightly or wrongly) some people may suspect that inclusion in a special issue may be at least as much about having good professional connections as it is about the quality of one's work--and this concern might be especially salient if it's an early-career person (and job candidate) who hasn't otherwise published much via the standard in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, I've definitely heard this kind of concern voiced before: that it's hard to know what to make of a candidate with a bunch of invited/special publications but few (or no) standard journal publications.

So, my sense (though it could be wrong) is that if you've published fairly well in peer-reviewed journals already the standard way, then publishing in special issues is probably just fine (and perhaps even a positive)--but that if you have "minimal publications" (like OP states), then submitting to special issues may not be the best way to go. It may make more sense to build up your CV with standard journal publications first.

Then again, perhaps a lot depends on the quality of the journal (e.g. is a special issue of Mind?), and perhaps I'm wrong and  special issue publications look good to some search committees (perhaps at institutions where perceived reputation matters?). Anyway, not sure. What do you all think? It would be great to hear more both about the publication process for special issues, as well as how search committees perceive/weigh such publications.

Fashion advice for campus visits?

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

Maybe this has been asked before and I'm just having trouble finding it on the blog, but I would love some fashion advice about what to wear for a fly-out as a lady.

We actually had a discussion thread on dressing for campus-visits back in 2021, where someone linked to this thread on advice for women candidates. But I know norms are constantly changing, and if anyone has any helpful tips (particularly past job candidates and members of hiring committees!), please do feel free to weigh in!