The Philosophers' Cocoon

Pub-Impeding VAP vs. Pub-Conducive Adjuncting?

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

I received my PhD this spring. No pubs yet. Extracting papers from my dissertation has taken a long time. I'm well-positioned for 3 decent, but far-from-elite pubs over the next year. As for this year’s job market: at best, 1 pub *very* late into the job-market season.

I gather there’s a good chance I’ll face the following choice:

(A) Pub-Impeding VAP: Take a VAP with a 4/4 load that includes major preps, not to mention moving. Being realistic, this will lead to little pub-work getting done.

(B) Pub-Conducive Adjuncting: Local adjuncting with classes requiring very little prep. This would be highly conducive to getting pubs over the next year.

I would pick (B) in a heartbeat but have heard that doing so would have significant costs when going on the market in 2020-2021, especially since it took me forever to finish the PhD.

Would it?

I think this is a great question, and am very curious to hear what everyone thinks. My own sense is that (A) is probably the better bet, and for a couple of reasons.

Writing diversity & inclusion statements

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

Nearly every single job ad I read says something like the following: "Please explain how your research, teaching, or service would/do contribute to a climate of diversity and inclusivity."

Are there effective ways to do this without sounding too on the nose, so to speak?

I would love for committee members to speak to how they think this can be done effectively because it is so pervasive in job ads now.

What are you looking for?

My general worry is that things I say come across as forced/disingenuous, i.e. "I make sure I include non-canonical texts in my courses."

Good questions. I have heard a lot of job candidates raise similar questions, saying they have no idea what to write in these things. My guess is that the thing to do is to simply report any clear ways you have been involved in diversity and inclusion efforts (at a department or university level), as well as any things you actually do in the classroom like the kinds of things anon mentions. But beyond that, I have no idea. It would be great to hear from some search committee members on this!

Student evaluations: what to include in a dossier

In the comments section of the teaching portfolio entry in our Job-Market Boot Camp, Grad Student Z writes:

Thanks for this (and all the other) helpful posts. Do you think there is a reason to include unedited student comments as opposed to a selection of student comments along with a website link to the original evaluations (including student comments)?

I'm also wondering how to approach the quantitative data in the following cases:

(i) You are slightly below university and department averages (e.g., less than a 1 point difference with 5 being the maximum) for a particular semester (e.g., your first time teaching), but above those averages for subsequent semesters. Is it worth including all of the data with the the hope that committees will interpret this as exhibiting improvement over time?

(ii) You are above university averages, but slightly below department averages (e.g., less than a 1 point difference with 5 being the maximum). Would you recommend only including a comparison to the university averages (and excluding the department averages)? Or could that come across as if you have something to hide?

(iii) On some metrics, you are above university averages, but below department averages; on others, you are above department averages, but below university averages. Should you include everything? Nothing?

Good questions! I don't think there are any hard and fast rules for any of these things, but want to suggest it is probably best for candidates to try to (A) frame themselves in the best light, while (B) not looking like they are trying to hide anything. Let me explain.

Against letters of recommendation

Helen has an important post up at the APA blog about why job-apps should no longer involve letters of recommendation. While I am personally very thankful to those who have written me letters, I wholeheartedly agree with Helen's take that letters in general are more problematic than they are worth. I'd just add that I think the "ghostwriting" issue is a very serious one. Helen writes:

I’ve also seen and heard (especially in Europe, but  I’m not sure how widespread this is elsewhere) that letter writers request the candidate to write their own letter. This demand puts candidates in a terrible bind—it is very difficult to sing one’s own praises with conviction. There are even blogs detailing how to ghostwrite your own letter. The evidential value of a ghostwritten letter is zero.

At a recent event, I met several people who told me they did this as a job-candidate: that their letter-writer(s) had them write their own recommendation letter. I have to confess to being totally flummoxed as to how common this apparently is, and how anyone could think it is ethical!

The job-market across time

In response to my previous post asking how the job market looks, Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced) posted the following graph on Twitter on how the academic job-market in philosophy has looked up to this point in time (8/1-10/10) over the past seven years:

As you can see, the job-market has been basically flat. Last year's market was a bit better than this year's at this point, but this year's market is roughly on par or a bit better than several years prior. Many thanks to Carolyn for sharing this!

How does the market look?

A few weeks ago in our job-market discussion thread, some people remarked that the job-market looked pretty bad so far, with fewer jobs this year than last year at the same time. I've been following job listing at PhilJobs and Higher Ed Jobs, and it seems to me that there's been a deluge of jobs posted recently. So, how does the market look on the whole now? Also, which areas seem to be hiring this year? Which areas aren't? I'm curious to hear people's impressions.

Submitting extra/optional application materials?

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, 'job applicant' writes:

Should applicants submit materials that are "optional"? Will it hurt our chances if we don't? This is a general question, but the ad I'm thinking of gives very specific instructions about the documents the applicant must submit and does not mention any optional documents. It's only while working on the application through the university's website that one sees one may upload additional optional documents (research statement, cover letter, etc.). If submitting optional materials increases one's chances, I'll do it, but if it doesn't, I'd rather not spend the additional precious time it takes to do it. And if it will or even just may make a difference, I wonder why these documents aren't just listed as required.

This is a great question. Someone recently asked me, for example, whether they should upload a diversity statement if they have the chance, in cases where a job ad mentions diversity but doesn't explicitly ask for a diversity statement. I guess I'm inclined to think that candidates should upload exactly what is asked for (and no more), as uploading additional documents might rub search committee members the wrong way (viz. the applicant trying to give themselves an unfair advantage). However, I'm not sure about this. 

What do readers think (not just about the example I gave, but about job applicant's query in general)?

CV's: norms for listing work

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, 'ostdoc' writes:

I was recently invited to write a book review. I am a young scholar, and having the book review on my CV would be useful for job applications. The question is, when can I list the book review on my CV? Since it isn't refereed, it (barring doing a terrible job) won't be rejected. Can I list it as forthcoming already? Can I list it as expected? What the the norms on this?

'An editor...' replied:

I certainly would not list it before you submit it to the journal. It does not exist yet, and it may not. Once submitted it is a different matter.

And I added:

editor is right. Never list something as forthcoming unless it has been officially accepted. You may list it at this point as “commissioned.”

I think this is an important issue. A recent study went around my social media last week indicating that academics routinely misrepresent things on their CVs. My own sense, having seen some CVs with misleading stuff, is that at least sometimes, people aren't even aware that they are misrepresenting things (though I am sure in other cases people are well aware of what they are doing). By my lights, the right thing to do in every case is to be forthright about exactly where a given piece of work is in the process. If it's a paper that's not finished or under review, list it as 'in preparation.' If it is book review or book chapter that you have been commissioned to do, then until it is accepted, list it as 'commissioned.' If you have a book under contract but the final manuscript isn't accepted yet, list it as 'under contract.' Only list something as forthcoming after the final manuscript has been officially accepted. Does anyone disagree? Are there are any norms I'm missing?

One final thought: the initial commenter here, 'ostdoc', writes that "having the book review on my CV would be useful for job applications." I think it is worth discussing whether this is true. Back when I was in grad school, I vaguely recall some other grad students thinking that book reviews might help them on the market. I thought then, and still think now, that this is almost certainly not true. Perhaps having a book review on your CV will look 'better than nothing' (if you have no other publications). However, I very much doubt that book reviews play any significant role in how search committees evaluate candidates. When it comes to research, my sense is that people on the hiring side of things are interested primarily (and perhaps entirely) in candidates' capacities for publishing original work. But perhaps I am wrong about this. 

What do readers 'in the know' think?

A writing sample dilemma

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

I claim two AOS, A and B. I plan on applying to jobs in AOS A, but all of my current work on A is co-authored. (Just one other co-author, and it's fully jointly authored.) My ordinary writing sample is in in AOS B, but it's single-authored.

For those jobs that are looking for AOS A, should I (1) send my regular writing sample from AOS B, which is single-authored but on a different AOS; (2) send my co-authored paper on AOS A; (3) do some combination, or (4) something else entirely?

Good question. I've heard over and over again that it is a really bad idea to submit co-authored pieces as writing samples. This may be entirely unfair (co-authorship is standard in many academic fields, and increasing in philosophy), but the general thought is that search committees want to know your philosophical 'chops' and co-authored pieces make it unclear what exactly you have done and what is the work of your co-authors. So, I am inclined to think option (1) is probably the way to go, at least for jobs that only permit one writing sample. The ideal case, I think, is to submit both pieces, but in my experience very few jobs request multiple writing samples or even permit them in the file-upload process.

What do you all think?

The Cocoon goes global: Being a philosopher in Indonesia (guest post by Tiddy Smith)

Updated: comments now open!

We are excited to start a new series on the Cocoon entitled The Cocoon Goes Global, where we will host guest posts by philosophers who work in countries that are outside of the anglophone western world. We will feature philosophers who work in places such as Germany, China, Singapore, South Korea, Colombia, Chile, Belgium, Turkey, and much more. These posts will give you a sense of what's it like to work in these countries, and also sketch the job market. We will focus on people who work in academic posts (but they don't need to be tenure track positions). If you fit these criteria and would like to be featured, please let us know! Here is our first installment. 

Being an academic philosopher in Indonesia, by Tiddy Smith, University of Indonesia. 

In 2017, I completed my PhD at the University of Otago. That’s probably when everything started to unravel. Having lived a blissful life of steady study and a paycheck, I was plunged into the abyss, the nightmare, the academic purgatory known as the Real World. I applied for well over a hundred academic positions, and received three interviews, only one of which went particularly well. After this particular rejection, I asked the interviewer how I could have performed better, he simply responded: “You couldn’t have. Someone else just was better.” I had published in premier journals and had a book in press. Yet everyone else seemed to have published in better venues, with a couple of books under their belt, and were probably booked for the next series of John Locke lectures. I decided, at this point, to change tack.

Rewind the clock a decade. I lived in Jakarta. I taught English as a foreign language to rich kids at a private school. During my time there, I became semi-conversational in Bahasa Indonesia, and familiar with all the local hazards (floods, fires, and terrible beasties called “tomcats”. Trust me, google it). Since that time, I have always had a soft spot for Indonesia. I love the food. I love the people. I love the language. It contains some of the most paradisiacal islands of our solar system, and probably the next one over too. After my hundred and somethingth rejection, I began to investigate whether Indonesian universities would be interested in my application. After a year of negotiations, some aspects of which are still in progress, I am now employed as an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Indonesia (roughly speaking, this is equal to an adjunct assistant professor position, in US terms). 

Indonesia is home to 265 million people, of which 150 million live on the island of Java. The country claims around 4,000 higher education institutions, though most of these are of undeniably poor quality in terms of teaching and research (the government’s own assessment states that 77% of these institutions are substandard). Around 120 of these institutions are state universities, and there are many more private universities. Of these, three universities stand out as both prestigious and productive in research and teaching. These three are the University of Indonesia (Universitas Indonesia, Depok), Gadjah Mada University (Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta), and the Bandung Institute of Technology (Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung). The University of Indonesia excels in Law and Medicine. Gadjah Mada excels in humanities and social science, and the Bandung Institute of Technology excels in Engineering and Business. All three universities feature in the latest QS World University rankings, and are ranked 296, 320, and 331 respectively.

Until 2018, foreign lecturers could not be directly employed by these universities as permanent members of academic staff. However, law changes by president Joko Widodo (affectionately known as “Jokowi”) have opened the doors for foreign lecturers to enter the academic job market for the first time. Unfortunately, this law change has not been much exploited by the universities in question. Few, if any, have so much as advertised academic vacancies online or in international venues. Part of the reason for this is that the question of just how these institutions should go about employing foreign staff remains a bureaucratic mystery. The visa process is not only complex, but ever-changing, and still more changes are anticipated in the wake of Jokowi’s law change. There is talk of the introduction of a new kind of academic visa, but this seems only to underline the uncertainty and difficulty of the existing process. The problem is also exacerbated by an existing practice within the universities to employ “by appointment”, in a way which can be prone to institutional nepotism. Without any reform to the employment process, the chances are slim that a great influx of foreign lecturers will soon come to the country. In any case, intrepid candidates who are interested in the possibility of employment at an Indonesian university would be most sensible to make themselves known to their department of interest directly. That is what I did.

Average time to TT job analysis

One issue that philosophers on the job-market face is how long to stay on the market in pursuit of a tenure-track job. Although each case is different (it took me seven years, and I've known a few people it took over 10 years), Lee Elkin posted this interesting analysis of how long it takes on average for those who do get TT jobs. Evidently the mean time is 1.86 years post-PhD. Here's a graph of the distribution:

Job apps: how confidential are they?

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

I have a TT position and a department near my own is hiring. I am a good fit for the position and plan on applying. But I'm a bit worried that my current department will find out if I apply. Are SCs generally good about keeping things confidential in these cases? Or do you know of exceptions? What should I include in my cover letter, other than a request for confidentiality? I won't say anything negative about anyone or anything, but I'd wondering if I need to actually say something that I wouldn't say if I were applying from across the country.

I would sure hope that job applications are treated confidentially! Still, the world often isn't how we hope it to be. What's the reality here? Does anyone have any experience relevant to worried's concerns?

Job-market reporting thread (2019-20 season)

Each year, readers ask for threads for discussing and reporting news on the job-market. I recently posted this season's discussion thread here. Please visit that thread if you are interested in discussing/commiserating about this year's market. The current thread (below) is for reporting news on the market (i.e. reporting interviews, flyouts, offers, hires, and so on). Although it should go without saying, commenters are asked to please remember the Cocoon's supportive mission while reporting. A link to this thread will remain on the blog's right sidebar for the remainder of the job season.

What It's Like to Apply for a Job In Academic Philosophy

Back in the spring when I was getting close to the end of my job market run, I screen-recorded some footage of filling out a few applications with the intention of editing it together as a sort-of sneak peek for graduate students who wondered what the application process actually looks like. After a long hiatus from thinking about anything related to the job market, I finally returned to that material and finished the video. It's nothing too grand, but I figure it might be a useful tool for placement directors or curious graduate students. Over 12 minutes, I run through the essential elements of completing an application, including short sections on editing PDFs and using Interfolio to upload letters of recommendation. Audio narration could have been a bit louder, but such are the growing pains of working with a new microphone.

In most of the footage, my on-screen actions are portrayed at 1.5x or 2x speed, so don't expect that you'll be blitzing through these applications as quickly as I did in this video. Also, for reasons that will become obvious, anime fans are likely to enjoy this video a little more than other people.

Research standards for tenure

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, curious asks: "How many articles are usually required for getting tenure (at R1s, SLACs, etc.)? Does the journal's impact factor matter?" I'm glad someone asked this, as my sense is that a lot of people may be unaware of just how much variation there can be in tenure and promotions standards and processes.

In response to curious's query, anonymous writes:

curious: there is too much variation in the answer to your question for there to be a meaningful answer; and also, at almost nowhere is a certain magical number of publications either necessary or sufficient for tenure.

I think this is exactly right. Job-marketeers need to be aware that tenure and promotion standards can vary wildly by institution. For example, I know someone who received tenure at a very teaching-oriented SLAC with a single publication. Why? Presumably, because their institution primarily focuses on undergraduate teaching. Obviously, that wouldn't fly at an R1, nor I think would it fly at many other SLACs. At my liberal arts university, for example, the expectations generally seem to be substantially higher than that. The people I've seen tenured here generally "publish consistently" in peer-reviewed journals. Also, although citations are mentioned in our criteria for tenure and promotion, nowhere in our handbook's criteria for tenure or promotion are journal-rankings or journal impact-factors mentioned. 

My sense is that tenure standards can vary just as much at R1's. I've heard that at some R1's, tenure standards are fairly clear: that the expectation is something like one publication in a highly-ranked journal per year (so, something like 6 highly-ranked publications when coming up for tenure). However, I've heard that other R1's basically make tenure decisions on the basis of whether someone has become a Big Name in their field--such that if a candidate has published in top journals but no one recognizes or engages their work, they could still be denied tenure.

Finally, it is vital to recognize that tenure and promotion processes can vary a great deal by institution. In response to curious's initial query, Anon prof wrote:

curious:
Your tenure file will be evaluated by people in your subfield, typically, who will write letters for you. The letters will (likely) take into account the publication venue as well as the importance of your work for the subfield and its quality. If you are genuinely unsure, talk to people who might be called upon to write letters for you and ask them how they would rate your work relative to the position that you hold. Or, look at the publication records of people who recently got tenure at various institutions.

My sense is that this is how a lot of people think tenure and promotion works everywhere. However, as I noted in follow-up comment, it isn't. At some universities (including my own), your tenure file is not evaluated by outside people in your subfield. Instead, the process is carried out "in house." Here again, candidates should be aware of these differences, and ideally find out what the T&P process and standards are like at institutions before they accept an offer!

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It might be good to hear from people at various institutions: what are your university's tenure and promotion process and (research) standards like?

Advice on foreign job-markets?

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

I have a TT job and I would like to move to continental Europe for a number of reasons (spouse). Ideal location: France.
It would be great if you had a few posts (from guests contributors?) on the European job market. (I mean: places like: Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Portugal etc.)

I think some guest posts on this is a great idea, and I'll plan to look into it! For the time being, though, anyone care to chime in here with tips for 'someone'? What does it take (e.g. for a tenure-stream person) in the States to be competitive for jobs in Europe? 

Query about foreign job titles & ranks

A reader writes in:

I have a question for you concerning the philosophy job market between the US and the UK. If someone is an Assistant Professor in the U.S., and they want to apply for a position in Europe, are they only eligible for 'Lecturer' or do they have a shot at 'Senior Lecturer'? More generally, what is the difference between Lecturer/Senior Lecturer and Assistant Professor/Associate Professor?

Good questions. I've often wondered about this myself. I was under the impression that Lecturer is basically equivalent to Assistant Professor in the US and Senior Lecturer equivalent to Associate. But then sometimes I see advertisements abroad for Assistant and Associate Professor positions. Anyone able to clear these things up?

Job market survey/study

The following post was submitted to the Cocoon by Charles Lassiter (philosophy, Gonzaga University) and two collaborators, Shane Wilkins (philosophy, USDA) and Sarah Arpin (psychology, Gonzaga):

Dear philosophy job seekers,

If you are planning to apply for academic jobs this year, we hope you'll consider participating in our study "The Philosophy Job Market: Applicant Profiles and CV Review." Our aim in this first phase is to get a picture of job market applicants: what journals are they publishing in (if at all)? for how many classes are they the instructor of record (if at all)? There has been, as far as we know, no systematic attempt to collect information about people going into the job market. In the second phase of this study, we will the collected information to randomly generate CVs and investigate the behavior of potential search committee members in reviewing them.

In consultation with the Gonzaga University IRB, it was determined that IRB approval was not needed for this phase project. IRB approval will be obtained for the second phase. Nonetheless, all responses will be kept private and information secured on the hard drives of the investigators. Results will be made available at leiterreports.typepad.com, dailynous.com, philosopherscocoon.typepad.com, and philarchive.org

The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. Participants will be entered into a drawing for two $25 Amazon gift cards. If you are willing to participate, you can find the survey here. Please email Charles Lassiter at lassiter@gonzaga.edu if you have any questions.

Getting rec-letters many years post-PhD

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

An earlier post discussed explaining why one is going on the market from a tenure-track (or tenured) position, but I'm wondering specifically about application materials and letters: if one has been out of grad school for 5-10 years, and hasn't kept in particularly close contact with advisors, who should one ask for letters of recommendation? In general, how does one go about putting together application materials when applying from a more advanced career stage? (I'm realizing everything I know about going on the job market, I learned as a grad student or post-doc!)

Bm then replied:

When are on the market looking for a new tenured job at another place, you should get letters from senior researchers who know your work. Ideally, at that stage, there are such people who you have been in contact with because they like what you have done. If there are none, your chances of moving are close to nil, unless you are pitching yourself as someone with administrative skills - for example, willing to chair a department who cannot find a chair among themselves. But then you must have chairing experience.

Fair enough. Notice, though, that Bm doesn't mention how Al might end in contact with senior people who like their work. Do senior people just email you out of the blue saying, "I love your work"? Presumably not, for the most part. I take it that in order for someone like Al to end up in contact with senior people who look favorably on their work, there are probably things Al needs to do: be active at conferences and the like, trade work with other people for mutual feedback, and so on. But is there more that Al could or should be doing? I guess I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask for advice here, as I don't fancy myself much of a "networker". Does anyone have any helpful practical advice for Al?

What kind of teaching experience is best?

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

I’m currently a grad student and I'm relatively free to choose the topics about which I want to (solo-)teach. Would it be better to start developing my teaching portfolio around introductory courses (Introduction to Philosophy, Introduction to Philosophy of Science, Ethics, and so on)? Or rather with more specialized ones (Philosophy of Economics, Philosophy of Mathematics, etc.)? Should I focus on fields and topics related to my dissertation?

Craig replied:

My impression is that the broader courses would be a better choice. People will assume you can teach your research (or, at least, in my experience, they make that assumption). Accordingly, your courses are a chance for you to show breadth, valuable especially for smaller, teaching-focused departments.

I think Craig is absolutely right...

Applying from the tenure-track

In our recent post, "How forthright should cover letters be?", Frogger writes:

Could we revisit this issue since the job cycle/academic year is starting up again? I like my tenure-track job, but there are some tempting tenure-track postings out there already, and I am considering sending out some applications just to see what pans out. How should I market myself?

Great question! Although I've known quite a few people in tenure-track jobs who have gone out again on the market, I don't know how many of them have been successful, or quite what the best way to do so is. I'm tempted to think that in most cases, there isn't anything special to be done: just apply like you would to any job. In some cases, though--if, for example, one is seeking to move from an R1 to a more teaching-focused university, or vice versa--I wonder whether saying something in the cover letter about one's reasons for applying might make sense. Not sure though. What do you all think? It might be great to hear from some search-committee members!

Applying for political science jobs

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Political Philosopher asks:

I am a political philosopher with a PhD in philosophy considering applying to some political theory jobs (in polisci departments). Does anyone have any experience with this? Are both sorts of departments looking for different things, or can I basically use the same materials for both political philosophy and political theory jobs?

Great questions. I applied to some political science jobs during my time on the market, without any luck. I wonder if there are any readers out there who have had any luck with them, and who are now working in political science departments. What differences should candidates be aware of?

Letters of recommendation from temporary positions

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Ano(n)ther VAP writes:

What are the boundaries of decorum on asking for letters of recommendation from a temporary position?

I'm a 1-year VAP this coming year, doing a sabbatical replacement for a well-known senior philosopher in area X (I also work in area X). If possible, obviously it'd be an asset to have this senior person's support as I go on the market again. But they aren't going to be around town or campus much, so there's not much of an opportunity to naturally build rapport.

Would it be strange to ask something like: "Given that I'm going on the market again this year, would you be willing to read some of my work and consider writing me a job market letter? Would you also be willing to come into campus to observe my teaching a few times?"

Interesting questions. I do think it would be presumptuous to ask someone to come in during their sabbatical to observe one's teaching. I'm less sure about whether it might be worth asking the person if they are willing to read some of your work, and if they like it, to write you a letter. In general, my approach to letters has always been roughly: it doesn't hurt to ask. This approach worked for me surprisingly well on the market, as the people I did ask were almost all happy to do so. However, in just about every case, I had some previous interactions with the people I asked--so I wasn't approaching them totally out of the blue. In contrast, in this case, it's not clear that the senior person knows the candidate at all. So I'm really not sure what to advise. I guess my own inclination is to think, "The worst they can do is say no." But what do you all think?

Editing volumes and the market

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

I am currently in an NTT position with a fairly modest publication record. I have ambitions for a TT teaching position.

I have an idea for an edited volume that I believe strongly in but also worry I am just at the wrong stage professionally to do this kind of work and that it doesn't make any sense given the labor and time spent involved and relatively little pay off I might see from it in terms of landing a longer term position.

Does my thinking on this seem about right?

The short answer is: yes, my sense is that anon is thinking about this exactly right. The longer answer is this...

Short dissertation abstracts on CVs?

In the comment thread of our Job-Market Boot Camp post on common CV mistakes, Al writes:

What’s the going view on including a very short dissertation abstract on the Cv? And what about a longer one at the very end? I’m worried this looks too junior/grad student-ish but it seems to be the norm in my department and I can see the point of including it.

I was advised to do this coming out of grad school, but to take it off once I was a few years post-PhD (the rationale that you don't want to convey 'grad student' after a few years). However, having served on four search committees, I guess I'm a bit skeptical about the value of including a short or long dissertation abstract on the CV. What I'm looking for on a CV are qualifications, accomplishments, and fit for the job. Do have the right AOS/AOC? Have you published? Do you have experience teaching the courses we could use to be taught by the new hire? If your CV looks good in these regards, then chances are I'll want to check out your other materials (research statement, writing sample, teaching statement). So I'm really not sure how much there is to be gained by including a dissertation blurb on a CV.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on hiring committees?

Deciding which recommendation letters to use

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

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

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

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

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

'Negative' remarks in research statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interdisciplinarity: good or bad?

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

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

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

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

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

Job-market discussion board (2019-20 season)

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

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

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

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

A few final notes:

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

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

Experiences with joint appointments?

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

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

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

Conference presentations and the market

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

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

Mike Titelbaum replied:

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

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

Any other search committee members willing to weigh in?

Is applying before job deadlines advantageous?

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

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

Mike Titelbaum replied:

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

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

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

TA-ing vs. solo-teaching experience

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

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

Mike Titelbaum responded:

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

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

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

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

Postdoc after professorship?

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

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

Amanda responded:

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

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

 

Experiences with jobs overseas (in autocracies)?

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

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

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

Jobs in history of political thought?

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

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

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

What's your mindset in a TT job?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Continental Programs & the PGR

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

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

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

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

Should candidates have a personalized website?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listing courses one can teach on a CV?

A reader wrote in yesterday:

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

I replied as follows:

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

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

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

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

Tailoring your job-market strategy to your situation

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

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

Mentoring program: mentor feedback

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

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

Question 1 - Types of mentoring provided?:

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

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

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

“Dossier materials, general strategy, encouragement.”

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

“Comments on job materials.”

“CV and cover letter feedback.”

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

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

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

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

“Reviewing and commenting on dossier materials.”

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How forthright should cover letters be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

European program-ranks and the market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior credit toward tenure?

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

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

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

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

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

Query about relocation expenses

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

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

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

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

Amanda then replied:

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

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

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

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