The Philosophers' Cocoon

Writing good grad school recommendation letters?

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

Question(s) about writing a letter of recommendation for a student applying to philosophy graduate programs:
1. How long is your letter? 2 pages single-spaced?
2. How detailed should it be? For instance, should one spend a paragraph explaining the student's thesis?
3. What do you typically highlight?

These are all excellent questions. I've written a fair number of recommendation letters and had fairly decent success at having students accepted into good programs. I'd say my typical letter is about 2 pages, though in one case I wrote a 5 page letter about a student that I felt really strongly about. In terms of how detailed, I think that depends, but I typically try to highlight what is interesting and original about their work as well as relevant personal qualities (such as diligence, ability to handle setbacks, feedback, engage others philosophically in conversation, etc.) that seem relevant to me to likely success in a grad program.

At my university, philosophy majors don't typically write theses, but if the student wrote some excellent papers (including an independent study paper), then of course I'll discuss one or two of those. I also try to make the overall strength of my recommendation clear (e.g. "they have my highest recommendation"), and also say something about how they compare to other students (e.g. "this is the best student that I've had in 20 years of teaching", "they are one of the 10 best students that I've had", "they are in the top 10% of students that I've had", etc.)--as I've heard many times that grad admissions committees look for this sort of thing.

Anyway, these are just some things I do. It would be great to hear from other letter writers, as well as from grad school admissions committee members on the kinds of things they look for in a good letter!

Norms for supervising students & co-authorship

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

I am wondering about the norms of supervising students, with regard to the content. For one, it's clear that one needs to suggest readings and clues, read the drafts, provide comments, suggestions and criticism. But how much more? For example, should you suggest substantial positive claims to be included in the thesis? What are the norms of co-authorship in such cases? What else should you take into account for responsible and fruitful supervising?

These are really excellent questions, ones that I've grappled with myself. When working with students, I take it that you don't want to "give them the answers" (or what you think the answers are to what they're working on), as it's important for them to grapple with and work out the issues themselves. At the same time, as professors we do give students a lot of feedback, both through discussion and paper comments. The question then is how to get this balance (between helping them work through problems and letting them work through the problems) correct. I'm not entirely sure how to best approximate this balance. In my case, I just try to "feel it through", guiding my students some but trying to give them space to work things out themselves. But I recognize that this probably isn't very helpful. So I'd love to hear tips from readers, including about norms of co-authorship with students!

Tips for running a reading group?

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

I am thinking of running a reading group with a few early graduate students, some of which [are] working with myself. But I don't have much experience with this. I can imagine different options for the structure, content, etc. I would be grateful if you could share you advice and experience.

This is a great query. Anyone have any helpful tips on what works well (and what doesn't)?

Funding to Start Mentoring Programs for Underrepresented Undergraduates

By Wes Siscoe (Postdoc, University of Cologne)

Philosophy has a “leaky pipeline” problem. Even though the racial and gender diversity of philosophy undergraduates has been increasing, underrepresented students are still far less likely to complete graduate study in philosophy. From 2000 to 2016, the percentage of philosophy majors who identified as Black rose steadily from 3% to 13%, but the percentage of philosophy PhD recipients who identified as Black only rose from 1.5% to 4%. During that same time, the percentage of philosophy majors who identified as women rose from 35% to 45%, but the percentage of philosophy PhD recipients who identified as women remained below 35%. Thus, although the number of minority students within undergraduate philosophy programs is increasing, this growth has not shown up to the same degree at the graduate level. There is a leak in the pipeline that runs from undergraduate philosophy to philosophy PhD programs.

In order to combat this leaky pipeline, Lauren Willson and I are now accepting proposals to create seed chapters of the Minorities and Philosophy Mentoring Program.  Through funding provided by the APA, selected applicants will receive a $1,000 stipend, prepared mentoring materials, and year-long consulting sessions to support their work in launching and developing their programs.  Applying Program Directors must be graduate students in philosophy during the 2022-2023 academic year in order to be eligible (M.A. and PhD students are both welcome to apply).  The PhilJobs posting about this opportunity can be found here.

The original chapter of the MAP Mentoring Program was founded at Florida State University during the 2020-2021 academic year.  Original program staffing included one Program Director and 14 graduate student mentors.  The Program Director was responsible for overseeing all elements of the program, including expanding institutional support for the program, scheduling meetings to inform all team members of upcoming responsibilities, and troubleshooting any problems that arose during the creation of the program. Mentors were responsible both for forming a relationship with students in which mentees felt comfortable sharing some of the challenges and obstacles they face within philosophy and helping them reflect on and pursue various academic and career opportunities.

Penn State Summer CUSP Institute

SUMMER CUSP INSTITUTE (This Institute will take place in person at the Penn State University Park campus.)

PENN STATE UNIVERSITY - DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

JUNE 6-10, 2022

APPLICATIONS ARE DUE APRIL 14TH

Summer CUSP Institute is held in the summer for undergraduates who are normally in their second or third year of study and are considering pursuing a career in Philosophy. For a week, students will attend seminars designed to cultivate the skill sets necessary to excel in the field in Philosophy.

If you are interested in applying, please review the application components and fill out our online application when your materials are ready.

The goals of the CUSP Summer Institute are to:

• Increase the knowledge of, and interest in, doctoral-level training in philosophy.
• Provide one-on-one meetings with faculty focused on strengthening philosophical writing and presentations; seminars and workshops to refine students' critical reading and writing skills.
• Enhance students' knowledge of the graduate application process, negotiating the academic rigors and professional and personal challenges encountered in graduate school, and developing an academic career in philosophy.  
• Provide long-term mentoring and networking opportunities with faculty members and graduate students at Penn State.

You are eligible to participate in the Summer Institute if:

• You are a member of a traditionally underrepresented group (including African Americans, Chicano/as and Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asian Americans).
• You are available from June 6th, 2022 to June 10th, 2022.

During the selection process, preference will be given to current undergraduate sophomores or juniors; however, others are still encouraged to apply.

Please visit our website to learn more about application criteria, previous cohorts, and our Fall CUSP program: https://sites.psu.edu/cusp/

Tips for supervising grad students?

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

I am an advanced assistant professor getting ready to start supervising both an MA student and a PhD student for the first time. I would love to hear advice about how to do this well.

This is a great query. I haven't supervised grad students myself, so I'm not sure there's much that I can say. But it would be great to hear from readers--not only those who have experience supervising grad students, but also from grad students themselves! Do any of you have any tips or advice on how to supervise MA and PhD students well? Any do's or don'ts?

How to improve (online) networking experiences

A commonly heard complaint about virtual conferences and other scholarly gatherings is that the network aspect is missing. When we gather in person, there are many opportunities to informally connect to others. In particular, for junior scholars, attending an in-person conference affords possibilities of fostering professional relationships outside of our immediate work environment. This not only helps them get their name out, but is also a source of picking up on professional trends, and even developing productive collaborations with peers as well as more junior and senior scholars.  

However, there are also problems.  The following tweet by a former community college instructor, currently university instructor, Emily Brier, highlights a major drawback of in-person networking: 

Anybody want to talk about how as an MA student at conferences nobody (and I mean NOBODY) would talk to me, and when I was a CC instructor nobody TT [tenure track]  would talk to me, and how conferences often just reinscribe hierarchy in ways that show why TT folks are itching to go back FTF?

This experience may strike a familiar chord with most people. If you are a grad student, especially from a smaller institution, or from a non-prestigious institution, it is hard to even begin a conversation with others. 

In my experience of many years ago at the APA "Smoker" reception, I mainly stood around with a glass in my hand as people swerved around the room looking to speak to people from the most elite institutions. Eventually, I worked up enough courage to talk to a few others quiet bystanders. I mainly spoke to fellow early career people, which was nice enough. The power of peer mentoring should not be discounted. Still, if networking in the form of informal connection to more senior members of the profession is to be a major aim of face to face conferencing, we fall short of that aim.

Moreover, people who cannot shell out the money, or for other reasons (e.g., disability, illness, caregiving responsibilities) cannot attend an in-person conference also miss out on informal relationships. 

With the 2+1 campaign, the Philosophers for Sustainability (of which I am a member) are petitioning the APA to hold one or two of its divisional meetings per year online. You can read more about the campaign here, the reasons for it, and sign if you agree. One thing we hope to accomplish is to create a white paper on the topic of informal networking and mentorship, and how to do it online. 

For these reasons, I would like to see suggestions by Cocoon readers on what they think could be improved in networking and informal mentorship. What are the ways it could be improved? What platforms, formats, and other ideas do you have to accomplish it? 

--

Many thanks to Colin Marshall, Eugene Chislenko, Jeremy Bendik-Keymer and other members of Philosophers for Sustainability. I post this in a personal capacity, but with support of Philosophers for Sustainability, who are keen to develop a white paper on how to help foster relationships and networking opportunities in formats other than in-person conferencing.

Creating opportunities for informal mentoring?

Last week, we discussed conferences and professional hierarchies, and our own Helen De Cruz's question on Twitter: How can conferences provide more equitable opportunities for informal networking? However, Helen also followed this up with a more general question: how can we create opportunities for informal mentoring outside of conferences? 

This is an excellent question. While I know that some universities have formal mentoring programs for faculty, I've benefitted tremendously from informal forms of mentorship over the course of my career. In my case, developing these kinds of informal relationships occurred in two ways:

1. Simply approaching senior people I had some previous relationship with to ask for help.
2. Meeting and getting to know people at conferences or summer programs that I applied to and was able to attend.

Then, of course, there are formal mentoring programs, such as the Mentoring Program for Early-Career Women* Faculty in Philosophy, as well as the Cocoon's Job Market Mentoring Program. But, I think Helen asks a great question. How can individuals and/or institutions create informal opportunities for mentoring outside of conferences and programs like these? I think it would be great to hear tips and experiences from readers!

Summer Program for the Advancement of Women in Philosophy (UC San Diego)

A reader wrote in about the following Summer Program for the Advancement of Women in Philosophy (SPAWP) at UC San Diego:

SPAWP is a ten-day program for undergraduates who are interested in pursuing graduate study in philosophy while promoting gender inclusivity. SPAWP is hosted by the UC San Diego Philosophy Department, and features philosophy seminar courses taught by visiting and UC San Diego faculty, along with a variety of workshops taught by faculty and graduate students — all geared towards providing an engaging philosophical learning experience and helpful preparation for applying to and succeeding at graduate school in philosophy and beyond.

Readers should note that "this year's SPAWP 2022 will be held remotely via Zoom." The application deadline is February 15th.

Mentoring project for early-career women* philosophers

From Carol Hay (UMass Lowell) on Twitter:

Mark your calendars and spread the word! The 6th Biennial Mentoring Project Workshop for Early Career Women* Faculty in Philosophy will take place July 23-25 2023 at the University of Missouri https://marcsandersfoundation.org/the-mentoring-project/mentoring-workshop/

This seems like a great endeavor. For more details, visit the link above!

The problem with "don't go to grad school" advice

You are a professor at a small liberal arts college. A bright student approaches you and says she is considering graduate school in philosophy. She loves philosophy and wants to dive deeper into it. She foresees a life of the mind where she might do this for a living.

Oh, your heart just breaks. This student is so excellent. Her final paper for your philosophy of science course blew you away. Still, you steel your heart and give her the advice that not only is sensible, but that strikes you as your moral duty to tell her.  

"Just don't do it!" you say. "Just don't go to grad school. The philosophy academic job market is abysmal for years, and now with Covid it's gone even further down."

You might temper this advice by saying that maybe she can consider it if she cannot imagine doing anything else (this is terrible advice, btw, but that's for another time), or only if she can get into a top program.

On the face of it, it seems straightforward to give this advice. We might even think we have a moral duty to actively discourage a student who contemplates getting a PhD in philosophy. 

But there is a fundamental problem--the advice takes away the student's agency. This piece by Tracy Evans, who started a PhD at age 60 is illuminating. Evans is privileged in many respects. She already had a long career already behind her when she "heeded the call to change". Yet, her reasons for embarking on the PhD are, I think, recognizable to many of us. As she writes, "'What do you intend to do with a Ph.D.?' [my colleagues] asked. 'It is all about the journey,' I responded. She goes on to quote one of her favorite authors, Ursula K Le Guin, who wrote  “It is good to have an end to journey towards, but it is the journey that matters in the end.”

Did you receive adequate mentoring?

Laurence B. McCullough (Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Baylor) writes in:

As a retired professor, I follow your blog to keep up with what is happening in the world of philosophy.  I spent my career as a medical educator.  In the Baylor Center we (Baruch Brody and I, then the only two senior faculty) had a program for mentoring for all junior faculty.  We met with our colleagues regularly both formally and informally, read their work, advised them on academic matters, etc. 

We called what we did mentoring for success.  For example, Baruch and I mentored a junior colleague who followed Baruch as Director of our Center and therefore as my boss before I retired.  This is common, and a point of considerable pride, in the world of medical education. 

I am struck as I follow the postings on your blog by the absence of mention or mentorship.  I benefitted from mentoring when I was junior faculty, especially from a philosophy colleague at Texas A&M (where I was on medical and philosophy faculties and my first position).  I get the sense that many of our colleagues whose comments you post have no mentoring.  Perhaps mentoring – the absence of it, when it helps, when it does not help – would make a good topic for your blog.

This is an excellent query, and I'm thinking of running a short series on the topic. But, before I move forward with that, I'd like to ask the Cocoon's readers a few questions:

1. If you are a current or recent graduate student, what kind of mentoring are you receiving (viz. research, teaching, professionalization, the job market, etc.) have you received or are you receiving? Do you think the mentoring you've received is appropriate/adequate? Why/why not?
2. If you are or recently were a junior faculty member (e.g. a postdoc, TT faculty, non-TT faculty, etc.), what kind of mentoring have you received or are you receiving? Do you consider it appropriate/adequate? Why/why not?