The Philosophers' Cocoon

Tips for choosing a job-talk?

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

I would appreciate advice on how to choose what to present for job talks. How do people go about it? Do they give different talks for different jobs? Do people ever present their writing sample, or other published work? Overall, should one prioritise showing that one has new work and/or work that fits the AOS very well, or rather just giving one's strongest talk?

All good questions. It would be good to hear from job candidates and search committee members!

Non-Traditional Paths into Philosophy (Guest post by Luke William Hunt)

This is the fifth entry in the Cocoon's series, Non-Traditional Paths into Philosophy, a series of guest posts by people who entered academic philosophy later in life or otherwise took a non-traditional path into the field. Today's post is by Luke William Hunt, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama. If you took a non-traditional path into philosophy and are interested in contributing to the series, feel free to email me at [email protected]!

-----

Don’t be an FBI Agent

Luke William Hunt

Here is one concrete piece of advice, for what it’s worth: Do not become an FBI agent as a way to break into academic philosophy. There are probably worse ideas (bank-robber-to-philosopher?), but surely FBI-agent-to-philosopher is near the top of the list of bad ones.    

My sense is that the best way to get a job in academic philosophy is to take a look at the Philosophical Gourmet Report rankings, and then be sure to do your doctoral work at a school that’s very close to the top of the list. Having an article or two in the Philosophical Review would be a good idea, too. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to say this approach gives one the best shot at getting a job in academic philosophy, all things considered. 

Because FBI-agent-to-philosopher is a terrible idea—and because the surefire path may not be a realistic option for a lot of people—this post is for everyone in between: You’re not a bank robber, but neither are you traveling the NYU-by-way-of-Princeton route. (Of course, I welcome reformed bank robbers and Princetonians into the profession.)

My guess is that most people are simply trying to overcome the challenges of becoming a twenty-first-century-philosopher—a decidedly radical career choice. Even if the challenges are reserved for those who are privileged - as those of us who read, write, and teach philosophy surely are – they’re no less frustrating. Some of the challenges I faced were unusual, but I suspect others will sound familiar.

When I was preparing to go through the FBI’s lengthy application process—leading to a spot at Quantico for New Agent Training—I was also studying for the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE). So I was drawn to academia from the beginning: Four months “off” every summer? Sign me up. It was a close second to Quantico, but that scene in “Point Break” in which Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze fight Anthony Kiedis on the beach made it seem like the FBI would be more fun than academia.

After four months at Quantico, I posed for a picture shaking Director Mueller’s hand receiving my FBI credentials and was sent into the field as an FBI special agent. I was in the Bureau for seven years, working cases involving everything from crimes against children and, yes, bank robberies, to terrorism and foreign corruption. It was a unique and valuable experience for which I am grateful. 

But I had my doubts. After my wife gave birth to our first child, the prospect of fighting gangs of surfer-bank-robbers began to seem less appealing. Some of my misgivings about the job were more idiosyncratic, including those related to my introverted need for space and autonomy. The FBI was (for me) a bit suffocating; I felt like I was losing my sense of self, so to speak.

This is a long way of saying that I thought I could reclaim some of my autonomy by leaving the FBI for academia. For starters, in academia—unlike the FBI—one is not routinely interrogated by a polygrapher about whether one is the next Robert Hanssen because one failed to lock one’s computer before going to take a piss. True story. 

There were of course more substantive worries, such as misgivings about the way law enforcement officers must handle confidential informants (whom officers use to secretly gather information and evidence in support of investigations). Although I do not think that all use of informants is unjustified, the practice is inherently dishonest and deceptive (and potentially dangerous for the informant). 

Suppose, hypothetically, I had an informant who was in a position to gather information or evidence about criminal or national security matters in another country. Suppose further that engaging in such operational activity would be dangerous (for example, if targets in the other country learned that the informant was an informant). Finally, suppose the informant desperately did not want to engage in such operational activity, including because the informant had regular, domestic concerns regarding safety and family commitments (not unlike myself).

Why would such a person agree to operate for law enforcement and intelligence agencies? One reason is that such agencies often have leverage over informants—such as evidence that the informant committed a crime. In exchange for gathering evidence, the officer might agree to ask the prosecutor to consider reducing the informant’s criminal exposure. In other words, a bargain is reached between the informant and the officer, even if the bargain is steeped in deception and dishonesty. Did the informant have a “real choice” given the nature of the government’s leverage? Was the government justified in subjecting the informant to the risk of harm in order to acquire evidence?

The broader point is that these situations troubled me in part because I could identify with the criminal subjects and informants I handled. That may sound odd. But even if our lives appeared to have taken dramatically different paths (which wasn’t always the case), I could typically see how I (or anyone) could end up in the informant’s position had things been slightly different. I was especially uncomfortable with the institutional power—the power to compel one to engage in dangerous operations relying on deception and dishonesty—law enforcement officers had over people who weren’t much different from you and me (aside from a few chance twists and turns in life).

These are some of the topics that became research areas when I made the jump to academia for my doctoral work at the University of Virginia.  Some of the same themes became important in my first book, The Retrieval of Liberalism in Policing, as well my new book: Police Deception and Dishonesty – The Logic of Lying.

A word about that jump from FBI agent to graduate student at a relatively late stage (I began my doctoral work when I was 33 and finished it when I was 37). It was a bit jarring to turn in my badge and gun at the Hoover building one week, and then find myself in a seminar on Plato’s Metaphysics a few weeks later. But I was fortunate to land in what I found to be a very kind and supportive community at the University of Virginia, both in terms of my fellow graduate students and the faculty—especially my dissertation supervisor.

I certainly wasn’t as cool or smart as the other graduate students, but they were all welcoming and patient with me as I awkwardly tried to settle in and knock off the rust. I suspect my biggest challenge is a familiar one to many others: A general lack of confidence and a feeling that you’re the least knowledgeable person in the room. I do think this sort of thing can improve with time and experience, but it can be especially difficult for us introverts. 

One of the things that helped the most was that I think I was able to figure out the angles. This will of course be a bit different for everyone. But in my case, it involved trying to make sense of my unusual background instead of turning away from it altogether. I tried to write about things I knew from experience—things that were interesting and important to me—with an eye toward showing why those things might be interesting and important to others.  And I tried to stop worrying about looking, sounding, and acting smart, which can seem to be half the game in philosophy.

Another important point is that I quickly understood the need to discard perfectionistic goals. I finished my Ph.D. in four years (my wife and I had mouths to feed), and I didn’t send my work to journals with a 2% acceptance rate. That would have been unrealistic and inefficient in my case, so I looked at my relatively modest goals and worked backwards. The “best” philosophy journal in the world wasn’t in the cards, nor was being a famous philosopher who people discuss in 200 years. But, well, okay.

Being a pragmatist is not always easy in philosophy, where we are naturally driven by ideals. What I do think is important—almost a necessity—in the philosophy racket is a sort of gritted-teeth-optimism: A sense that one will figure out the angles (whether one remains in academia or leaves) in the face of ridiculously bad odds that might include unfairness (bias regarding class, race, gender, ideology, and so on) or simply poor luck.  What else can you do—rob a bank?  

I haven’t said anything new in this post, but I hope that sharing my non-traditional career path (which candidly involved a significant amount of underserved good fortune, along with a lot of support from family, friends, and colleagues) helps others in some small way. Just don’t be an FBI agent.

Assessing a college/university's financial health while on the job market?

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

I seem to recall on the Cocoon, back in the height of the pandemic, someone offering a resource (from some kind of financial rating agency or consulting firm) for assessing the financial health of colleges/unis. This came up in the context of someone worrying about taking a job at a college that might do under during their time there. How do you all approach this issue? Can you recommend specific ratings sites/catalogs/etc.?

These are really great and important questions. I've personally heard of a few cases where people accepted a job at a university, only to have their job threatened or eliminated a couple of years later--not to mention, of course, the unethical ACU debacle reported here. Given the ongoing threat to the humanities, and near-constant news stream of universities closing programs and eliminating faculty positions, it behooves job-candidates to find out whether any job they accept is likely to be stable. But is there any good way to find this out? I don't recall the earlier discussion at the Cocoon, and am curious to hear any tips that readers have.

Anyone have any tips or other insights to share?

Grappling with department feuds as a new prof?

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

[I]magine yourself in the situation where you have just been hired as an assistant professor in a new department. Your initial sense of euphoria and busy work for the fist year and a half or so prevents you from seeing it, but slowly, it dawns on you that there is a long-standing ugly feud going on which has been going on for maybe decades, long before you arrived. For instance, a dispute between secular and religious people in a religious-identifying school, continentals vs analytics, a sexual harassment scandal involving a faculty member who is still around that made a deep rift but where no accusations resulted in, say, a title IX case.

Battle lines are drawn. Usually it's quiet but you find yourself in a search committee where it comes to the fore, for instance. How are you supposed to deal with this? Pick a side? Try to be "neutral"? Trying to resolve the situation, which people have tried before of course, will probably not work for someone who comes in new (and who only gradually realizes what work culture they've unwittingly been hired into). Any tips welcome.

I'm sorry hear about the OP's situation. I've never been in this situation myself, but have known people who have--and, from what I've heard, there may be no easy answers. Sure, you could try to "stay above the fray", but the problem then can be that people on different sides of the feud may blame you for not picking sides. So, I don't know--and again, I'm probably not the best person to provide any real advice on this, as I haven't had to deal with anything like this first-hand.

Does anybody with more experience with situations like this have any helpful tips or other insights to share?

Tips for good book proposals?

A reader writes in,

Do any readers of the blog have words of wisdom for putting together a great book proposal? There are scattered tips on Twitter both from academics who have successfully gotten contracts and from people who work for publishers, but I'd like to gather insights in one thread. I've heard writing a book proposal is akin to writing a book review for your own book (that you may not have finished yet).

Additional tips are welcome for the specific experience of writing translation proposals (I'm working on translating lesser-known 20th cen. German philosophy), but I don't want to limit the feedback sourced here to that. Let's hear advice for any kinds of book proposals.

Good question. Although I've written three successful book proposals, I'm not sure that I have any special tips except for this: good book proposals should probably be pitched so that they make a compelling case for the project not just to specialists, but also to editors who aren't specialists themselves. It is, after all, an acquisitions editor who in the first instance will decide whether to move forward with a proposal (e.g., request a draft manuscript or chapters to send to reviewers), and in turn, an entire editorial committee at a press who will decide whether to offer a contract.

So, I guess my one big tip would be this: try to write the proposal in a "down to earth" way that is likely to make the project make sense and be of interest to specialists and non-specialists alike. Another more basic tip would be: look on the websites of various presses how they want book proposals to be structured. Some of them even have templates they'd like you to download and follow, so if you put together and send in a proposal without following their procedure, that might be a bad initial look!

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from book authors, as well as from editors and reviewers!

Applying for a re-advertised job you interviewed for after a failed search?

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

If you interviewed somewhere, did not get the job, but the same position is now being advertised again, seemingly indicating a failed search, is it worth applying again?

I don't know what I don't know here in terms of why I didn't get the position or why the search failed, but all things being equal, there is seemingly no harm in applying.

But is any kind of acknowledgement of having interviewed previously worth mentioning or not?

Just any general advice is appreciated.

Fair questions. One reader submitted the following reply:

I would not apply to places where you were brought in and did not get the job. The department has a new ad ... and it is an opportunity to bring in three fresh people to interview.

This could of course be the case, but I don't know. Many things could have happened during the last hiring cycle, and I don't know if there's any way of knowing how last year's search might impact this year's. For example,

1. How do you know the same people are on the hiring committee this year? Could the department have chosen a different hiring committee this time around, given that last year was a failed search?
2. What if you're a significantly better candidate than last year (say, with some excellent new publications)? 
3. What if the committee liked you a lot, didn't bring you in as one of their 2 or 3 finalists, but ended up regretting the finalists they did invite (e.g., if each finalist "bombed"/did a poor job during the on-campus visits)?
4. What if the committee liked you a lot, all 2 or 3 of their finalists accepted jobs elsewhere, and their administration wouldn't authorize another on-campus interview?

Sure, it's hard to know what the likelihood of any of these things are, but given the uncertainties, why not give applying again a shot (provided applying again doesn't take too much time)? Having served on many search committees, my experience is that oftentimes the committee likes most of the candidates they interview a lot, have to make difficult choices about who to invite to campus, and may wish they could invite more people than their administration allows. Since, as noted above, a search can fail for any number of reasons that don't necessarily reflect on your chances this time around, what's the harm in giving an application another shot?

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be great to hear from search committee members, as well from job candidates, particularly those who interviewed for a job and applied to the "same job" again the next year. Did you have any luck? 

 

 

Job-market 'value' of postdocs, VAPs, and non-academic jobs?

A reader writes in:

I am a doctoral candidate on the job market. I am holding out hope for a TT job, but I am realistic. I know I will probably need to take something other than a TT job first and work my way toward a TT job. My question is, does anyone have a sense of how "valuable" postdocs are compared to a VAP? I know that there are many factors that go into how valuable they are for individuals, but I am wondering if there is any sense in which hiring committees might find one more valuable than the other? In a similar vein, how do hiring committees view potential candidates who took "non-academic" jobs for several years? For instance, as a librarian, consultant, hospital administrator, etc. Would taking such a job hurt a candidate's chances at later getting a TT job? Does working in a non-academic area closely connected to one's research interests affect any of this? All of this assumes that the candidate is still conducting and publishing good research (and maybe teaching). 

I tried doing a search within the blog and did not see these questions in a recent thread, but if they were and I missed them

These are all good questions. When it comes to postdocs vs. VAPs, I guess my sense is that all things being equal, postdocs may make one more competitive for R1 jobs, whereas VAPs probably tend to make one more competitive for jobs at teaching institutions. Basically, this is because postdocs are often prestigious and research focused, whereas VAPs tend to be more teaching heavy. Of course, there are probably exceptions--such as VAPs in R1 departments, etc. But, at least as a rule of thumb, insofar as VAPs give teaching experience, they're probably more likely to help one establish a good teaching record as an independent instructor--the kind of thing that, in my experience, people at teaching-focused universities tend to care about.

As for non-academic jobs, I'm not sure--but I suspect that in some areas (such as jobs in bioethics, environmental ethics, technology, etc.), jobs outside of the academy might make a candidate look interesting. On the other hand, time outside of the academy might negatively impact one's publishing record and amount of experience teaching, and I wonder whether some committees might be biased toward those who don't have a "gap" in their academic employment record.

But really, I'm just speculating a bit here. So it would be great to hear from others--both from hiring committees and from recent job applicants. How in your experience do postdocs, VAPs, and non-academic jobs compare in terms of their value on the academic job market? In the case of non-academic jobs, does it matter if the job is in an 'academic-adjacent' area?

Financial stress? Academic compensation inside and outside of the UK

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

I feel that UK jobs, starting from like 37k-44k GBP (roughly 45k-54k USD), isn't a lot. At least as the single source of income for a family of four, I don't feel that I can save up to anything. (Bracketing the steep costs for applying for indefinite leave to remain down the track.) Maybe I'm doing something wrong, e.g. having kids too early, and maybe this is something worth taking into consideration for those thinking about having kids.

I'm very grateful for having a job, and I know that I'm extremely lucky compared to my equally qualified peers who are still seeking stability. But I'm feeling the financial pressure, and it is producing a lot of anxiety for me and my partner. (My partner plans to start working once the kids are old enough to go to childcare.)

But here's the general question. Do people who start their first stable (TT or continuing) job in other places of the world feel similar financial stress?

Good question. There were a couple of interesting responses submitted. One reader wrote in:

The UK has a lot of in-work benefits. You probably already know about child benefit, but there are other types of benefits, many of which do not have 100% uptakes by those eligible. Have you met with Citizens' Advice?

But Helen added:

[Y]ou aren't wrong about the UK. I worked early-career in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. My UK salary (no shade on my wonderful employers, Oxford Brookes and University of Oxford) was simply not enough for a reasonable standard of living. Over half my salary as a senior lecturer went up to rent, of a small 75m2 place in the outskirts of Oxford. We had no car, and lived simply, and that was all before the price of living went up after Brexit and with the general inflation in the wake of Covid. I am glad I left in 2019. The Netherlands, an assistant prof salary is much more comfortable (for me it was about 1/3 of rent, and the area around Amsterdam is not a cheap area to live in, no idea how it is now though!) In Belgium I was only ever a postdoc but my impression is the starting salary of an assistant prof there is OK and decent to live on, and there's a clear path of career progression as well as reasonable security. There's been continuous strikes by UK by lecturers, I hope it goes well for them and better terms can be negotiated. In my time in the UK I remember that the unions told us how our salary had basically decreased a lot in real terms since the financial crash of 2008, so UK lecturers feeling the pinch is a fairly recent phenomenon, hopefully still reversible.

I have to confess that I've always wanted to live in the UK, but that the salaries there have deterred me from applying (I've also heard that administrative demands for academics there are very, but that's another issue). I wasn't aware of some of the in-work benefits, including the child benefit, but having just looked it up, it seems pretty meagre. Are there other important benefits to be aware of? If so, what are they? Obviously, state-sponsored health care is a big benefit, but even so, does it compensate for the lower salaries? 

It would be great to hear from other readers, particularly readers like Helen who can compare the quality of work and life for academics in the UK to work in academia in other countries. Also, what are financial stresses like in other countries? Obviously, in the US there are other stressors: the high cost of health insurance, the fact that it's not covered for part-time/adjunct faculty, and so on (which, obviously, are serious issues).

Anyone care to weigh in? 

CFA: Back to the Future and Philosophy

Call for Abstracts!

Back to the Future and Philosophy: This is Heavy!

Edited by Joshua Heter and Richard Greene

 

Abstracts are sought for a collection of essays on any philosophical topic related to Back to the Future (i.e., any of the 3 films) to be published with McFarland and Co. Publishers Inc. Potential contributors may want to examine previously published volumes from Heter and Greene such as Westworld and Philosophy, The Princess Bride and Philosophy, The Godfather and Philosophy, and Better Call Saul and Philosophy. We are hoping to receive a number of interesting and unique submissions centered around time and time travel (especially as they relate specifically to the films). However, we are also hoping to receive submissions on a number of other topics as well. These may include…

 

Philosophy of friendship: what is it about Doc and Marty’s friendship that is so special?

 

Free Will vs Determinism: is it really true that our life is “whatever we make it”? Is it true that our “future hasn’t been written yet?” How does the possibility of time travel affect this?

 

Time travel and Gettier cases: does traveling through time undermine knowledge?  Are there specific cases in the Back to the Future franchise that illustrate the Gettier Problem particularly well?

 

Being a slacker: what is a slacker; is Marty a slacker?  If so, does it matter?

 

Nostalgia: what is nostalgia, and why do we have it?

 

Motherly love: what’s the deal with Jocasta and/or Oedipus complexes?

 

Psychology: why does Marty care so much about being called a chicken?  What could he learn from (for instance) philosophers like the Stoics? Why does Biff act the way that he does (as a bully)?

 

Parental Ethics: what obligations do parents have about being honest (or dishonest) with their kids about their youthful debauchery?

 

Epistemology: Does the distinction between thinking with your “heart” vs. thinking with your “head”: hold up?

 

Philosophy of Science: is Doc a good scientist? Does he use science properly?

 

Cartesian Skepticism: can Marty ever know whether or not it was all just a dream?

 

The Ethics of Technology: does Doc have a moral obligation to inform the world of his invention? Does he have an obligation to destroy the time machine?

 

Ethics in Sports (Gambling): what are the ethics of gambling based on future knowledge (via the Sports Almanac)?

 

… and many more!

 

Abstracts and eventual essays should be written for an educated but non-specialized audience (with an approximate length of 3,000 –  3,500 words).

 

Contributor Guidelines:

Mail abstracts (and any questions) to: [email protected].

            1. Abstracts should be between 100 – 500 words.

            2. Potential contributors must include a resume/CV for each author/coauthor.

            3. Initial submissions should be made by e-mail as either a Word doc. or a PDF.

            4. Deadlines:

                        Abstracts due by: January 15, 2024

                        First drafts due by April 22, 2024

                        Final drafts due by July 15, 2024                                   

                          (Early submissions are encouraged and welcomed!)

Dismissing a reviewer's comments in a R&R?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an author writes in:

I've recieved "major revision" verdict form a very good journal. This is the 2nd revision of the paper and I struggle how to proceed, because I feel that reviewer2 does not understand half of my manuscript...

He or she wrote 2 paragraphs in his/her review and I think that the proper way to address this review is just explain why all the sentences in this review are false/stupid. And zero changes in the paper.

Can I do so? Perhaps such a response will be treated as rude and my paper will be rejected?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would work hard to try to see why the referee is saying what they are saying. You might find that you are not as clear as you think you are. If you are on the second revision, then the wind is behind you. But do try to work with the referee.

A second reader, Prof. L, added:

Likely your paper will be rejected. Here’s a way of looking at it—as it is, your paper led to someone being confused about a couple of things. Instead of blaming your reader, blame the paper. How can you make the paper so that a person (reviewer 2) is less likely to come away with those misunderstandings about your position? I get it, and have been there, but also, when I give comments to students and they say “I know that, that’s what I meant!” it’s kind of frustrating. Whether or not that’s what you think, or intend, or even what you say explicitly in a footnote, I’m letting you know in my comments that you need to be clearer about it. I imagine a reviewer who got back a “you didn’t understand” would feel the same way.

But, a third reader shared a different perspective:

I was in a very similar situation a few months earlier, although this was the first round of reviewer comments. I tried to explain as carefully and gently as I could why I thought the reviewer misunderstood the paper. I acknowledged a few places in the paper which could have led to a misunderstanding and changed them somewhat (although really this was just to please the reviewer), but I didn't make any significant changes to the reviewer's misguided objections. It is essential to be polite, so you definitely don't want to say that a claim the reviewer made was 'stupid'. This felt very bold as normally I will just do whatever the reviewers say to get the paper published! But it paid off, since in the second round of comments that reviewer said they understood much better now and only had a few clarificatory questions. Of course, your mileage may vary, but I felt this was the only way I could proceed in this situation.

I'm curious to hear what other readers think. My own experience is that, in the vast majority of cases, it's probably best to take referee comments seriously and address them in the R&R, even if you think they are mistaken, uncharitable, etc. Much earlier in my career, I tried to resist/object a few times to referee critiques, but it did not go well (I received several rejections this way). Since then, I've virtually always tried to revise papers to address the reviewers' comments ... with one exception. A few years ago, I received two reports from a very good journal, one of which was very detailed and overwhelmingly positive, but the second of which was a several-sentence long vague dismissal of the entire project. Because the editors gave me an R&R and it was clear that there was nothing that I could do to satisfy Reviewer #2, I only addressed Reviewer 1's concerns in the paper and explained, as kindly and patiently as I could in my author's reply, why I respectfully disagreed with Reviewer 2's assessment of the project. The paper was eventually published, and there was no indication that the editors sent the paper back to #2--so my guess is that they dismissed that reviewer's comments in virtue of what Reviewer 1 had to say and their own editorial review of the paper.

But these are just my experiences. What are yours?

Grappling with eroding student abilities?

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

I'm curious about how faculty are coping with the continual erosion of student ability: e.g. to attend class, to take notes, to study, to write clear sentences, to read texts, to come to office or drop-in hours when they need help, to respond to emails, to care enough to withdraw from a class rather than failing it. Note that I'm *not* asking for advice on how to change these behaviors. (My own view is that we are entering into a new age of functional illiteracy, at least as measured by the standards most of those reading this blog grew up with, and that no one person can change the social and educational inequities that are behind this dramatic shift I'm seeing in student readiness and behavior.) I'm simply asking if anyone has any advice on how to manage the feelings that these problems can generate, because I'm getting close to throwing in the towel. FWIW: I'm at a R1 state institution that basically has open admissions.

Several readers already submitted replies. One reader writes:

I'm at a private SLAC with similar admissions strategies. I struggle constantly with this. The best bit of advice I can give is the oldest one: try and reach the few who you can. Also, try shifting into treating it more like a job than a calling.

And another writes:

I just tell myself that I go to work to get paid. Sometimes my clients come to receive what they've paid for, while sometimes they have clearly chosen the wrong product. We are all affected by privatisation. I cherish the rare occasions when I get to interact with clients who also appear to be the equivalent of motivated students.

I'm curious: do other readers sense a continual eroding of student performance? If so, do you have any other helpful tips or other insights for handling it?

Do hiring committees care about PhD program specialty rankings?

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

A question for those who have served on recruitment committees: If you take the PhD-granting institution's reputation into account in your evaluation of a job candidate (which seems to be a common if not pervasive approach), do you consider specialism rankings or only general ones? I ask because I am applying for grad programs, am keen to apply to departments that are relatively lowly ranked in general but which are very good for the area I'm interested in, yet do not want to make applying for jobs harder than it already is. Please also mention how your colleagues seem to approach this issue as well, if possible, please.

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

There are many variables that affect the decision of hiring committees. You will probably not get a job at a top ten school unless you went to one - and even most who go to top ten programs won't get jobs there. Outside that realm, things change. But many schools do care about pedigree. There is no formula, though. I went to a lower ranked school that is high ranked in phil sci. I have a good career, but it was certainly hard at first. My first TT job was at a 4 year state college, with a heavy teaching load, and low research expectations (and support for research).

I'm curious to hear from other readers. Personally, I suspect many people on hiring committees don't even know what the specialty rankings are, let alone take them into account when hiring. Conversely, it is probably important for the OP to be aware that there appear to be clear PhD program prestige effects in hiring, at least for overall Leiter rankings. So, there may be some real risk of entering into a lower-ranked program, even if it is highly ranked in a particular specialization. Then again, I suspect that many hiring committees care most about the overall quality of one's dossier: one's publication record, teaching experience and portfolio, and so on.

Still, it would be great to hear from other people who have served on search committees.

1. Do you think that you or others on hiring committees you've served on either explicitly or implicitly take into account PhD program rankings in the hiring process? 
2. If so, do specialty rankings play any role, and can they offset a program having a lower general ranking?

What should grad students expect from dissertation advisors?

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

I am an ABD student. My question is what our expectations from dissertation advisors should be? My advisor reads the drafts and gives feedback. He is also ready to meet and discuss whenever I need. But that is pretty much it. Should I expect more from an advisor? Should I expect him to introduce me to other professors in other universities or invite me to certain conferences he attends? Should I expect him to do networking for me? I attended a few conferences where my advisor was also present. But he never introduced me to his colleagues from other universities or told them that I was his student.

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Your advisor is advising your dissertation. Networking is (mostly) up to you. Nevertheless, you can advocate for yourself a little. Say “hey, I will be at that conference, too! I would love to be introduced to some people there, if you can make the time to do that” or “I feel like I’m making good progress on my dissertation … if someone requests a book review/comments/etc from you in my area that you want to decline, I would be happy to get one of those under my belt” and so on. I think it’s not really an obligation or part of advising, but it is helpful if an advisor or others at your grad institution advocate for you in these more informal ways. I wouldn’t be too pushy about it, but a little reminder or suggestion might go a long way.

It would be great to hear from other readers. What did your dissertation supervisor do? Did they just read and discuss drafts? Or, did they do more than that? And what do you think dissertation supervisors should do?

Which criteria do you use as a journal referee?

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

I am a junior faculty member and started to receive referee requests. I am curious about people's criteria for recommendations (acceptance, minor revision, major revision, and rejection, among others).

In addition to any general thoughts, I am particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on the following two questions. First, do you take the "quality" of a journal into consideration? For example, is it reasonable to think, "this paper is not good enough for Phil Review or PPR, but for this journal, sure, it should be accepted"? I feel that this sounds pretty normal, but I also know that people do not like journal rankings. If the quality of a journal should be considered, what is your standard? Do you implicitly or explicitly follow a specific ranking such as the survey by Leiter?

Second, is there a principle that you follow when you make your recommendations? To be honest, the rejections that I received usually raised some objections to my arguments. Is it a good principle that if you can find an objection to the author's main argument, then you should (probably) reject the paper? Do you recommend direct acceptance only when you cannot find a good objection? Thank you!

Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:

[E]veryone follows different criteria for their verdict. But I often take the quality of the journal into account while deciding whether my comments and feedback mean accept/r&r/reject. This is not because of the quality of the paper, but because of the ratio of space available in those journals to the volume of submissions. This naturally implies a higher level of selectivity than perhaps otherwise merited. Re. how I evaluate my accept/r&r/reject verdicts: I do not take any objection to an argument to be a reason to reject a paper. A straightforward rejection usually takes me to believe that no small amount of work could salvage a novel, interesting and close-to-being-sound argument/idea from the paper. Sometimes this is an objection to the main claim of the paper and sometimes it is about how well-formulated the claim and the case for the claim in the paper are. If the paper is well-structured and interesting, but you have a prominent objection to one of the main parts of the paper, I think it usually worth giving the author to revise the paper and after the revision, if the problem is still there, then reject it (the caveats about journal rankings apply here as well).

And one other reader wrote in:

(1) I usually only really consider originality and specialisation in this. So, if I review something for the British Journal for Philosophy of Science, I recognise they are looking for groundbreaking work and am hesitant to recommend a decent and correct but not very novel paper. Or, if I review for Foundations of Physics I realise that they are more open to somewhat technical stuff than, say, Synthese. But I wouldn't otherwise make a difference in 'quality'. (2) I definitely don't think only papers without any potential objections to them deserve acceptance. The distinction I try to make is: is this an objection that should really be addressed in the paper, or is it an objection that could itself form a significant part of the literature? If it's the former, then I would urge a revision, or in some cases a rejection. If it's the latter, I am happy to accept the paper - the fact that someone else can object to it in a way that is itself of interest only proves that the paper under review pushes the literature forward in some way!

What about the rest of you? Which criteria do you use as a journal referee? And do you tailor your standards to different journal types or rankings?

 

Philosophical friends and epistemic partiality in friendship

The history of philosophy is replete with passionate, deep, and inspiring philosophical friendships.

Consider Huizi and Zhuangzi, Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes, David Hume and Adam Smith, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Isabelle Stengers and Bruno Latour, and the “Somerville Quartet” of women philosophers in Oxford during and after the Second World War, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch and Mary Midgley. Two recent books have been devoted to the lives of this group of friends, Metaphysical Animals (by Mac Cumhaill and Rachael Wiseman) and The Women are up to Something (by Benjamin Lipscombe).

 

Postcard from Iris Murdoch to Philippa Foot, 1959. Credit: Kingston University Archives

The Somerville Quartet

In her essay review of both books, Jennifer Frey highlights the epistemic benefits of philosophical friendship. It afforded these women a unique way of doing philosophy, that is, a unique set of philosophical practices that Frey did not think possible when she was an undergraduate, and when philosophy was presented to her (as it is to many of us) as masculine and solitary:

What is so startling and attractive about the love between Anscombe and Foot is that in spite of all their differences—of temperament, religion, class background, appearance, domestic circumstances and even politics and morals—they were able to draw close together based on their mutual desire to see their way through the philosophical problems that had gripped their imaginations and to make progress in their own search for a philosophical account of human experience. At the root of their affection lay a common goal—a search for insight and answers to the questions that were troubling them, a struggle they undertook together over the course of their lives in a spirit of cooperation and mutual aid. They did not always agree, but their respect for one another’s minds anchored their friendship.—Frey, The Somerville Quartet, The Point Magazine 2022

Epistemic Partiality

In the epistemic partiality literature, started by an influential paper by Sarah Stroud (2006), the thought is often that we should (or in fact should not) lower the epistemic bar for our friends. Stroud fleshes this out in the following way: the distinctive phenomenology and attitudes of friendship prompts us to adopt a set of unique doxastic practices that apply to our friends, such as believing them more readily then we would strangers, or treating negative accounts about our friends with excessive scrutiny. Differently put, we are biased when we deal with our friends. Epistemic partiality in friendship might mean that we “violate the standards of epistemology,” as Sandy Goldberg summarizes it.

But I wonder if we should flatten the epistemology of friendship in this way as just adopting different (lower) standards to certain propositions. Philosophical friendships show that the epistemology of reasoning with your friends indeed is subject to a distinctive set of norms and practices, but these do not merely amount to lowering the bar. Let me speculate how this might be.

Listing declined conference talks on a CV?

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

For conferences which we've been accepted to, but we've decline/withdrawn (e.g. due to conflicts in schedule, teaching committment, lack of funding, etc.), do we still list them on our CV and indicate 'withdrawn'?

Another reader submitted the following reply:

Absolutely do not list conferences for which you were accepted but then declined. They are in no sense an accomplishment, and to be frank with you, when you list a number of these I would be inclined to think you are unreliable (and other bad words). A cv lists ONLY accomplishments. That is standard. And repeatedly withdrawing from conference programs is not a virtue - it is a vice. I have had to withdraw myself, most recently because of significant illness. But I would not dare list such things on my c.v.

I expect other readers will probably agree with this, but I think I have seen people list talks that were canceled for one reason or another (e.g., the COVID pandemic, a weather disaster, etc.). I also think it's unfortunate if people like the OP have to turn down a bunch of talks, as that can obviously impact their career. But, having been a grad student, I know it's the reality, as grad student stipends can be small and conference funding hard to come by. So, I empathize with the OP's plight.

Do any other readers have any tips or insights to share here?

How can we help you? (October 2023)

Now that it's been over a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new thread.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

As usual, feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post.

Practices for listing "online first"/forthcoming papers on a CV?

A reader writes in,

Has PC done anything, or have you heard much, on citation practices on a CV for forthcoming work? For instance, does one cite a current-year paper that doesn’t yet have a volume and page numbers assigned always as “forthcoming,” or as the year (without page #s/volume), or whichever they wish? Wondering if there is something like a consensus in the profession, or some indication from the APA or Chicago Manual of Style, etc. People I’ve asked leave it as "forthcoming.” Thank you!

I think we may have discussed this before, but frankly I've always found it terribly confusing myself. For example, I've had papers "published Online First" with journals several years before they are assigned to an issue. In one sense, the paper has already been published (there it is on the journal's website, formatted and everything!), but in another sense it's still "forthcoming." So, how should one list it on a CV for the job-market, tenure and promotion, or in an annual performance review? 

Is there any consensus on this?

Working outside of philosophy while ABD?

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

Do you know of cases where people take other jobs (non-TA jobs) outside of the university while finishing a dissertation? I can make more outside of the academy in fewer hours than if I were TAing because of a particular skill set I have, and I want to be able to live with my partner who is in another state. I've only heard about this in other fields, but not philosophy. For context, I feel 50/50 about going into academia or into industry. Have people seen successful or unsuccessful examples of this in philosophy?

Good questions! I'm curious to hear from readers on this. I guess I'd worry a bit about being distracted too much from finishing the dissertation. But then again, the OP says they could make a significant amount of money working fewer hours than they do now. Given that they are only 50/50 on going into academia and working outside of their university would enable them to live with their partner, the positives might well outweigh the risks.

But these are just a few of my quick reactions. It would be great to hear from readers who have tried this! Were you able to work outside of academia while finishing up your dissertation? How did it go?

How to go about co-authoring papers?

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

How do people go about coauthoring papers? It seems everyone is working on different topics, yet it looks like more and more people are working together on papers. It is unclear to me how to initiate projects with other people. I also feel too socially awkward/inept to ask to work with other people and also have some self-doubt that I may not be good enough to work on projects that are slightly outside of my research focus. Any tips?

Good questions! I've co-authored a few papers, and if I recall correctly, for the most part I just approached people with an idea who I thought might be able to bring their expertise to bear on parts of the project that were a bit beyond mine. As my father once told me, if you ask for assistance, generally speaking the worst that can happen is that people say no. It may be helpful, however, if you have some previous interactions with the people you approach, such as at conferences, on social media, etc.

Anyway, these are all the tips that I have. Do any other readers have any helpful tips?

Thriving as an introvert in academia?

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

I'm wondering if the introverts out there can provide some advice on being an introvert in academia. In the earlier years of my PhD, when I could mostly stay sequestered in my office alone doing research, I felt like I was thriving. This term, I'm teaching two courses as I wrap things up. And sometimes I find it overwhelming. I love teaching. I am energized while doing it. And I have no trouble staying on top of my workload. But I find the act of teaching itself absolutely draining. And god forbid I get stuck in the department talking to folks on days that I have to teach. I love what I do. But I wish I was less introverted. To be clear, introverted people are not shy. Introverted people feel emotionally and mentally drained by social interaction with others.

Does anyone have tips for coping and/or thriving as an introvert in academia?

This is a great query!

Do any introverts out there have any helpful tips/advice to share?

Diversifying examples in papers?

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

I've noticed that in recent papers, philosophers are starting to include more diverse (non-Anglophone) names for people in their examples and thought experiments. This seems reasonable but also challenging (how to choose when writing? how to pronounce when discussing?). What's the normative status of this practice? Would it hurt one's chances for publishing or send a negative message if one were to stick with Alice and Bob?

I have no idea. I tend to stay away from giving vignettes/hypothetical examples in my work, so I've never run into this problem. 

What do you all think?

Visa/IHS assistance for foreign academics in the UK?

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, Academic Migrant writes:

For foreign academics working in the UK, has anyone had any luck in getting some assistance with visa application fee or IHS or the application for permanent leave? It's really expensive for people with family, and I'm not sure I can save enough (given the living cost crisis) as the single source of income to pay for the application fee for permanent leave.

Do any readers have any helpful tips or insights?

Tips for grappling with loneliness in the academy?

Last week, we had an eye-opening discussion of loneliness in academic life. For many of us, whether it is moving many times to different jobs in different cities or countries, working in a small department with high teaching and service loads, significant age or interest differences between faculty, etc., a career in academia has turned out to be a lot more isolating/lonely that we probably expected.

Out of respect for the OP, last week's thread avoided sharing tips for grappling with these issues. The OP simply wanted to know how many others in academia have been similarly surprised about how lonely of an existence it is. At the same time, I expect that some readers may be interested in tips on how to handle experiences of loneliness in the profession.

One late stage graduate student, Joshua, posted the following:

the first and central piece of advice I give to new graduate students is to find friends outside of the department. I suspect academics across disciplines who struggle to do this will pretty much always face the issue OP is getting at. I definitely struggled with moving ~600 miles to start grad school and only found good friends outside of my department well into my time here.

I think this may be sound advice to graduate students, and it may even be for some faculty who are grappling with loneliness. Still, as I mentioned in a follow-up comment, it may be very difficult for faculty with high teaching, service, and/or research expectations to make many non-academic friends.

In any case, do any of you have any helpful tips for grappling with loneliness in the academy?

Surviving departmental politics as junior faculty

In our September "how can we help you?" thread, Struggling Dissenter writes:

I am a junior faculty member. Concerning departmental affairs (or any affairs) I tend to have a different opinion than many others. I also tend to get misunderstood. I wonder if there are advice and experience on how to survive departmental meetings and similar decision making scenarios. E.g. Should I be more quiet?

An excellent query, and one that I suspect many new faculty identify with. One reader, Jaded Junior Faculty, submitted the follow response:

Department politics can be a hellhole of wasted energy and bad feelings. If you can stomach it, go to the meetings but stay out of the fray. If you can't keep your opinions to yourself, skip the meetings. I stopped going to meetings about a year ago and my life and job satisfaction and general stress levels improved dramatically. People had been nasty to me, yelled at each other and me, intentionally twisted my words around, accused each other of the worst motives, and so on. I thought I was simply offering my input in a friendly way, but I was "taking sides" on battles that have long been raging. It was shocking, coming from a generally convivial graduate institution. All that to say: These battles are not worth fighting. You will only make yourself and everyone else miserable. Either wait for the worst actors to retire or apply out.

Another reader, Also Dissented, submitted the following reply:

Pick your battles. I was in a department with some unsavory personalities, and I just made sure I only voiced an opposing opinion on the issues that really mattered. So you can let many of the small issues go - nothing will hang on them, at least nothing big. And if you are feeling you are misunderstood, when you raise remarks do it in a more teacherly manner - do not assume that they will understand your concerns. Instead, provide some background or motivation for what you want to say. Eg. "It seems that some of you think we should be teaching so much generally education. I can see your concerns, but I think we need to ensure that the department is seen as cooperative with the administration. And some of these courses can be ideal places to recruit new majors and minors."

I appreciate both perspectives, and suspect that which approach one should take probably depends on a variety of factors, including one's own tolerance for risk and how functional or dysfunctional one's department is. However, in my experience, it can also matter a great deal how you dissent in meetings--to do so, for example, in a charitable way that makes it clear that you're interested in working productively with your colleagues even when you disagree, rather than as an adversary.

Another tip I have is to try to talk to people individually before and outside of departmental meetings. This can not only help you sort of feel out points of agreement and disagreement before meetings or decision-making scenarios occur. It can also be good for forging positive interpersonal relationships with colleagues, showing that you proactively care about what they think as an individual. Moreover, my experience is that conversations may go a lot better outside of the complex dynamics of a group meeting. Finally, once you know how various parties feel individually (and how strongly they feel about various issues), you may be much better prepared to determine before a meeting occurs which battles are "worth fighting", and which forms of dissent are likely to blow up in a bad way (and which you may or may not want to avoid).

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts. What are yours?

CFP: Teaching in Hostile Contexts

Alida Liberman writes in:

American Association of Philosophy Teachers Studies in Pedagogy is an anonymously peer-reviewed annual journal dedicated to publishing thematically focused volumes of original works on teaching and learning in philosophy. Each issue is on a special topic with a different guest editor. 

For the next volume, we are seeking traditional essays, short personal reflections, and practical resources about the topic of Teaching in Hostile Contexts. How do we successfully teach, learn, and support each other when we face hostility stemming from governmental restrictions, unsupportive institutional policies, or other forces? We're looking to publish traditional articles, shorter/less formal reflection pieces, and practical resources for advocacy/organizing, and are open to a wide range of approaches.

Speaking as guest editor, I think the topic of loneliness in the profession of philosophy teaching -- whether reflections on the nature of such loneliness, strategies or advice for combatting loneliness, or something else - would be a great fit for the special issue. Please reach out to me ([email protected]) if you have any questions or want to talk more about possible ideas for a submission.

Link to CFP: https://aaptstudies.org/calls/

'Flash philosophy' workshop

Alexandra Gustafson writes in:

Alexandra Gustafson (University of Toronto) and Peter Limberg (of Toronto's The Stoa) cordially invite you to join us for a virtual Flash Philosophy writing workshop on Wednesday, October 18, 10-11:30 am.

What is Flash Philosophy? Philosophy, written in a flash, meant to be read just as quickly (think Gettier's 3-page "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge"). Drawing inspiration from the literary concept of “flash fiction,” this approach accommodates the accelerated tempo of our digital age. These very short works of philosophy are meant to be drafted quickly so that the insights they contain can be disseminated more quickly, enhancing the productivity of philosophical discourse, both among professional philosophers and those outside the discipline.

Workshop participants will have the opportunity to submit their Flash for publication consideration.

Interested parties may RSVP via this link: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJArdeiprzMiGtI-q2sqjKlDlVgRsrVTENAe#/registration (please feel free to forward this invitation to anyone you think might be interested.) Questions may be directed to Alexandra ([email protected]).

We look forward to seeing you there!

Loneliness in academic life?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'One Hundred Semesters of Solitude' writes:

I'd like to initiate a conversation about the unexpected and honestly often quite difficult loneliness of having chosen an academic career. Note that I'm NOT looking for some Cocoon-style "what are *your* thoughts" on how to DEAL with this loneliness. That's partially what therapy is for, and the solutions to loneliness and solitude are pretty well-known regardless of what profession you choose (find hobbies, volunteer, put yourself out there, etc.).

What I'd like to ask is just how many people, like me, have kind of been surprised by how much less of a social network we have than other friends and non-academics at similar career stages. Here's the factors that affect my life, and I'm wondering how common these are. Again, I'm NOT looking for advice.

1) Lack of social connections from past stages of life -- Some people are able to build social circles out of their college or childhood friends and their mutual connections. However, because I chose to pursue a PhD in my 20s and partially because my program was far away from where friends from my BA ended up, I fell out of contact with many if not most of my college connections. None of my friends from college are nearby geographically. So that makes this source of social interaction slim pickins'. How many others have this experience?

2) Lack of social connections from work -- I'm in my mid-30s and I have a TT position in a major city! So I pretty much hit the lottery. However, I've learned that folks in other industries (tech, law, finance, etc.) often find a majority of their friends from their workplace. This is because these other workplaces are largely populated by people in a (1) similar age bracket who (2) are also looking for new social connections.

However, in academia, it's possible that neither of these factors applies. I am the youngest member of my department by a good 10 years and (nearly) everyone else lives in the suburbs with a family. Nobody is really looking for a buddy to go check out bars with on weekends.

Also, my institution (somewhat anecdotally) seems to do a really bad job of connecting its junior faculty with each other. Previously, when I worked at a much smaller institution, there were TT faculty orientations, meet-and-greets, and so on. At my current institution, there's been none of that.

Anyway, these factors have also made this source of social interactions very hard. How many others have experienced this?

3) The inherent social isolation of academic work -- The other obvious factor that makes it hard to develop meaningful social connections at work is that, unlike say tech or law or finance, academic work in the humanities is almost entirely solo. Most of us aren't running labs, with grad students and postdocs filing in and out and so on. And barring the odd committee assignment where people aren't rushing to leave the Zoom room, literally all of my work is conducted by myself.

I write by myself. I lesson prep by myself. Teaching isn't technically "by yourself," but you all know that it practically is, since undergrads are basically automata a little less able than ChatGPT (only barely joking). It's possible to work an entire semester quite productively without an actual interaction with another person, and I think I actually have had more than one such semester.

--
I think these are the biggest couple of factors, but other additional factors might include whether someone is romantically paired or single, the fact that academics work a unique kind of schedule, and so on.

Again, I'm NOT looking for advice on how to make friends, etc. I'm just curious as to how many other Cocooners have noticed and perhaps been surprised by the loneliness that comes with academic life.

I suspect this query resonates with a lot of people, particularly those who work in small departments with high teaching loads. It definitely resonates with me. My university does a good job of building connections between junior faculty, but otherwise, all three of the OP's major points apply to me. 

What about you all? Have you found your career in academia unexpectedly lonely? If so, for what reasons--the same as the OP's?

Tips from Search Committee Members: how do you evaluate candidates in first-round interviews?

The first seven posts in this series examined how hiring committees read and evaluate CVs, cover letters, research statements, teaching statements, diversity statements, writing samples, and letters of recommendation. Let's now turn to first-round interviews.

If you've served on a search committee,

1. How do you and the other members of the committee approach first-round interviews?
2. What sorts of things come across well in interviews?
3. What sorts of things come across poorly?
4. Any other tips for candidates?

Please do feel free to share any insights that job-candidates might find helpful!

Disclosing you are LGBTQ+ in a cover letter?

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

The consensus on the 10/4 post seemed to be that sharing personal information that would reduce appearing to be a flight risk is a good thing, at least wrt a partner living near the job.

Would such disclosure be helpful to do even when the fact is something different like "I really love the area" or "I am LGBTQ+ and this university is in an area with a large LGBTQ+ community?"

My worry is that sharing this kind of information might lead someone to worry you aren't as serious about working at the SCHOOL itself, meaning they might worry that you won't be an engaged department member, etc.

Of course, I could see it only being a good idea to make both the case that the location is ideal AND the job/department is ideal, which I'm sure I will do, but I just want to make sure people seem to agree that including discussions of location wouldn't hurt and could only help one's chances (provided that the case is also made that the job itself is a good fit)

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

I would save your LGBTQ+ status for an in-person conversation, not a application letter. If you are at a campus, then you can assess whether with a bunch of bigots or whether you are with tolerant people. Incidentally, as a letter writing for someone, I mentioned their military background, in part, because in the USA that is a protected class. It may have been awkward for them to mention in their application letter, but I did it in a manner that, I think, helped. They got the job they wanted.

I'm curious to hear what other people think. For one thing, if the OP would prefer not to pursue or accept a job in a department where there are people prejudiced against them (which would be completely understandable), then maybe disclosing their identity in a letter could be a good thing. Further, given that many search committees seem to be concerned about flight risks, disclosing reasons why the applicant would want to remain at the university and city might help the candidate.  

Do any readers have any helpful experiences or other insights relating to the OP's query?

Working as instructor at your alma mater if you strike out on the job market?

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

I'm on the job market this fall. I'm wondering what my prospects are like if I strike out this round. My plan would be to just stick around my alma mater and do sessional instructing. Would this hurt me when I apply to jobs again next year?

Good question—I’m not sure. What do you all think?

Disclosing in an on-campus interview that you have a partner in the region?

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

This is not a situation I have encountered yet, but one which I am wondering about nevertheless. I have a position at a university in a different city than that of my partner (another academic). I am still planning to be on the market in the coming years, but selectively: I'm only applying to jobs that are close to where my partner has their position. If I were to get an on-campus interview, I was wondering what to do about mentioning my two-body problem to faculty members at the interviewing institution. On the one hand, I'd be reticent to do this because I try not to talk too much about my personal life and don't want to give off the impression that I'm only applying to the job to solve this problem. On the other hand, I figure it might be helpful for the department to know that I am not as much of a "flight risk" once hired. Not sure how to think through this - I'd appreciate any thoughts.

One reader submitted the following reply:

If your partner is someone who already has a job, such that you won't be seeking a position for them at any university that hires you, you should absolutely mention this situation (and your partner's happily employed status). The jobs to which you apply will wonder why you're leaving your current position, will be sympathetic to your situation once they learn of it, and will be happy you're not likely to leave if they employ you.

This sounds right to me. In my experience (which is admittedly anecdotal), worries about flight risks are relatively common. So if you indicate that you have some reason to want to remain at the university, that might be an advantage--and again, it would help to explain why you are leaving your current position too. So, I'm not sure there's much to be lost by disclosing this, and perhaps something to be gained.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Grammatical mistakes in job apps?

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

How much do small grammatical mistakes cost you in your job application materials? I ask because when I tweak my materials for particular jobs, I'm prone to making small mistakes. Are these forgivable in the eyes of a committee, or do they provide reason for tossing an app? I want to know how much attention I need to give to proofing and re-proofing each and every document prior to sending them off!

I'm not the best proof-reader myself, and I suspect if there's just a stray error or two, it won't be too big of a deal. But if your application materials are rife with editing errors, I suspect that probably will count against you. One reader submitted a response that basically agrees with this:

Grammatical mistakes and small typos aren't great, but now that we require applicants to produce so many documents, every application has them. Don't get sloppy and unprofessional, but as long as you're within a normal range, no one will toss your application for this reason.

But another reader noted that some people might be sticklers on this kind of stuff:

First, some people do care about small grammatical mistakes - I had a colleague who would really hold it against applicants. And given the great number of applicants, it was difficult to want to fight with her over an applicant who had a sloppy letter. Further, a central part of our trade is publishing, and if you are not catching errors in application letters, you are probably not going to catch them in your proofs for publications. "Big deal" ... perhaps. But it does make you look careless. I would recommend applying for fewer positions, and taking more time with each application.

Anyway, it would be good to hear from other search committee members. How big of a deal is this to you?

Staying engaged in philosophy without (the need for) a job?

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

Suppose that you are exempt from trying to get a job and all that (you win the lottery, you decide to stay in the parental basement, etc.). How would you maximize your engagement in philosophy? e.g., if you faced no need to publish articles/ get peer approval, would you work on one big book, or write in a dialogue format, or abandon text and start doing street epistemology, go full Diogenes? etc. Put another way; stripping out all the trappings/context in which we are constrained to philosophize, how would you do it, ideally?

Interesting questions. One reader submitted the following reply:

I think your question needs to be fleshed out a bit. It all depends what one values and who one wants as an audience. If you want to write a book, and you want it to be read by professional philosophers, you are best to pursue a professional career, and aim to published with a strong reputable publisher (think OUP or CUP). But if you want to write a popular book, with a broad readership in mind, perhaps one can do that outside of the academy. But then you need to have some means for people be attracted to your book - when was the last time you read a book by someone living in their parents' basement? Look on your bookshelf - how many of the authors live in their parents' basement?

There are, of course, many authors who write popular books outside of academia, including ones who write on philosophical issues (see Sam Harris). But it's also presumably very difficult to find success and to do good work this way. This is probably the route that I'd try to go--either that or podcasting, or writing on a Substack, or some such. Not sure.

What about the rest of you? If you were freed from the trappings of an academic job, how would you stay engaged with philosophy (assuming, of course, you'd want to!).

Doing a PhD under a prominent philosopher at a mid-ranked department?

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

I am an undergraduate student planning to apply to philosophy grad programs. I found a prominent philosopher (perhaps almost everyone here knows) at a middle-ranked uni ( about #100-150 in QS ranking in philosophy). It would be great if I could be supervised by him/her. My concern is about job hunting: if I get a "Ph.D. from [middle-ranked uni] supervised by [prominent philosopher]", how does that work in the philosophy job market? I'd appreciate your honest opinion!

Good question. Another reader submitted the following reply:

Within analytic philosophy, I don't think the QS rankings are held in much regard at all. While it is rather controversial, insofar as philosophers adhere to any particular ranking, it is the Philosophical Gourmet Report – though, again, I stress this is a controversial issue. But, imho, if you lack a mentor from your BA program who is knowledgeable about the field these days and can advise you specifically (i.e., someone who is not super junior, and not super out of touch and isolated), the PGR is probably your best option for getting a very rough idea of how different programs are regarded in the discipline at large. Again, only a very rough idea; do not take it for the Lord's gospel truth. Also look at the specialist rankings. Given your question, it sounds like you already have an idea of what you want to specialise in. Having said that, I will say that one major advantage of attending a more well-rounded program with strengths in lots of areas is that you'll have room to grow and change your plans. Often that happens during the PhD. Think of it like diversification. There's some reason to not go to a program that is strong in only one, niche thing.

I wonder what other readers think. My sense is that the program you attend is probably more important in terms of job prospects than the person who supervises you. Then again, I know of some really good and successful people who didn't receive their PhD from a top program, and it's their work that seems to have set them apart. So I'm not sure.

Do any readers with more experience in these matters care to weigh in?

New sidebar link: the Cocoon's RSS feed

It was recently brought to my attention that the Cocoon's old RSS feed stopped working, but that this new RSS feed link works. I've honestly never used an RSS feed before, so (a bit embarrassingly) I don't even know how they work. But if any readers would like to subscribe, I've also created a permalink on the blog's right sidebar!

Choosing a PhD program writing sample: should the topic relate to your dissertation interests?

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

For a PhD writing sample, how close should the subject of the writing sample be to what you say (in your statement of purpose) are the research questions that most excite you for a dissertation? Specifically, I want to do early modern, and, at present, my strongest paper attempts to solve an interpretive problem in the political philosophy of the main figure I want to work on. However, my main long-term research interests in this figure are actually in their metaphysics. Would an 'X on political philosophy paper' count against me when applying to do 'X on metaphysics'?

Good question. A few readers submitted replies. One reader writes:

I think your writing sample for phd application should be your best work simpliciter. I only have one example, but I wrote on the extended mind and got an offer with scholarship for a research proposal on democracy.

Another writes:

I actually did a survey on this question a while back. Not a lot of people responded but opinions varied wildly from those who did. From "Not very important actually" to "moderately" to "Extremely important". You can read the responses here https://wonderphilosophy.com/the-package/writing-sample/ So, if you have to choose a writing sample on a different topic (say, because that's your best paper), I'd say just apply widely so you get some programs that don't care about that.

And a third writes:

Showing that you can do quality interpretive work on a historical figure in political philosophy will strongly suggest to an admissions committee that you can do good historical work on metaphysics. The political paper won't count against you at all.

Does anyone else with experience care to weigh in? It would be great to hear from people who have served on PhD program admissions committees!

Co-authoring papers: does author order matter in philosophy?

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

Is first authorship, second authorship, etc. important in philosophy? I'm working on some coauthored papers and haven't discussed these issues. Not sure whether this is something I should worry about. For context, I'm on the job market.

Good question. One reader submitted the following reply:

Authorship order does matter. I witnesses it myself. First, those reading your file will make judgments on the basis of the authorship order - where I worked previously, files for promotions and raises were reviewed faculty in various departments, and each person tended to read the file and its content from their disciplinary perspective. Second, it is worth having authorship order conversations with collaborators so you do not get into a conflict later. I have collaborated a number of times - most often it is very clear who is first author, but helps to make it explicit.

For what it's worth, I've also heard that putting a footnote on the first page of a manuscript detailing authors' contributions can be helpful (many science journals actually require something like this at the end of papers). Obviously, this won't show up on a CV, but if each co-author contributed equally, noting that in the paper itself might help. 

Do any other readers have any helpful advice or other insights? It might be good to hear how people on search committees think about co-authored papers in general, both with respect to the job-market as well as with tenure and promotion.

Applying for stretch jobs in a particular region: "just go for it" or "don't waste your time"?

A reader writes in:

I’m semi-on-the-market in that my wife and I would like to move closer to our nieces. There are plenty of jobs in the region (the NE part of the US). I’m not even interested in an R1 job, but I’m open to taking on anything in the teaching-heavy range from community college to regional 4-year to SLAC. I’m struggling with where to land in the “just go for it” vs. “don’t waste your time” spectrum of weighing prospects when certain jobs get posted. How often have people applied to jobs that they thought they had very little chance of getting (for whatever reason—I don’t have enough pubs, I don’t have experience teaching that specific class they mention in the AOC needs, etc.) and yet they managed to either get the job or get an interview? And how important is having either weak or strong ties to people in the department matter for getting the types of jobs I mention; like how important is it to spend time networking to establish connections in the schools in that region?

All good questions. I tend to be in the "just go for it" camp on most things (as the saying goes: nothing ventured, nothing gained!). And of course professional connections probably don't hurt, either. But do any readers have any helpful experiences to share? 

Dissertation committees and job-market recommendation letters: junior vs. senior faculty

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

I am currently starting to think about my dissertation committee and, as an extension of that, job market letter writers.

I'm not sure how much I should care about the prestige of the philosophers on my committee, who will end up being most of my letter writers (except, perhaps, for a teaching letter). For example, I can ask a recently retired and very-famous professor to be on the committee, but they have been pretty flaky lately and enjoying their retirement a lot, so I'm not sure how committed they would be and how closely I could work with them. On the other hand, there is a junior faculty member in my department who is only a few years out of grad school, but is already very well-respected and has a lot of connections in my AOS (and an extraordinary publishing record). I am leaning toward the junior faculty member because I think the dissertation would probably be better with their help, but perhaps some people might advise me to find a famous person and just do what you need to do to get a good letter from them? Or perhaps having someone well-connected is better, regardless of their seniority in the field?

I could also try and find a famous person outside of my department, but of course most of these people are extremely busy and might not be able to write me a great letter in the end, either.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do here is!

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

As a young faculty member I was involved in many situations where my older, more famous colleague was the official Chair of a committee, but I met much more frequently with the student dissertator. This is perfectly fine and everyone understands how it works. Get the respected figure on the committee for the letter, but add others who will help you do your best work. 

This comment sounds right to me, but I wonder what others think!

Philosophical competence, language, and the perplexing Gavagai problem

Many grad students at the department where I work (Saint Louis University, philosophy) are fluent Latinists. In the hallways they make constructions such as these for fun in Latin (I am unfortunately not so endowed, so I’ll give you my approximation in English):  

Q: Whether it is true that there are alligators in Florida?

A: It might seem there are no alligators in Florida, for such reports are no more than hearsay…

In this respect, my department is somewhat of an outlier. Even passive competence in a second language at anglophone departments is at an all-time low, and language requirements at universities are being cut back or altogether axed. This lack of linguistic competence presents a problem: it cuts us off from our own rich philosophical traditions and it prevents serious and deep engagement with other traditions where the primary texts are in languages other than our own.

Christoph Harbsmeier, at a conference in Singapore I attended just now, lamented this loss of language. He is a senior German scholar of Chinese, and spent time in multiple countries. He worked at the University of Oslo, where he spoke with the legendary Arne Naess in Norwegian. In addition, he not only speaks Mandarin fluently (and reads classical Chinese as one might expect from a scholar in Chinese history and linguistics), he also knows Latin, Greek, some Sanskrit, French, German (of course), Polish (which he said he took with the sole aim to better understand Tarski—given the notorious complexity of this language I hope for his sake Tarski was worth it for him), and, of course English.

Each of us ESL speakers has at least two languages, a fact that is curiously regarded as an impediment rather than an advantage because of the worry of non-idiomatic English (see some more thoughts on English as a lingua franca by Eric Schwitzgebel, here).

In Harbsmeier’s view, any philosopher who is only competent in English (or any other language for that matter), suffers a severe cognitive and epistemic disadvantage. The starting point for his talk was W.V.O Quine’s problem of radical translation (discussed in Word and Object, 1960) where a native speaker exclaims “Gavagai!” and you, a linguist, wonder whether this word might mean “rabbit.” In a similar vein, should we translate the crucial Confucian concept of cheng as sincerity, authenticity, or wholeheartedness? The holism inherent in Quine’s conception of language and thought threatens any adequate translation of cheng because to really understand this idea it you must know that Confucianism is among others about self-authentication, getting rid of doxastic and motivational conflicts, and become whole within yourself as you avail yourself of the finely-honed cognitive technology of the rituals of the sage kings of the Western Zhou.

Closely connected to linguistic competence is cultural competence. Harbsmeier agreed with someone during the Q and A that some translations are relatively speaking straightforward, for instance, as his interlocutor said, “a rose is a rose is a rose”—this is, allegedly, a straight botanical fact. However, as Gertrude Stein already implied when she penned that famous line, the point is that a rose is not just a rose. A rose is a flower with rich cultural connotations that vary across cultures.

In a recent public address, Harvey Lederman argues for the disciplinary autonomy of Chinese philosophy. He argues that such work involves, necessarily, a close, patient, unglamorous engagement with the primary sources in their original language, reading them with “rigor, care and precision.” Herein lies an enormous difficulty for those who, like me, merely dabble in Chinese philosophy and only have a bit of Mandarin and even less classical Chinese.

The severe difficulty of relying on translation was recently brought vividly to me in a graduate seminar where my students and I looked at Wang Yangming’s responses to questions posed by students on the Great Learning (da xue), a chapter in a pre-Qin Confucian text. Wang Yangming, a Ming dynasty neo-Confucian author, objects to Zhu Xi’s interpretation of the relevant lines in Great Learning. He says:

And so, enlightening one’s enlightened Virtue must find expression in loving the people, and loving the people simply is the way one enlightens one’s enlightened virtue. (Trans PJ Ivanhoe) 

Wang, unlike his predecessor Zhu Xi, does not think enlightening one’s enlightened virtue (ming ming de) lies in renewing the people but in loving the people. He objects to Zhu Xi’s innovation in this text which had snuck in since the Song dynasty. Wang preserves the older meaning. But how could renewing and loving the people be two such different readings of the same text?

One of my grad students who is Chinese and visiting from mainland China explained that it is a confusion or perhaps deliberate emendation on Zhu Xi’s part where loving the people (qinmin 親民, where the sense of love is specifically proximate or familial) became to renovate or renew (xinmin,新民), that is the same character as for New Years (xin nian). This and other subtleties you will not get if you do not study classical Chinese.

So much of our competence in other languages is down to linguistic luck. You have moved as a child or as an adult, or as in my case, grew up in Belgium where it is obligatory to learn the three national languages (French, Dutch/Flemish, and German) and the education is of good quality. Beyond that, there is a genuine problem of investing in another language even in graduate school. Learning a language is slow, unrewarding, and unproductive for a significant period. You must submit obediently (as Iris Murdoch, I believe, pointed out) to the peculiarities of the language. In that respect, learning a language in its slowness and lack of immediate reward mimics the model of Chinese philosophy as Lederman puts forward: patient, unglamorous, slow.

Our students are already expected to do so much. It is unsurprising that language and logic and other such requirements that emphasize a certain well-roundedness are disappearing as the pressures mount to publish. Whereas it was fine to just focus on coursework in the first years (I’m taking the American context here, I know it differs between countries) they must now also already do “their own” research so as to get ahead in the publication game (as this question by Lila Graham makes clear).

Tips for staying afloat for a first-semester prof?

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

I'm having trouble adjusting to TT life post-grad school. I started as an assistant professor at a SLAC this fall with a 3/4 load. I feel like I'm drowning in email, grading, and class preps. I don't know how to manage my Outlook inbox. I'm going to have to pick up some service activities soon on top of everything else. Any tips for a first-semester TT prof trying to figure out how stay afloat?

I'm so sorry to hear the OP is struggling, and I hope we can help! 

For what it is worth, my experience is that this is completely normal. Transitioning into a FT academic job is a lot, particularly with a fairly heavy teaching load. Fortunately, at least in my experience, things are likely to get better, particularly in future semesters as you have some of your new course preps behind you. Of course, this may be little solace now, but at least it may comfort the OP to hear that things won't always be this way.

Philosophy in Senegal

This is the thirty-third installment of The Cocoon Goes Global, a series that gives a sense of what the philosophy profession looks like outside of the Anglophone West. This installment is by Hady Ba, Associate-Professor of Philosophy,  is the Head of the Philosophy Department at Cheikh Anta Diop University’s Teachers College in Senegal.

1. General information

Senegal is a country in West Africa with 18 million inhabitants living over 75,951 sq mi. The population is very young with more than 60% under 25 years old and 41.19% under 14 years old. 46.7% of the population lived below the poverty line in 2011. It is a relatively unequal country since the Gini index is 38.1. For comparison, France's Gini index is 32.4 and that of the USA is 41.5. Senegal is therefore less unequal than the USA but more so than France.

A former French colony, Senegal has around twenty ethnic groups who speak as many languages. French is, however, the official language of the Republic of Senegal while the 6 codified local languages ​​officially have the status of national languages. As such, education and state affairs are conducted in French, a former colonial language spoken by the educated elite. De facto, one of the national languages, Wolof, spoken as a first or second language by the overwhelming majority of the population serves as a lingua franca. As in many African countries, multilingualism is the rule. The Senegalese declare themselves muslims at 97.2%, and christians at 2.7%. Traditional African religions, however, persist either in the form of syncretism with imported religions, or, more rarely, in a pure form.

The Republic of Senegal is supposedly democratic. Senegal is one of 6 African countries out of 54 to have never experienced a coup or attempted coup since their independence. Despite the fact that the country is 97.2% Muslim, our first President, the poet and philosopher of Negritude Léopold Sédar Senghor was a Roman Catholic who ruled the country with an iron fist in a velvet glove for 20 years before passing power to his successor. Since Senghor, there have been three democratic changes and the country is preparing for presidential elections in 2024. The country's Constitution makes it a strong presidential system and successive leaders have often abused their power in the absence of effective parliamentary and judicial control. Despite everything, Senegalese democracy still holds strong thanks to a vibrant civil society and a culture of demonstration and resistance to abuse that dates back to colonization. The Senegalese even managed to obtain gains from the French during the colonial period.

2. The education system

Overall, the Senegalese school and university system is heir to the French system. Despite a series of reforms and transformations, school and university culture remains fundamentally French-speaking and Francophile. The Baccalaureate, a secondary school leaving diploma, is a national examination organized and delivered by the Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, which is the first and main university in the country. Education is considered a public good deemed to be provided by the State from primary to higher education. 

In fact, many children are not in school or are in madrassas which teach the Koran rather than providing general or vocational training. Traditionally, the children of these madrassas begged at specific times of the day to ensure their subsistence, instill in them the virtues of stoicism and facilitate their collective care by the community. The current perversion of this system means that these children learn less and less of the Koran and spend more and more time on the streets begging to bring money to their teachers. The State is trying to encourage the formalization of madrassas and support those of them that agree to take children off the streets. The least we can say, however, is that the State of Senegal completely fails in its mission to protect these children and gives in to the lobby of Koranic teachers, some of whom import children from abroad to exploit them under the guise of religious schooling. 

Officially, Law No. 2004-37 of December 15, 2004 makes schooling compulsory for all children of both sexes aged six to sixteen and the State must provide this schooling free of charge. Actually, only 56.4% of the population aged 15 and over can read and write. Since the structural adjustment plans of the 1980s, the Bretton Woods institutions have forced the State of Senegal to reduce its spending on public services. Recurrent strikes followed, destabilizing the public. 

A private education system has consequently developed alongside the public, from primary to higher education. These private schools mostly follow the official Senegalese curriculum and are, paradoxically, subsidized by the State to help it ensure its public education mission. With the exception of some elite public schools, the state run schools have become de facto, at the primary and secondary levels, the refuge of disadvantaged populations and public school activists. Despite everything, public schools remain of quality and win prizes in standardized exams compared to their private counterparts who are much better endowed.

3. Philosophy in Senegal

Most Senegalese students discover philosophy during their last year of high school. A philosophy course is compulsory in most tracks. Philosophy is the dominant subject in literary majors and a fairly important minor in scientific majors. The Senegalese generally have an extremely positive view of philosophy which is often considered to be the counterpart of mathematics in terms of intelligence and esotericism. In high schools, philosophy teachers are the only ones who only teach final year, a subject known to be difficult and even dangerous. 

The philosophy class and end of high school exam are a rite of passage for every educated Senegalese. Most students have either enthusiastic or horrified memories of this subject. Senegal being a 97.2% Muslim and very practicing country at that, philosophy has a sulfurous reputation, being seen as the subject which either promotes atheism or drives its practitioners crazy. It is not uncommon to be criticized and kindly called crazy when you study or practice philosophy. 

Tips from Search Committee Members: how do you evaluate recommendation letters?

The first six posts in this series examined how hiring committees read and evaluate CVs, cover letters, research statements, teaching statements, diversity statements, and writing samples. Before we move onto first-round interviews and various aspects of on-campus visits (e.g., job talks, teaching demos, etc.), I'd like to finish up this first part of the series by asking search committee members to share how they read recommendation letters.

I've heard anecdotally that some search committee members care a great deal about recommendations, whereas others care very little. The Cocoon has also fielded a lot of questions over the years about whether recommendation letters need to be updated each year, on how many letters to include (including teaching letters), on whether it looks strange to not have a letter from someone on their committee or from their current job (e.g., a postdoc or VAP), on how important it is to have outside letters from people not in your grad program, and so on.

So, I think this thread could be really helpful. If you're on a search committee or have served on one in the past:

1. How much value do you place in recommendation letters? A lot? A little? None? Why?
2. What type of institution do you work at? R1? SLAC? CC?
3. Do you notice or care whether a recommendation letter is updated or a bit old?
4. Do you notice or care about whether a candidate has letters from all of their committee members? Outside letters? From their current job (post grad school)?
5. How do you read letters?
6. What types of things reflect well on a candidate, and what kinds of things reflect not so well?
7. Anything else?

Curious to hear everyone's answers!

How can we help you? (September 2023)

Now that it's been over a month since our last "how can we help you?" thread, it's time for a new thread.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

As usual, feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Issues in the profession (including issues of social justice)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Work-life balance
• Mental health & well-being
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Ask away - we're here to help! 

Important reminder: if you submit a comment in this thread responding to someone's query, I won't post it, as this makes it difficult for me to keep track of everything in the comments section, particularly which queries I've started new threads on and which ones I have not. However, if you do post a follow-up comment, chances are good that I will post it in the new thread I start on the relevant query. So, do feel free to submit responses. Just know that they won't appear in this particular thread and might instead appear later in a new post.

Using an R&R as a writing sample?

A reader writes in:

I wanted to ask a question about writing samples on the academic job market. First, I suspect that using a paper that has a revise and resubmit status (that is still under review) from a solid journal would be fine, but is it prudent to share with the committee that it's under review or has an R&R status? For instance, is it prudent to have a note at the top of the paper that says "This paper received a major revision from Journal X and is currently under review" The only issue I see is that one of the committee members is a reviewer but that seems unlikely. 

What do you think? 

Good question. I've wondered about this too, and about even listing R&Rs on one's CV.

Is it worth it to risk violating anonymized review? What do you all think?

Job offers: can you negotiate down a teaching load?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, Emily asks:

I have a question about what can be negotiated once one receives a job offer. I'm looking at the market this year, and wondering whether I should apply to jobs with high teaching loads, given that I do not want a job with a high teaching load (I put a lot of effort into my teaching, *and* I love research and want to have time for it). Some advertised jobs are one the border of what I think I could reasonably handle. So, my question: Is it ever possible to negotiate down from something like a 3/4 to a 3/3, or a 3/3 to a 2/3? Or is it not worth applying if I know I don't want to teach the advertised course load?

Good questions. You can of course always try to negotiate anything you like. However, my sense is that trying to negotiate down a teaching load at a college or university that has teaching loads like these is probably a bad idea. Universities with higher teaching loads are, after all, looking to hire a teacher, and my sense anecdotally is that many places like these just don't do teaching reductions. As one reader put it in a submitted reply:

I've never heard that such a negotiation is possible, except for reduction credits (so, not long-term reduction). So I will vote for "not worth applying".

While I suspect that nothing bad is likely to happen if you ask, I know of at least one horror story where a philosophy job-candidate actually had a job-offer rescinded because her requests during negotiations "indicate an interest in teaching at a research university and not at a college, like ours, that is both teaching and student centered." But, of course, this is just one case, and honestly, the candidate probably dodged a proverbial bullet by not taking a job there. 

So, I'm not sure whether it's worth trying. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from job-candidates that have tried to negotiate teaching loads (particularly at places with relatively high loads), as well as from search committee members and administrators.

Making time for coursework and independent research in grad school?

On Twitter/“x” (lol), Lila Graham asks:

so. how do people make time for both their own research and also coursework during the first year(s) of grad school[?]

Great question! It’s been quite a while since I was in grad school, and to be honest I was terrible about getting my own research done when I was. So, I’m probably not a great person to ask—but still, summer breaks seem like they are probably a great time to get some work done.

Anyway, so any readers have any good tips?

Applying for an Associate Professor position from a non-TT position?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, S asks:

Suppose one has been on the job market for around ten years and has a publication record that compares favorably with what might be expected at the Associate Professor level. Suppose further that this person has never held a TT position. Would it be inappropriate or pointless for this person to apply for Associate Professor positions? Is it a requirement for such jobs that one already has tenure somewhere?

One can always try, of course, but unfortunately I suspect the chances of it working are close to nil. Another reader submitted the following reply:

You probably should not apply for associate prof positions. Though you might have a comparable research record, you may not have a comparable teaching and service record. Further, given that you have never been tenured, they may be very reluctant to hire you into a tenured position. The exception, I think, would be in certain parts of Europe, especially the northern parts, where assistant professorships are rare.

As unfair as it might seem, I expect this is probably how many committees are apt to think. Also, one must always remember that new hires need to be approved by Deans, Provosts, and Boards of Trustees. If an Associate Professor position is tenured (as virtually all of them are), the powers that be seem unlikely to me to approve hiring someone who has not achieved tenure into a tenured position.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Writing a lukewarm letter of recommendation?

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

It's the season of writing recommendation letters. I'd really like to have advice on how to approach writing lukewarm / weak letters of recommendation for job candidates, especially if you're junior yourself and don't have the option of declining writing the letter.

Hmm, not sure. I'm generally inclined to think that if you can't write a good letter, then you should probably decline. But the OP says they don't really have the option to do that. I wonder why, though? Doesn't one always have a choice? However, if you do need to write a lukewarm letter, I guess you should be honest? I suspect it's probably also good practice to let the candidate know that your letter won't be uniformly positive, just to give them the option of declining the letter.

What do you all think?