The Philosophers' Cocoon

What you wish you knew when starting a TT job?

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

I've seen many "What I wish I knew when I started grad school" threads. How about a thread entitled: "What I wish I knew when I started at my first TT job?"

This is a wonderful query. I'll probably weigh in down in the comments section, but I'd love to begin by just opening things up to readers.

What do you wish you knew when you started your first TT job?

Are new hires expected to do graduate mentoring?

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

I have seen several job adverts recently for Assistant Professor roles that seem to request graduate mentoring. Are new Assistant Professors actually expected to mentor graduates from day one, or is this listed as something that will be expected in the future? Or am I misunderstanding and they do not mean PhD dissertation supervision but something else by graduate mentoring in the US? It seems like a lot to ask recent PhDs to mentor graduates.

My experience, from what I have seen and heard second-hand, is that new hires in graduate programs are absolutely expected to do graduate mentoring from day 1. Are recent PhDs well-prepared to this? My sense is: probably not--which, personally, is why I think it may be better for people to be not to be hired into these kinds of TT jobs right out of graduate school. Postdocs and/or a VAP or two can greatly help one find one's footing, as it were, and for my part I recall feeling profoundly unprepared for a tenure-track job when I got my first VAP (in retrospect, I'm profoundly thankful that I did not get a TT job right out of the gate; I think I probably would have failed in one!).

But anyway, maybe I'm wrong about the expectations here. Any readers care to weigh in?

Visiting jobs for TT people?

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

I'd really appreciate a post that summarizes opportunities / postdocs / fellowships that early career people who already have a TT job can apply for. I often hear from people who spend a year somewhere, but it's often unclear to me how to find out about these opportunities. Examples are fellowships with the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, Visiting Fellowships at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Philosophy of Science, or Harrington Faculty Research Fellowships at UT Austin.

This is a good question. I'm on sabbatical next year, and applied to some of these kinds of things--but I expect there are probably other opportunities than those listed on PhilJobs. Anyone have any tips?

Work habits on the tenure track?

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

As a (very) early career person, it would really help me to know how later career people spend (or spent, when they were on the tenure-track) their average week. How much time to you dedicate to writing? How do you make sure you are setting aside the right amount of time for editing / pipeline type work (responding to reviews, getting papers submitted) vs creating type work (developing new projects, drafting new paper sections)? I'm finding it difficult to navigate this and am curious if others have systems that work for him. I expect this varies widely, but it would still be helpful to hear about others' experiences.

These are very good questions, and I am very curious to hear how readers respond. It is difficult for me to give a simple answer in my own case, as during my time on the tenure-track (and post-tenure) my work habits have varied tremendously. A lot depends, I think, on how in need of publications one is. When I needed to publish a lot, if I had a two-day-a-week teaching schedule, I would basically spend the other three days of the week writing. On the other hand, during times that I didn't need to publish a lot or had a three or four day a week teaching schedule, there have been entire semesters when I've gotten very little writing done--and, in any case, I get the vast majority of my writing done during winter and summer breaks. In general, I've found it pretty difficult to shift-gears between teaching and research on "teaching days", and have friends who report the same thing--though maybe things are different in R1 jobs where one has a very light teaching load.

In terms of how I partition my writing time between pipeline-type work (editing pre-existing papers, completing R&Rs, etc.) and drafting new work, I'd say it's roughly 50/50. On writing days, I'll usually spend the first half of my day (say, 9am-1pm) drafting new work, and then the afternoon (2-5pm) on pipeline stuff. I will say that my sense is that it is vital to always be drafting new things. Most of the people that I know who are the most successful (including in terms of receiving tenure) are people who consistently publish a lot, and hence, always have quite a few things under review at any given time--which requires producing a lot of new work pretty consistently. 

But these are just my habits and experiences. What are yours? It would be great to hear not only from those on the tenure-track who are pretenure, but also (for obvious reasons) from those who received tenure. What does your average work week look like, and how do you partition your time between teaching and research, and between drafting new work and work in your pipeline?

Handling new-job jitters?

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

I recently was fortunate enough to land an amazing job that I've very excited about. Especially given the current market situation, I feel very lucky. But I also feel more nervous than I ever felt on the job market. It's not really concerns about teaching or publishing (well, at least not beyond the general anxiety I imagine everyone experiences about those things). I'm more worried that I'll say something wrong and all my new colleagues will start to dislike me. Honestly, it feels a lot closer to how I felt on the first day of kindergarten than it does anything else. I'm hoping the feeling will get better with time, but I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to make the transition to my new department smooth and how to be less nervous talking to people?

Good question! Another reader submitted the following reply:

You made it through the 1st day of kindergarten. You will make it through this one too. Generally, the selection process is so rigorous, the candidate who gets the job will do just fine. You are off to a great start to a wonderful career. (if you want something to worry about, you should be more concerned that the department is dysfunctional - hopefully not, though).

Tips for new faculty & postdocs?

Last month, we ran an inaugural thread soliciting questions from readers on tips for those on the tenure-track. Given that some readers may be beginning their first jobs post-PhD in a month or two--ranging from tenure-track job to postdocs, VAPs, etc.--I thought it might be worthwhile running an open thread soliciting queries from people about to begin new jobs of all sorts.

Are you about to begin a new job and have questions or are looking for tips on how to start off on the right foot? Fire away, and I'll run new threads discussing your queries!

Tips for tenure-track parents?

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, the OP asks whether readers have any advice for tenure-track faculty who are parents, particularly single parents. I'm not a parent, so I don't have any tips to share. But as a tenured faculty member who is considering having children, I wonder a lot about how I would balance everything and be a good parent and spouse given my workload. And, of course, I expect that the particular stresses and workload of a TT job (e.g. 'publish or perish', etc.) can pose real challenges for parents, particularly (but not only) single parents.

So, I think it would be great to hear from readers with some experience here. If you do have experience as a faculty member who is also a parent--particularly (but not only) if you had children while on the tenure-track--please feel free to share any tips or experiences that you think other readers might find helpful!

Making time for research in a TT job?

(Temporarily moving to the front - comments open now!)

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, a reader writes:

Having been a postdoc for a long time, as a new TT faculty I'm finding it hard to find time for research whilst attending to my teaching responsibilities (which I take very seriously). Any tips on how to make time for writing with everything else going on during the semester so that it doesn't only become a 'summer hobby'?

This is a great question, and I'll do my best to provide some helpful tips--and I hope readers on the tenure-track chime in with some tips of their own. But before I make a few suggestions, I'd like to say a few things about the broader issue: namely, lack of time in tenure-track jobs for focusing on research during the academic year.

Unfortunately, many people who begin tenure-track jobs are in for something of a rude awakening. My experience is that unless you have a job with a very low teaching load at a research university--and sometimes even then--you simply won't have much time for research during academic terms. Seriously. I do probably 90% of my research during summer and winter breaks, and as this TimesHigherEd article points out, I'm not alone: a recent survey of Dutch academics found that, 'Those lucky enough to have become full professors – supposedly the light at the end of the tunnel for struggling junior scholars – spend just 17 per cent of their time on their own research.' Indeed, you can see how much time for research falls in the following figure:

Tenure-track jobs & departmental politics

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, the OP asks: how involved should you get in department politics or the direction of the department (if at all)?

This is a good question, and not an easy one to answer. On the one hand, departmental politics (and university politics, for that matter) can involve all kinds of risks--alienating people with power over your career, etc. On the other hand, I know of some cases where departments have factions of various sorts and not getting involved in departmental politics is itself risky--as members of the various factions might expect a new TT member to 'choose sides', as it were. Finally, as a tenure track faculty member you might feel like you have a right and duty of some kind to get involved: to help push the department in one direction rather than another.

In my 12 years at my current university, I have seen tenure-track faculty adopt vastly different styles here. I've seen faculty who try to stay out of the fray, as it were, and I've seen faculty get deeply involved--and speak out a lot--in both departmental and university politics. It's never been entirely clear to me what the best approach is. 

What do you all think? It might be good to hear some stories or experiences from TT faculty who have adopted one approach or the other. Was getting involved in departmental (or university) politics fruitful, or did it turn out to be more trouble than it was worth? Or, did you just keep your head down and focus on teaching and research?

Handling 'meaningless service'?

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, Timmy J writes:

The upshot of my question is this: do you care about all the weird trivial crap it seems like people expect you to care about? If so, how do you bring yourself to do so? If not, is it ever a problem?

In more detail: as a new TT faculty member I was floored by the mountains-out-of-molehills shenaninganry that was *constantly* going on. Let's talk for three hours about how to rename our courses. Please vote for the dean's select committee on rethinking the language in our requests for members of dean's select committees. What should our priorities be as we move toward thinking about beginning to talk about addressing the question of whether there's bias on campus---please give your feedback within 48 hours via an 82-question google survey.

These examples are exaggerated for effect, but I imagine many people at many institutions get the joke, and that's what my question is about: there's a presumption that you care about these things. I find myself not caring, in even a small way, about 99% of them. I anti-care. I would like to not know that my feedback is wanted or not know that we're renaming our courses; etc. I would in fact like to not live in a world where there are Dean's select committees.

Do you care? If so, how on earth do you manage to do so? If not, has it been a problem? Have you found ways to manage that problem?

David then added:

I totally agree with Timmy J about all the meaningless "service" and committee work required at these jobs and would love to see a thread about it, especially the never-ending "assessment" initiatives. It blows my mind that so many people really seem to love this stuff. They seem no longer interested in philosophy itself or any actual subject matter, but are rather now obsessed with second and third order meta-analyses of "learning outcomes", etc. Is there real evidence that these initiatives really result in improved student learning? Doubtful. And skeptics about all this busywork are not well-tolerated either.....

Good questions. As someone who worked a bit outside of academia before grad school, my sense is that 'meaningless busywork' is pretty common in the workplace in general (see this great scene from Office Space). I'm not sure what's to be done about it. As David notes, complaining about it or expressing skepticism doesn't seem to work very well. So, my general attitude is: let the people who want to do that kind of stuff do what they do, and try as far as reasonably possible to focus on things that matter to you. This isn't to say it's always easy or even possible. As David notes, 'learning outcomes assessment' is all the rage these days, in large part (it seems) because accrediting agencies increasingly demand it. So, for better or worse, one sort of has to do some of this stuff. It is, as they say, what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, these are my not-too-terribly-helpful thoughts. Do any of you have any more helpful tips to share?

Publishing on controversial topics while TT?

In our new thread soliciting questions on tips for faculty on the tenure-track, a reader writes:

Is it (un)wise to write controversial stuff on the TT even if it’s published in good journals—theism/atheism, nihilism, socialism/libertarianism, materialism/idealism, etc.?

This is a good question, and I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, there is evidence that some philosophers are willing to discriminate in the workplace along ideological lines. On the other hand, I know of philosophers who have written on very controversial things--including philosophers who were the subjects of serious public controversy for what they wrote--who ended up getting tenure. What I don't know here is anything regarding the probabilities. Is writing on controversial stuff while on the tenure-track more likely to help or harm a candidate for tenure? I'm just not sure. Can any readers with experience in these matters weigh in? 

Is it important for TT faculty to 'network'?

In the OP of the thread I recently posted asking readers to share any questions they may have about how to flourish on the tenure track to discuss in this new series, a reader asks whether it is important to '[get] to know academics outside your department (is this important? why or why not?).' These are really good questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Here are a few quick thoughts.

Notice, to begin with, that the reader's query is ambiguous between two questions:

1. Whether it is important to get to know academics outside of your department at your university.
2. Whether it is important to get to know academics at other universities (in the profession more broadly).

My sense here is that the answer to (1) is 'Yes and no', and that the answer to (2) is 'It depends on what kind of job you are in and what your priorities are. Let me explain why.

Projects to (not) take on prior to tenure?

As I mentioned on Friday in response to a reader's request, I'd like to begin a new series here focusing on tips for tenure-track faculty. If you're currently on the tenure-track or otherwise have questions about how to flourish in a tenure-track position, please feel free to share your query in the comments section below that post. I'd like to begin the series today by addressing the first question posed by the reader who originally suggested the Cocoon focus more on these issues. The reader asks: what projects shouldn't one take on before tenure (e.g. maybe writing a book?)?

This is a very good question, as my sense is that people on the tenure-track can get themselves into difficult positions by either over-committing to things or by committing to the wrong kinds of things. We actually discussed the other week whether it makes sense to try to publish a book prior to tenure. Although only a few people chimed in there, the general sentiment appeared to be that trying to publish a book before tenure is risky--though, as one reader noted, the best thing to do here is to ask one's department chair (and, I would add, get their answer in writing). Here's one other reason to believe this to be really important: I actually heard of a case on social media recently where the reason given for a tenure denial (at an R1) was that the philosopher in question hadn't published a book. Indeed, in addition to asking one's department chair, cases like these suggest to me that it's vital to find out (and again, get in writing) exactly what is expected of one in progressing successfully toward tenure.

But this is just one example. Are there other projects that individuals on the tenure-track should--and, importantly, should not--take on while on the tenure track? I'm really curious to hear what readers think. But here are a few examples that occurred to me:

1. Editing a book: As gratifying as it may feel to edit a book, my sense is that this is in general probably not a great way to spend one's time prior to tenure. The reason why is simple: I've heard that editing a book takes a ton of time, but it probably won't carry much weight in a tenure-and-promotion decision. When it comes to evaluating the research productivity of a candidate for tenure, my sense is that T&P committees (both in departments, and equally importantly, at the college level) tend to focus far more on original research (i.e. authored articles and books). It simply doesn't seem plausible to me that editing a book is likely to be a positive difference-maker in terms of getting tenure. What it may do is take a great deal of time, impacting your ability to publish the kind of original research that T&P committees are actually likely to care about.
2. Publishing articles in edited collections: While there's nothing wrong with publishing an article or two (or three) in edited collections prior to tenure--particularly if your piece is in an edited collection with a notable press--my admittedly anecdotal sense is that some pre-tenure people go overboard here, primarily publishing in edited collections rather than in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. For what it is worth, my experience here is that in cases like these, T&P committees may have real reservations. Many publications in edited collections, after all, are 'invited' and it's not always clear just how anonymized the reviewing for such collections is. The mere fact that a piece is invited, after all, is itself a kind of 'thumb on the scale' that doesn't exist in the case of journal submissions--and peer-reviewers for pieces in edited collections may be inclined to be more supportive than reviewers for journals, assuming that if a piece is invited, that is a prima facie reasons to provide a favorable verdict. To be clear, I'm not asserting that this is the case (that is, that edited collections don't have the same peer-review standards as journals). What I am saying is that T&P committees--who a candidate for tenure has no control over--may have these kinds of reservations, for better or worse. My recommendation for anyone on the tenure-track, then, is to prioritize publishing in anonymously peer-reviewed journals. It's okay, I think, to publish a few pieces in edited collections. However, if most of your publications are in edited collections, I worry that it could come back to haunt you in a T&P decision.
3. Overcommitting to service: People in universities today tend to take service very seriously. As a tenure-track faculty member, my experience is that you will be nearly-constantly bombarded with requests to take on more service--to serve on this committee or that, or to even head some kind of institute. Alas, my experience here is also that as serious as people take service, one's service record is probably the least likely thing to 'make the difference' in an eventual tenure and promotion decision. Here, my experience is that T&P committees tend to care the most about research and teaching. If (depending upon the kind of institution you are at) your research and teaching records are sufficient for tenure and promotion, chances are you'll get a favorable decision--and conversely, if either your research or teaching record is insufficient for tenure or promotion, you may get an unfavorable decision. Service, in my experience, is sort of regarded like 'whip-cream on the top' of a dessert. T&P committees look favorable upon service, and you should almost certainly engage in some fair amount of service. The problem, though, is that it can be very easy to take on too much service. Again, my experience is that once you are on the tenure-track, you will get asked to do more and more service on a near-continual basis--and so, if you don't learn how to say no and 'jealously guard your time', you may very well find yourself in a situation where you lack sufficient time to publish and/or teach effectively...and these are the things that, far more often than one's service record, are likely to make a difference when it comes to tenure. 

Anyway, these are just three things that immediately occurred to me off the top of my head. What do you all think? Which projects should--and shouldn't--one take on before tenure?

New series: tips for the tenure track

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a new faculty member on the tenure-track writes:

Maybe I am just not looking in the right place in the archives, but in general I would love to see more early (TT) career advice featured on the blog. Things like: what projects you shouldn't take on before tenure (e.g. maybe writing a book?); getting to know academics outside your department (is this important? why or why not?); how involved should you get in department politics or the direction of the department (if at all); being on the TT as a (single) parent, etc.

This is a great query, and I plan on running a series of posts to discuss each of the topics they list above. But before I do that, it occurred to me that this blog probably has many readers who are relatively new to the tenure-track, and so I figured it might be good to start with a thread crowdsourcing questions from you all relating specifically to tenure-track jobs. If you are currently on the tenure track, about to start a tenure-track job, or even not on the tenure-track yet and are curious about advice or tips relating to doing well in a TT job, ask away in the comments section below. Tomorrow, I'll begin the series with one of the topics in the OP above, and then move on in subsequent posts to topics in your comments!