Login
It's been a number of years since this blog has had any new series on job-market tips, such as our Job-Market Boot Camp and Notes from both sides of the market series. Given that these past series mostly involved me and other authors sharing our impressions on various job market materials, interviews, etc., they didn't necessarily provide a representative picture of how different search committee members at different types of institutions see these things.
So, in this new series, Tips from Search Committee Members, I'd like to rectify this. In today's post, I'd like to ask search committee members to answer some or all of the following questions:
Finally, if there are any other questions you think are worth addressing not listed here, please feel free to volunteer and answer them. Really curious to hear your answers!
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
I just published my first book! I would very much appreciate advice on what authors can and should do to publicize a new book. I know that my publisher will do some marketing on their end (send the book to journals for review, etc.) but is there anything more I can do on my end to increase the readership?
Good question! Aside from sharing it on social media, ensuring that journals get sent copies for book reviews, and trying to get journal symposia and the like, I'm not sure.
Do any readers have any helpful tips?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
I graduated from a top US undergrad almost 20 years ago, and I took a few philosophy courses that fascinated me but did not major in the subject. Many years later, I am passionate about philosophy and philosophical questions and have done a lot of thinking and theorizing on my own. I fundamentally want to "do philosophy" and attempt to answer the great questions. I am fortunate enough that I could self-fund any formal education.
I'm not sure where I should go from here. There are online masters programs at certain UK schools, and there is also the option of writing on my own and submitting it informally for comment and critique. I don't have the "proper" resume to gain admission at most philosophy graduate programs because I didn't explicitly major in philosophy, but I did do well in the courses I did take and I have engaged with the subject a great deal on my personal time. Even my professional work has had an element of "applied epistemology" to it.
I would ultimately like to pursue a PhD for its own sake and I would like to engage with others who are working on philosophy and who are passionate about it.
Should I take an online philosophy MA at The Open University (UK) and then apply to PhD programs? I've also seen more specialized online masters programs at Edinburgh and Birmingham. Should I just write as much as possible on my own and submit it in different places? Should I look for a philosophy "mentor"?
These are all good questions. I'd suggest trying to begin by taking some graduate-level courses as a non-degree-seeking student. My spouse did this after undergrad because she wanted to go to a top PhD program in another discipline, and it worked like a charm. Although I could be wrong, I expect good grad programs will want to see that someone who has been away from academia for a while can cut it in grad-level courses--and also, taking some courses as a non-degree-seeking student may be important for getting recommendation letters, which I suspect one needs to apply to most grad programs.
But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread,
My employer uses turnitin and asks us to investigate every single case where turnitin shows any percentage of assignments being generated by AI. I think this has gotten a bit out of hand despite constantly warning my students about the policy. (Student who have something detected also tend to conclude their assignments with “some experts say X some experts say Y and this is an important issue so we need to investigate further and have more discussions.”)
I think this has substantially increased my workload and that of the casual staff who works with me. Is this getting more common? How have others dealt with the increased workload and potential unpaid work of casual staff?
Good questions. I haven't had a major surge in investigations or made any major changes to how I teach yet yet, but I spoke to friend recently who has who told me that they are now simply having students do all of their work by hand in class.
What about the rest of you? Have you experienced a big surge in academic misconduct cases because of AI? If so, how are you dealing with it? And either way, if you have experienced a surge or not, have you adopted any teaching strategies to prevent AI-based misconduct?
Alfred Archer (Tilburg University) writes in:
We are delighted to announce the launch of the new, open-access philosophy journal, Passion: The Journal of the European Philosophical Society for the Study of Emotions. The journal arises out of the European Philosophical Society for the Study of Emotions (EPSSE), which recently held its 10th Annual Conference in Tartu, Estonia. The journal aims to continue EPSSE’s pluralistic approach to the philosophical study of emotions by publishing work from analytic philosophers of emotions, phenomenologists, ethicists, political theorists, hermeneuticians, experimental philosophers and more. We hope to transcend the analytic and continental divide, while also conceiving of the journal as an outlet for interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and feminist work. We are especially interested in work that speaks beyond sub-disciplinary boundaries and is of interest to a broad audience of scholars working on emotions.
Our newly published first issue exemplifies the diverse and vibrant kind of work that we are interested in publishing. We have work on the ethics and value of revenge from Myisha Cherry and Alice MacLachlan; an investigation of the role of emotions in mental health and illness from Michelle Maiese; a phenomenological analysis of grief beyond the context of the death of a loved one from Matthew Ratcliffe and Louise Richardson; a detailed examination of the role of envy in transitional justice from Emanuela Ceva and Sara Protasi; and a careful analysis of the diversity of human affective reactions to robots from Alessandra Fussi.
The journal is fully open access and the first issue can be downloaded for free here: https://passion-journal.org/index As well as being free to download, the journal is also free for authors, with no fees involved for submission or publication. This has been made possible by the support of EPSSE and our publisher Open Press TiU, which is part of the Open Science Action Plan of Tilburg University. We are especially grateful to Daan Rutten, Tilburg University’s open science coordinator who was crucial in helping us turn our idea into a reality.
We would like to encourage all philosophers working on issues related to emotions to submit their work to Passion and to help make this a vibrant forum for philosophical work on emotions.
Alfred Archer, Heidi Maibom (Editors-in Chief), Max Gatyas, Joel Krueger and Lucy Osler (Associate Editors).
UPDATE: To clarify, this post is soliciting self-reports from people who have been on the market recently (e.g., in the past few years), particularly this last job season. Because job-market conditions may change over time, recent data is probably the most helpful for current and future job candidates.
A reader writes in:
Something that I think would be very beneficial, and a necessary supplement to the job discussion and reporting thread, is an anonymous survey that those on the market fill-out and whose results get posted on the Cocoon ... It would indicate the profile and results in terms of interviews and offers of each candidate willing to fill it out. Maybe it need not even be a survey. In fact, maybe it would work better if you simply could post something like the below template in a post, and encourage folks to fill it out. I am suggesting this partly in response to my having a crappy year on the market (got nothing) despite my CV being the strongest it has ever been. Getting any information I can about what the profile of someone who is having success looks like would be really beneficial to me, as well as to others who I see lamenting their crappy year in the reporting and discussion threads.
It would look something like this:
[Also] questions about where one's interviews were coming from (R1, SLAC, State School, Postdoc). That would probably be useful too.
I'm not entirely sure how useful such information would be, as there will presumably be many selection effects based on who chooses to self-report. Still, insofar as some candidates (such as the OP) may need to make important life decisions about whether to stay on the market, and if so for how long, some candidates might find this kind of self-reported data useful for gauging how they stand relative to others on the market, how much luck is involved on the market, and so on.
So, if you were on the market this year, and you'd like to self-report on any or all of the above, please do feel free.
A couple of important notes: (A) while I doubt that many people will be scouring a thread like this trying to figure out "who is who", readers should probably bear in mind that, at least in principle, the more info that they report, the greater the possibility of people figuring out who they are; and (B) I'd like to reserve this thread for reporting, not discussion--so I'll only be approving comments that self-report data like that above.
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
What are the norms (in the US) for expressing gratitude to your dissertation advisor/dissertation committee upon completing your dissertation? A handwritten card seems appropriate. Should you give a small gift as well?
Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:
The important thing is to keep the relationship professional. Where I worked before (in the USA), we had an awkward situation where students from some countries would give professors expensive gifts as they left an exam 8in the Business School) - quite expensive bottles of wine, etc. This is wholly inappropriate in the USA, especially at a public university, even if it would be expected in tehir home country. The greatest gift you can give a supportive professor is to have a great career yourself - if you publish a book in 10 years, and your feelings are still really warm, then send them a copy of the book.
Do any other readers have any helpful tips?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an aspiring philosopher asks:
I am a prospective PhD student from the Global South. I have a BA and MA Philosophy from a the national university of my country (although virtually unknown outside). I aspire to study in the top UK and US philosophy departments became the philosophers I wanted to work with are there. I wanted to get some advice on what can I do to possibly compete (or at least equalize the playing field) with PhD applicants from top Philosophy departments in the UK or US (say top 25 in Leiter’s PGR). I only have one publication so far (published in Synthese), but I am assuming that my degree and recommendation letters wouldn’t be viewed as at par with those from my Western counterparts, and I am worried that this automatically disadvantages me. What do you think are my chances getting in the top Philosophy programs? What should be the things that I should highlight in my application that could help my case? Thank you and I appreciate your thoughts.
Fair questions, and I'm curious to hear from readers, particularly those who have experience in PhD admissions. Obviously, all things being equal, having a publication in Synthese should be a clear advantage, but aside from this, I'm not sure.
What do readers think? Any tips for the OP?
UPDATE: comments now open!
A reader writes in:
My area of specialization is political philosophy and I have seen philosophers who work on and publish in analytic philosophy journals in the politics or political science departments of different universities. Do any cocooner’s have any insights on how they were able to tailor their job applications to work not just for jobs in philosophy but jobs in politics departments?
Good question! Do any readers have any helpful tips?
Sam Andrews (University of Birmingham) writes in:
I lead the Philosophy Journal Insight Project [pjip.carrd.co]and believe that it might be of interest to readers at the Philosophers' Cocoon.
The main resource of the project is a spreadsheet that provides a comprehensive overview of around 50 philosophy journals. It contains:
1) Standardisation of key information about journal submission; word counts, peer review anonymity, open access status, etc.
2) Collection of journal rankings from blogs and ranking sites; Leiter Rankings, SJR Rankings, SNIP Rankings, etc.
3) Estimates drawn from journals and APA surveys for acceptance rates, comment chance, average days for a desk rejection, average days for external review, etc.
4) Compilation of various impact statistics; total citations, CiteScore percentile, etc.
The site also contains a resources section that links to various places relevant to journal submission.
This is great service to the profession. Do check it out!
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
Let's say I'm working on topic X. I have a novel interpretation of Y, which is related to X, and I published a paper defending this interpretation of Y. In my new paper on X, I want to assume this interpretation of Y. How to do this without violating anonymity? Here are my thoughts:
- I can just cite myself as a third party, explain the view briefly, and then say that I will assume this view. But I think this approach would not realistically protect anonymity since I'm a very early career person, and no one is going to assume my views except for me.
- I can briefly explain the interpretation without citing myself. But this raises worries like: "this interpretation needs much more work to get off the ground" or the claims like "this view is already defended in an earlier paper that the author isn't aware of." So honestly, I don't know what to do.
How do you incorporate your published work into a new paper without violating the rules of anonymized peer review?
These are good questions--in fact it's an issue that I've run into many times myself, both as an early-career scholar and now as a mid-career scholar. While I've heard from many it's best to cite oneself in the third-person to preserve anonymity, this doesn't help all that much in a paper where one is primarily building on other work one has published previously.
Another reader submitted the following reply:
I think you should worry about what you do assume in a paper if, as you note, "no one is going to assume my views except for me". Assumptions in philosophical papers are to be widely accepted (hence, widely held). Alternatively you can just say, I will assume "...". But if the assumption is not granted by the referee, then the paper is unlikely to be accepted.
I don't think this is exactly right. Assumptions don't have to be widely held to be legitimate to invoke in a philosophical argument; what they need to be is to be defended. But still, the practical problem here is real: if you're the only one who has defended the relevant assumption(s), then, particularly if you're early-career, any referee is likely to suspect that you're the author of the previous paper defending them.
So, what to do? Do any readers have any helpful tips?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
How do people get two part papers published?
I have a project developing a new view on a topic that I am finding it difficult to fit into anything like the length of one paper (I would like to turn it into a book, but I don't think that is viable at my career stage). Making the positive case for this view and explaining how it works takes about the length of one paper. And responding to existing criticisms of similar, but distinct views, and showing how the new view avoids them takes about the length of another paper. So it seems sensible to split it into a two part paper (which I have seen, but vary rarely). Something like "Exciting New View, Part 1: The Positive Case" and "Exiting New View, Part 2: Response to Critics".
My question is, how do you go about getting such a pair of papers published? Do you simply submit part 1, with the promise of a part 2 to come? Do you submit both parts at once? Is it just too risky to ask a journal to consider something like this? Does anyone have any experience with publishing a two part paper?
Good questions! Another reader submitted the following reply:
I did something like this. But my path was different. I wrote a paper - my entry into a on-going debate. But by the time I finished the paper, I had a larger line of argument I wanted to develop, which involved addressing objections to the view defended in the first paper. I made no attempt to integrate the two. After the one was accepted for publication, I sent the other to a journal. I DID NOT title them X, Part I, and X, Part II. I think it would have worked against me. But I did publish them in the same journal - 3 years apart. They are almost always cited together when people discuss the view. One is cited 50 times and the other 51. Good luck
Do any other readers have any helpful experiences or insights to share?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
Here’s a follow-up question to our recent discussions of perception, personal politics, and the job market:
Let’s say I work on a historical philosophical subject that is not evidently political (even though I secretly think it is), and that I also teach philosophy of religion semi-regularly. Let’s say I’m also a member (non-TT) of a department that has issued pro-BLM and pro-Roe-v.-Wade statements with which I wholeheartedly agree. If I link to those statements on my personal website, how would that be perceived? Again, my support is genuine, but I also hope to show search committee members where I stand in a politically ambiguous subfield.
Interesting question. For those of you new to the discussion being referred to, a number of people indicated here that they have a bias against people who work in philosophy of religion.
Bearing this in mind, what do you all think? Should someone like the OP (above) try to broadcast their progressive political views to combat any such bias?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
How do people get into the flow of writing new material again when it's been a while? I'm hoping to have a really productive summer research-wise, but I've found myself spinning my gears far more than I'd like. I'd love to hear of any tips, tricks etc. from others who've struggled with this and have found some success combating it. I'd especially love to hear from any fellow ADHDers...
Great question! Another reader submitted the following reply:
I have long struggled with the same issue. What I find helps is a time every day where I just write. It could be 20 minutes, it could be 90. But set time aside every day and have a goal for the session. The goal could be very specific, e.g., finish bibliography or write flowchart for objection. It could be fairly nebulous: free write for 30 minutes about x. But it makes a difference because a) if gets you writing and b) it helps you build better habits, making writing later easier.
This seems like good advice to me. I do something similar, setting a goal of free-writing a certain amount of words each morning (e.g. 500 or 1,000 words). I find that if I do this every day that I do work, I'm usually always moving forward with something while leaving ample time for other things.
Do any other readers have any helpful tips?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
I am teaching Critical Thinking in the Fall. I took Critical Thinking as an undergraduate and it was one of the most dreadfully dull courses I ever took in my degree. The main thing I remember from it is that we spent most of the semester memorizing the forms of fallacies. So, I was wondering if anyone has suggestions for how to approach Critical Thinking in a way that would make for a more exciting/beneficial class. I'd appreciate any recommendations for good textbooks or sample syllabi that I could model my own off of. I'm particularly interested in opportunities to integrate more global voices and/or philosophy into my eventual syllabus.
Two readers submitted replies
I recommend this book for CT. I use it and students have responded well. https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Effective-Successful-Independent/dp/152971852X/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=critical+thinking+tom+chatfield&qid=1686512965&sprefix=critical+thinking+tom%2Caps%2C164&sr=8-1 I also recommend supplementing it with Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking Fast and Slow' - by anon
another: https://www.amazon.com/Epistemology-Psychology-Judgment-Michael-Bishop/dp/0195162307 - by critical thinking
Do any other readers have any helpful tips or resources to share?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
I am a second year PhD student wondering what the ideal timeline should be for publishing. I plan to be on the market my fifth year, and I know that it takes months (years?!) from first round submissions to having a publication accepted. If my goal is to have 3-4 publications, what's the best way to realistically achieve this?
I have one paper that my advisors agree is basically ready to submit to solid journals, and a second that should be ready in the fall. I am hoping to start drafting a third paper this summer, with the hopes of getting that sent out to journals about a year later (after conference submissions, etc.). Is this too slow? Are there other timelines or strategies that have worked best for other people while balancing other grad school duties?
Good questions. My sense is that if you want 3-4 publications three years from now, you probably need to get a bunch of stuff out to journals as soon as you can. Remember, rejection rates at many journals are upwards of 90%, and just the initial review stage can take anywhere from 3-4 months to 6 months or longer (which, obviously, doesn't include revise-and-resubmits). Publishing a paper can take a long time, particularly if you've never done it before. At the same time, there are some dangers to sending things out too soon. As one reader wrote in a reply:
One quick response to PhD Student on publishing timelines: a mistake I made a few times as a PhD was to send off papers 'too early' while trying to get some publications in. But ultimately this just delayed the process, because those papers were inevitably rejected after a few months and then had to be sent off again. It sounds like you already have a good system in place to avoid this, namely getting a second pair of eyes e.g. your supervisor, and making sure to present your papers at conferences at least a few times before you submit them. I definitely don't think this is too slow!
I had a similar experience in grad school, which was I think the result of me not getting enough "eyes" on my papers before sending them out. So, I guess this is my suggestion: try to send papers off as soon as you reasonably can--but work closely with faculty in your program to make sure the papers are in good shape before you do! But these are just my thoughts.
What does everyone else think?
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a new prof asks:
I finally got a TT job! What can I do over the next few months to set myself up for success in the fall?
Big congrats, and great question! I think a lot may depend on what kind of job it is. If it's a job with a low teaching load at an R1, then I'm not sure. If, on the other hand, it's a job with a pretty hefty teaching load, then I'd suggest trying to get a lot of research done and a few papers out to journals this summer. In jobs with a lot of teaching (especially your first year), you might find that you have very little time to focus on research, and if you don't have papers out at journals, you might begin to worry about "falling behind." Other than this, I guess I'd suggest asking new colleagues if they have syllabi that they are willing to share, as this might give you some idea what the norms around teaching are at the institution. Then again, it's been a long time since I started my first job, so I'm probably missing obvious tips that might help the OP.
What do you all think? Any tips for someone about to start a new job in the fall that will help them set themselves up for success?
In our March "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
I have a question about the job market. Recently on Twitter, I have seen quite a few people posting about either permanent jobs or good postdocs they have secured. However, when I then check out their CV, I am surprised to see that it doesn't align with what I have previously been told/seen about getting permanent jobs/postdocs. To give an example for each, I saw someone getting a permanent job when they had only a few publications, only one of which was a top ten (Leiter) and not top five, and the others were co-authored or lower tier journals. For the postdoc, I saw someone getting a good postdoc with actually no publications as well. At my institution I had been told that you need about three top five publications to get a permanent job, which struck me as close to impossible short of you being a generational talent. And for a postdoc I had been told at least two decent publications minimum.
So, is this a sign for optimism in that if you interview well or are good in some other ways, you can escape the "publish or die" mantra that I've so much heard about?
I'm curious to hear what readers think. I suspect there may be differences in hiring for different kinds of positions (e.g. permanent jobs and postdocs at R1s vs. SLACs, etc.). At R1s, for example, grad program prestige, letters of recommendation, and writing samples may go a long way. Conversely, at SLACs, things other than publishing (such as teaching) matter a great deal. Indeed, having served on a number of search committees at a SLAC, my sense is that people on the hiring side of things can very much take "the whole picture" into account with candidates. Publications matter--but they are by no means the only thing that matters. Teaching matters a lot too. So do your research statement and writing sample--and more generally, how interesting and promising a committee finds your overall research project. And, of course, interviews affect the hiring process too. At schools like mine, people generally want to see evidence that you know how to publish and are likely to publish enough for tenure--so, above and beyond a few publications, more publications may not matter tremendously. Finally, it's worth bearing in mind many people only get permanent jobs after a number of years on the market. It took me over 7 years, for example--so, over a period of time like this, you don't have to be a generational talent to publish a bunch of papers.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?
This is just a quick note that I have a new paper out in the Journal of Moral Philosophy entitled, "(When) Are Authors Culpable for Causing Harm?". The abstract:
To what extent are authors morally culpable for harms caused by their published work? Can authors be culpable even if their ideas are misused, perhaps because they failed to take precautions to prevent harmful misinterpretations? Might authors be culpable even if they do take precautions—if, for example, they publish ideas that others can be reasonably expected to put to harmful uses, precautions notwithstanding? Although complete answers to these questions depend upon controversial views about the right to free speech, this paper argues that five notions from philosophy of law and legal practice—liability, burden of proof, legal causation, mens rea, and reasoning by precedent—can be adapted to provide an attractive moral framework for determining whether an author’s work causes harm, whether and how culpable the author is for causing such harm, steps authors may take to immunize themselves from culpability, and how to responsibly develop new rules for publishing ethics.
In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:
I'm new to teaching and I'm struggling with making the transition from lecture preparation to delivery. I have no problem doing the readings/research, making detailed notes, making up a plan for the lecture, etc. What I'm not sure how to do is take all this and deliver a lecture where I'm not just reading my notes/slides or where I'm not just memorizing what I want to say. Does anyone have any tips?
Excellent question, and several other readers submitted responses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unzc731iCUY - Submitted by Patrick Winston
First, remember that teaching, unless you are blessed with innate talents, should be hard and exhausting at first. I have been teaching for several years, and still find that I spend a lot more time than I want to preparing for teaching. Second, plan places for students to participate. It can be a vote on "do you agree with X;" "let's explore why you dis/agree;" pause whenever introducing key and difficult to understand ideas, and try to get students spell out their frustration (if any). The participation time can also be used as a short break for you. Third, find connections to things students might care about. It's easier for me as I'm moral, social, legal, and political, so I basically read the news and try to understand local politics. But my guess is that other fields have their ways of getting students to care about the content of the course. Fourth, talk about what constitutes excellent writing. This, if done well, will make life significantly easier when we have to do the marking. - Submitted by 'my two cents'
I say this only with a bit of irony, but you should approach the delivery of lecture more like Freddie Mercury singer Fat Bottomed Girls - see the video on You Tube. That is, you need to engage the audience, and care less about the specifics of the article, etc. that you are teaching. - Submitted by Freddie Jr.
Any other readers have any helpful tips for a new teacher?
FreshRSS 