philosophy meta-forum

Worst application error?

Gersonides

12 day(s) ago

I would separate off long bits of writing (peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, even long encyclopedia articles such as those in SEP) from short bits of writing (book reviews, short encyclopedia articles). The latter are less important, but they are not "service". Just one more asshole with one more opinion.

Al-Juwayni

12 day(s) ago

Ok, so book reviews go under 'service'. Fwiw, that makes a lot of sense to me. But it is false that they are all solicited. I did mine as a grad student by approaching the editors. Nothing could have been simpler.

No, no, no. Book reviews do not go under service. Manuscript reviews can go there, but a book review is a publication, albeit a minor one. There are lots of ways to set up the publications area on your CV, and which one you use depends, inter alia, on how many pubs you have. If you have several articles, then you can have a main heading of publications and then break that down into subheadings for articles and book reviews. If you have a lot of articles, you might want to subdivide them into pee-reviewed vs invited. If you are going to lump them under the same heading, it's a good idea to note for each entry whether it was peer reviewed and/or invited (this is especially relevant for book chapters, which can be invited, peer reviewed, or some combination of the two). If you are going to put book reviews in with other publications (which is not my preference), be sure that the entry begins with "Review of . . . ." And for the love of all that's holy, never, never, ever put papers that are under submission under a heading that says "publications." If you list them at all, they should be under a separate heading of work in progress (or the equivalent). There is no one right way to set up a CV, but there a lot of wrong ways. T

Henry

12 day(s) ago

More evidence that publication relativism is true.

Gersonides

12 day(s) ago

I prefer to think of it as publication pluralism.

Roland

12 day(s) ago

(thinking aloud. perhaps I am the exception or the market is so bad that applicants are much more careful, but I don't see any of these flaws in the applications we are going through.)

Wilfrid

12 day(s) ago

1. People sending us the wrong application. (Sending a letter meant for someone else to us.)

2. People writing about how much they'd like to be colleagues with us, mentioning us by name, but then describing our research incorrectly.

3. A person who used to harass me and stalk me sending a letter saying he'd love to be my colleague.

Wilfrid

12 day(s) ago

Book reviews aren't service.

This is pretty easy. Have a big section called "Publications". Under it, have sub-sections:

1. Peer-reviewed books

2. Peer-reviewed articles

3. Invited chapters

4. Edited boks

5. Reference

6. Book reviews.

Etc. Just list things by type. No worries. And don't put shit that is currently under review under your publications. Only put stuff accepted or under contract. Have a "manuscripts in circulation" section instead.

Sri

12 day(s) ago

Here's one thing I find funny: ambitious claims about future research activity (from letter-writers or the applicant herself) conjoined with negligible evidence in the form of actual research performance. My reaction: "Hmm, so you're going to publish five articles in the next three years... Even though you're 10 years out of your undergraduate philosophy program, had three years of teaching-free fellowship during your PhD, and still haven't put so much as a comma in print? Interesting, and good luck with that. Next!"

Kelly

12 day(s) ago

Even though you're 10 years out of your undergraduate philosophy program

Sri

Do people really count out the years from undergrad like that? Some of us worked for a good while before going back to grad school. I would think those years wouldn't count against us. That leads me to another question: do people recommend listing non-philosophical work experience somewhere on the CV? It seems like a good way to avoid this worry, but it could also just look silly.

Sri

11 day(s) ago

Even though you're 10 years out of your undergraduate philosophy program

Sri

Do people really count out the years from undergrad like that? Some of us worked for a good while before going back to grad school. I would think those years wouldn't count against us. That leads me to another question: do people recommend listing non-philosophical work experience somewhere on the CV? It seems like a good way to avoid this worry, but it could also just look silly.

Kelly

More exactly, I count out the aggregate years someone has been studying philosophy at the graduate level. If you had 2 years in an MA program and 7 years to do a PhD (that's 9 years of professionalization), I expect to see some evidence of actual professional output. You should be performing roughly at the level of an early assistant professor. So no, working outside of academia in between undergrad and grad needn't 'count against' you (your 'grad school clock' wouldn't be ticking then). But once you start grad work, taking forever to complete it and then having very little to show for all those years of preparation is not a good look!

Nelson

11 day(s) ago

"I am serving on a search committee this year. And whenever we come across an application that lists book reviews or submissions alongside peer-reviewed articles (which happens often), we simply throw it in the rubbish bin. We have no time to waste on people who lack basic professional skills, or that feel the need to disguise a lackluster publication record."

Have a hard time believing that you would think that this maximizes expected value if you gave it a second of thought. I'm guessing that this is one of many arbitrarily selected rules that you think you should share with people in less powerful positions that would, if applied consistently, lead to bad outcomes with regularity. Relieved that you're not one of my colleagues.

Zou

11 day(s) ago

Nelson, I'm so sorry you feel threatened by the fact that some of us in the position to hire to do on the basis of meritocratic standards, as opposed to simply hiring by demographic.

Ferdinand

11 day(s) ago

More exactly, I count out the aggregate years someone has been studying philosophy at the graduate level. If you had 2 years in an MA program and 7 years to do a PhD (that's 9 years of professionalization), I expect to see some evidence of actual professional output. You should be performing roughly at the level of an early assistant professor. So no, working outside of academia in between undergrad and grad needn't 'count against' you (your 'grad school clock' wouldn't be ticking then). But once you start grad work, taking forever to complete it and then having very little to show for all those years of preparation is not a good look!

Sri

This is stupid. While of course I agree that taking 8-10 years should be a red flag, doing a masters at a separate institution should have nothing to with your calculation. Doing 9 years at a PhD (assuming 6 of those being ABD) is absolutely not equivalent to 2 years masters (where one does mostly coursework) + 7 years in a PhD where again, 2-3 of those years were course work again.

Again, by your logic, you should ONLY be hiring UK students, who finish their PhDs in 4 years.

Baltasar

11 day(s) ago

I see many of my peers list papers on their CV's that are "under review" or "in preparation". Note, these are not papers that they have been invited to contribute to a volume or anything. Rather, they are papers that they are either sending out to journals or that they are working on. I have seen some people list upwards of 10 such papers under a "Papers in Progress" section on their CV. If I were on a search committee, this would strike me as clear padding. What do y'all think?

Nishitani

11 day(s) ago

I see many of my peers list papers on their CV's that are "under review" or "in preparation". Note, these are not papers that they have been invited to contribute to a volume or anything. Rather, they are papers that they are either sending out to journals or that they are working on. I have seen some people list upwards of 10 such papers under a "Papers in Progress" section on their CV. If I were on a search committee, this would strike me as clear padding. What do y'all think?

Baltasar

If someone has already published papers in journals X, Y, and Z, and I see they've got papers under review at similar quality journals, then I think, "Oh, good, this person is continuing to do work."

If the person hasn't published yet or hasn't published at the quality level of the places listed, then it looks like padding.

It's like if, say, Dave Chalmers tell you he's writing a book on Z, you think, "Cool, looking forward to your book." When random grad student with no pubs says, "I plan to turn my dissertation into a book," you think, "Yeah, sure."

Pierre-Sylvain

11 day(s) ago

I see many of my peers list papers on their CV's that are "under review" or "in preparation". Note, these are not papers that they have been invited to contribute to a volume or anything. Rather, they are papers that they are either sending out to journals or that they are working on. I have seen some people list upwards of 10 such papers under a "Papers in Progress" section on their CV. If I were on a search committee, this would strike me as clear padding. What do y'all think?

Baltasar

People have different ways of doing these things, and people get all sorts of advice. I, for one, like seeing what someone currently has finished, but not yet published. Maybe in the CV, that's fine. Maybe elsewhere.

What I don't like to do, what I would prefer other people don't do, is make a judgment about someone's character from the way they organize their CV. Unless it's a completely egregious misrepresentation, candidates are under enough stress as it is. They don't need to be sitting around wondering if the details involving the headers and subsections on their CV disqualifies them for jobs. It doesn't, unless your future colleagues are self-important tools. If under publications, you listed a book review or even a paper clearly labelled "Under review", I for one will not think you are a self-promoting clueless asshat. I might, at most, think you may have gotten bad advice, and maybe are a teensy bit clueless. A separate section for papers under review is totally okay. Another section for papers "in progress" with one or two listed? Also okay, although maybe only for recent PhDs. But if I see it in an application from someone who has had a number of postdocs/1 year gigs, and is 5 years out, I'm not going to stop reading merely on that basis.

Zou

11 day(s) ago

Here is a very simple rule of thumb. Take a look at the CVs of some well-established, tenure-track/tenured people you admire. I'll wait a minute.

You're back? Good. Now, do they list book reviews, encyclopedia entries, surveys, or (dear God) submitted papers or works-in-progress alongside original research articles? No. Do they list guest lecturing a course session alongside semester- long instructor and teaching assistant assignments? No. Do they mention that they started the philosophy of race and gender book club of the month at their undergraduate institution? No.

THEN DON'T YOU FUCKING DO IT EITHER.

Gareth

11 day(s) ago

Here is a very simple rule of thumb. Take a look at the CVs of some well-established, tenure-track/tenured people you admire. I'll wait a minute.

You're back? Good. Now, do they list book reviews, encyclopedia entries, surveys, or (dear God) submitted papers or works-in-progress alongside original research articles? No.

Zou

Um, I just took a look at some senior philosophers' CVs and actually they do list book reviews and encyclopedia entries among publications. Maybe it's because they are publications.

Zou

11 day(s) ago

Gareth, learn to read.

Friedrich

11 day(s) ago

Writing this presupposes that Gareth reads.

Gareth, learn to read.

Zou

Chiao

11 day(s) ago

Zou, you seem angry.

Zou

11 day(s) ago

If you had to read this many misconceived applications, you would be angry too.

Nelson

11 day(s) ago

Nelson, I'm so sorry you feel threatened by the fact that some of us in the position to hire to do on the basis of meritocratic standards, as opposed to simply hiring by demographic.

Zou

Well, Zou, I don't feel threatened. I'm tenured. I feel bad for the people looking for work who have to deal with your dickishness. I think it's cruel to toss an application because of some minor infraction. (And if you think that that's a good way to ensure that the jobs go to the most deserving, you're an idiot and an asshole.) I've had to read lots of 'misconceived' applications but I've never been angry about it. I feel fortunate that I'm on the side of the employed people looking for a new colleague.

Dear people who aren't Zou,

If you're looking for a job, I'm sorry that there are people like Zou out there. I do what I can to make sure that they don't get a job in my department and hope that others will do the same.


Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.