Marcus's advice regarding AOS and AOC, in Part 3 of his Job-Market Boot Camp, strikes me as highly relevant. I was once told that, as a rule of thumb, an AOS is a sub-discipline which, based on your current knowledge and ongoing research, you will continue to be publishing in, whereas an AOC is an area you feel competent to teach (again, on the basis of your current training and background knowledge). As proof of the former, one would ideally already have a publication record in the area in question; proof of the latter may be a little trickier, but I would imagine that, having a concentration of graduate-level coursework to show for (and maybe having TAed or lectured in the area) would be considered sufficient.

It's important to be realistic about how many areas any one individual can hope to cover: I don't think I've ever seen a CV with more than 3 AOS and roughly the same number of AOCs. — Finally, as a little 'Easter egg', Marcus's post prompted me to go for a walk in my neighbourhood in Singapore and take a picture of a local TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) clinic's advertised 'areas of specialization' — as a good example of how not to go about advertising one's expertise!

West-Coast-TCM-Clinic-Specializing-in-Everything

Posted in

3 responses to “AOS: Everything”

  1. anon

    “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a CV with more than 3 AOS and roughly the same number of AOCs.”
    I’ve seen CVs with a lot more than 3 AOCs. Is this inadvisable?

  2. know it all

    anon: early career people should not list three AOSs. List what you have published in, and if you have not published, then list what your dissertation is on. Imagine it from the perspective of a hiring committee. The committee wants someone who does Philosophy of Science. The applicant lists AOS: Metaphysics, Logic and Philosophy of Science. Assume that their dissertation is on an issue in metaphysics. What are the chances that there will not be loads of qualified people who REALLY do philosophy of science? I would say the chances are very very slim. Such person will not make it past the first skim through. If a philosopher of science is wanted, then that is who will get selected.

  3. I did a bit of number crunching — nothing very systematic, though; I searched for listings of current job candidates at a handful of departments (Toronto, USF, Pittsburgh, The New School, mostly because these came up first on my Google search) and counted the number of AOSs and AOCs people were listing. In total I counted 40 candidates.
    Regarding AOS: Of the 40 candidates, 12 listed one AOS, 15 listed two AOS, 11 listed three AOS, and only 2 candidates listed four or more AOS. Regarding AOCs: no one listed only one AOC (in general, people listed more AOCs than AOSs — which makes a lot of sense), 5 people listed two AOC, 18 people listed three AOC, 12 listed four AOC, and only 5 listed five or more AOC. (In a few cases, I had to exercise some judgment, e.g. ‘Philosophy of Mind and Language’ I counted as two distinct areas…)
    A lot has to do with how one individuates areas and how fine-grained the distinctions are. So, someone who wrote a PhD on Kant could presumably also claim ‘History of Modern Philosophy’. If in doubt, I guess one can add a bit more detail; e.g., I came aross the designations ‘Continental Philosophy (esp. Phenomenology)’, ‘Ethics (Applied, Normative, Professional)’) and ‘History of Modern Philosophy, esp. Kant’.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading