UPDATED 5/11 – 5:40pm
In this series' post on cover letters, there was some discussion of whether to include a 'Works in Progress' section on one's CV in, which is apparently something people are routinely advised to do. In rough outline, my experience–which another search committee member echoed–is that Work in Progress sections are unlikely to make any difference. When it comes to research, people on the hiring side of things are more interested in demonstrated ability to actually publish. Since merely having work in preparation or even work under review doesn't demonstrate that, as Amanda notes my sense is WIP sections are probably a 'wash': include one, or don't – it probably won't make a difference.
In any case, that discussion got me thinking about CVs more generally. Given that this series is intended to give candidates an inside look of how search committees actually think and do things, what 'secrets of search committees' are there regarding CVs? My sense is that there are some unsurprising secrets, as well as some more surprising ones – though please bear in mind that the following remarks are based on my experiences at a teaching-focused institution (as well as discussion with people who have hired at other similar institutions):
Get your AOS & AOC right: Every search committee member I've talked to looks at CVs first, before anything else. Why? Because they are the easiest way to check the first thing that matters in any application: whether the candidate is qualified for the job being advertised. The easiest way to check this is to pull out the candidate's CV and check their AOS/AOC lines. If the candidate's AOS/AOC fit the job ad, then the rest of their CV will be looked at. If not? In that case, my experience is their application goes straight to the 'trash.' Maybe this isn't the case for all jobs (research jobs?) – but, at places like mine, when we advertise a given AOS/AOC, those are the areas we have to hire in. If you don't have the right ones, my sense is that applying is simply a waste of time. Which brings me to two other important issues:
1. Don't 'bend'/exaggerate your AOS/AOC: if you don't really have any background in the area advertised, don't include it on your CV just to make you 'look' like you're qualified. It will become very clear from the rest of your CV whether you are or not – so don't bother trying to be deceptive. At best, it will accomplish nothing – at worst, it can look dishonest.
2. Don't list four AOS and eight AOCs: this one is surprisingly common, and also looks bad. Almost no early-career philosopher legitimately has more than one or at most two AOS. If you did your dissertation in X, then that's a legit AOS. If you did your comprehensive exams in areas X and Y, and have written some papers in both areas, then maybe list both as AOS. But do not list more than that. You don't have four legit AOS. Making it look on your CV like you do reeks of dishonesty or self-deception. The same goes for AOCs. You don't have an AOC in area Z simply because you took a grad seminar in it. You need to have some more substantial experience than that. As a rough rule of thumb, you should only list an area as an AOC if you have a pretty substantial background in the area–something like multiple grad courses and real teaching/TA experience in the area. Two or three AOCs is legit, maybe 4 (EDITED). Anything more is seriously pushing it. Indeed, far from helping you, listing too many AOS/AOCs are likely to hurt you, making you look out of touch with professional norms.
Being ABD can be an obstacle: After looking at AOS/AOC, my sense is the next thing people tend to look at is whether you have graduated yet. I've heard more than a few horror stories of departments hiring ABD students who didn't finish by the time they started the job. This is bad for the hiring department, and worse for the candidate – as it immediately puts the candidate into a risky position in terms of performing well on the job and getting tenure. Your first semester in a job is no time to be finishing up a dissertation – and my sense is that hiring departments are skeptical about claims the candidate will be finished in time. In short, if you haven't graduated yet, that can be a big strike against you.
Publications: My sense is that after looking at AOS/AOC and graduation status, people reading CVs go straight to publications. At least anecdotally, it appears to me that R1 programs often hire people straight out of grad school with no publications – on the basis of 'promise.' Things are very different at institutions like mine. My sense is that we do not hire on the basis of vague impressions of 'promise.' Because teaching institutions like mine have small departments that don't get new hires very often, we want to make a successful hire – someone likely to both (A) stay in the job, and (B) get tenure. This means when looking at your publications list, we want to know two things: (1) can you publish enough to get tenure, and (2) are you the kind of researcher who fits the institution and will be happy there? Let me say something about each:
1. Can you publish enough to get tenure?: if you have zero publications, chances are at a place like mine you're "out." Hiring someone with no documented history of publishing is a real risk, one I think few departments at teaching schools can afford to take. One publication, irrespective of journal ranking, is a good sign that you can publish something rather than nothing. Still, my sense is that, ideally, departments at places like mine are looking for this: an extended publishing record. Why? Simple: anyone can get lucky once. I've known people in TT jobs who published one thing right out of grad school and then didn't publish anything for years. Not good. People on the hiring side of things want to know that you can publish more than once – that your research has 'legs.'
2. Do you fit the institution?: In the philosophy profession at large, journal rankings seem to matter a lot. One often hears about where so-and-so published, etc. Alas, as I've said on this blog many times before, my sense is that this kind of obsession about journal rankings in no way extends to teaching-focused institutions. I'll be frank: in my nine years at my current institution, including serving on search committees, I can count the number of times I've heard someone mention journal rankings on one hand (i.e. less than five times). They just aren't something we care that much about – and in terms of getting a job at a teaching school, they can even be a negative (viz. "This person's research trajectory suggests they belong at some place like Harvard"). One or two well-ranked publications is fine – but the more of them you rack up, the more you may look like a legitimate flight risk. Hard to hear, I know – but my sense, from talking to people who have hired at other teaching schools, is that it is undoubtedly true.
Works in Progress don't matter (much, if at all): See the discussion linked to at the outset of this post. I know everyone lists Works in Progress. Go ahead and do it – but my sense is that it is likely to make zero difference on whether you're interviewed or hired. Anyone can have works in progress or under review. People on the hiring side want to demonstrably proof you can publish – and the only proof of that is a publishing record.
Do not under any circumstances list stuff under review (including R&Rs) under 'publications': This is often said online, but bears emphasizing. The 'Publications' section on your CV should list publications – and a work under review or a revise-and-resubmit is not a publication. Listing these things under publications makes a person look either dishonest or self-deceived. If you want to list stuff under review (including revise-and-resubmits), do it in another clearly-marked section of your CV ('Articles under review'). Also, do not list where your article is under review (viz. "Under review at Mind"). This looks goofy. Anyone can send their paper to a journal. No one on the hiring side cares where an article is under review. They only care where articles are actually published.
Presentations don't matter (much, if at all): I've heard this question often asked online, "Do conference presentations matter?". While I've heard a few search committee members say online that they matter (perhaps for research schools?), my own sense is that if they make any difference at all (and I am skeptical they do), whatever difference they make is approximately 1/100th compared to anything else. Why? Because conference presentations are easy to secure. Everyone can get them, and they make very little difference when it comes to tenure. So by all means, get some conference presentations on your CV (if only to show that you can do it, and to get feedback on unpublished work); just don't expect your presentations list to play any substantial role in committee deliberations. In all frankness, having served on three search committees, the number of times I have heard presentations mentioned is exactly zero.
Breadth and fit of independent teaching experience matters a ton, TA experience not so much: You should make it really clear which courses you've taught independently, which courses you've only TA'd for, and how many times you've done each for a given course. At teaching schools like mine, amount and breadth of teaching experience matters a ton. TA experience is not very impressive, as we are not hiring TA's. You need independent teaching experience – the more, the better. Next to an actual publishing record, my sense is this is the single most important area on your CV for jobs at teaching schools. After looking at your AOS/AOC, whether you've graduated, and whether you have a publishing record, people at teaching schools are likely to skip directly to the teaching part of your CV – to see (1) how much independent teaching experience you have, (2) whether you have sufficient experience to teach the courses listed in the job ad, and (3) whether you have any experience teaching in other areas the department could use another teacher in. The more of (1)-(3) you have, the more competitive you will be; the less, the worse.
Graduate coursework can make a difference: This can actually be useful. If you have decent teaching experience that otherwise fits the job ad (see above) but the department would really like to hire someone who can also teach course X and you don't have teaching experience in that particular area, your graduate coursework can make a difference: for if you took a bunch of grad courses in X, the person reading may think, "Okay, their teaching section shows they can teach the courses in the job ad – and I see from their grad coursework they could probably teach in X too!". This is the only difference grad coursework might make – but it is a substantial one. Finally, don't list course grades: no one cares.
Leiter-rank doesn't matter (much): In the past, some people have complained on this blog about 'prestige-bias.' Helen De Cruz's recent study suggests there may indeed be some serious prestige bias in hiring by Leiter-ranked departments (in essence, if you want a TT job at a Leiter-ranked department, you had better come from a highy-Leiter-ranked department). Fortunately, when it comes to teaching institutions like mine, candidates should take heart. Having served on three search committees now–and having talked with people who have hired at other teaching institutions–I can report with a good deal of confidence that bias for candidates from highly-Leiter-ranked schools appears to be to be either zero or negative. Why do I think this? Many reasons. First, in all of the searches I have been on, candidates' Leiter-ranks have been mentioned exactly zero times. Second, we've hired faculty from all departments all over the map: highly-ranked departments, mid-ranked departments, low-ranked departments, and unranked departments. I have seen absolutely no preference for candidates from highly-ranked programs – and my friends who have hired at other teaching institutions report the same thing. Indeed, on the (very) few occasions I have heard Leiter-rankings mentioned, more often than not it's actually had a negative connotation (a person who hired me once told me, "Because you came out of Arizona, I was worried you wouldn't come here or stay. I'm glad we hired you, but it was something I worried about.")
UPDATES
Achievement per career stage matters a lot: If you're recently out of grad school and have accomplished a lot (viz. publications, teaching experience), that looks great. If you're a few years out and don't have many accomplishments, that' bad. But, here's the good news: even if you've been out on the market a while (I mean even well over 5-7 years), if you've accomplished a lot it really stands out in a good way, at least for jobs at institutions like mind.
I forgot to mention service (and don't know why, because it matters!): believe it or not, a candidate's service experience can be a real difference-maker. Have experience coaching debate teams? Running philosophy club? Editing your department's website? Etc. All of these things can make a very real difference. I've seen it happen.
Anyway, this is my overall sense about how people at teaching-institutions tend to think about CVs. Of course, my sense here could always be incorrect or idiosyncratic – so, as usual, I'm very curious to hear from other people who have been on the hiring side of things. I'd be particularly interested to hear about how people at different types of institutions (e.g. R1s, R2, regional state schools, CCs, etc.) think about CVs. In any case, I hope you all find the information helpful!
Leave a Reply to Daniel BrunsonCancel reply