The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2026-27)

recent posts

about

What is strong evidence a job applicant will complete their dissertation before starting a job?

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

One of the commenters on the recent CV advice thread writes, "For PhD students, I glance at expected graduation date, but my assumption is that it is inaccurate. Unless I see strong evidence that they will complete their thesis before our job starts, I mostly pass them by. We have hiring restrictions around this, and given the number of stellar applications we have, it is not worth dealing with the problems arise if a PhD student doesn't have their degree in time." I've seen similar sentiments elsewhere on threads where search committee members are giving advice.

My question is, what is 'strong evidence' that an applicant will complete their dissertation before the job starts? My impression was originally that letter writers would essentially guarantee that the defense would take place e.g. that summer and back it up by summarizing progress and so on, but I noticed in the same thread that many people don't care much about letters at all. (Indeed, I can imagine that nearly all advisors would claim their students are certainly going to defend in time, so their statements wouldn't be super informative or reliable.) So, how can applicants who are genuinely certain to defend in time demonstrate that that's the case?

Good questions. Another reader submitted the following reply:

from conversation, I know that a person from another institution whom I was competing against on the job market (who is wonderful! and who got a TT job and who is now tenured) did not even get an interview at my institution because their advisors did not guarantee a defense date. For what it is worth, they defended before I did (and both of us by the date that my advisor warranted I'd defend by).

What do the rest of you think? It would be particularly helpful to hear from search committee members!

Posted in

5 responses to “What is strong evidence a job applicant will complete their dissertation before starting a job?”

  1. Tim O’Keefe

    I am one of those faculty members who puts very little weight on letters. But if I had a letter from the dissertation advisor of an ABD candidate with very specific information about the progress on the dissertation and a projected defense date, I’d take that seriously, and it could help alleviate worries about the candidate not having their degree in hand by the Fall, if having it in hand was crucial. But “specific” here is important. If the letter said something like “X is making good progress on their dissertation, and I am confident they will be in a good position to defend by next summer,” that would set off all kinds of alarm bells. Better would be something like “X has completely finished 4 out of 6 chapters, and I have seen drafts of the remaining 2 chapters, which will require only modest revisions. I anticipate that the dissertation defense will be in mid-March, and I have absolutely no doubt that the defense will be prior to the end of the Spring semester.” I suggest that ABD candidates put something like the above very specific description of where their dissertation stands in their cover letters, and that they share that description with their advisor when discussing job market strategy, in order (i) to make sure that the advisor agrees with them on where things stands, and (ii) to encourage the advisor to put something along the same lines in their own letter.

    Reply
  2. proof pudding

    Strong evidence … really …? It is when they letter from the supervisor says the defence date is scheduled – officially scheduled – for May 3. Everything else is mere speculation. Too many factors can change projected defense dates.

    Reply
  3. whatever

    The strongest evidence is that you’ve set a defense date. Without that, it doesn’t matter whether your advisors say in their letters how confident they are that you’ll get it done by x date. Without a date set, the possibility remains open that you may not defend in time.

    Reply
  4. Bill Vanderburgh

    There are several different cases on the hiring side. You’ll see ads that say (1) PhD in hand by time of application, (2) PhD in hand by time of appointment (or by the time the contract commences), (3) PhD in hand preferred (various timelines), and (4) ABD considered.
    Keep in mind that HR departments will not allow departments to hire candidates who do not meet the requirements in the ad. So, if (1) is required, there’s no wiggling out of it: ABDs are just not considered.
    When it comes to (3), the pools are usually so large and filled with awesome candidates that ABDs might technically be allowed but also stand no realistic chance. (The “preferred” means extra weight is given to people who have the PhD in hand, so an ABD would have to clear an even higher bar.) Usually, ABDs only stand a chance in (3) when the defense date has been set or all the chapters have been submitted for review. I’d say (4) is similar to (3) with some additional flexibility and a more equal chance.
    (2) is the hard case, since it is a requirement to meet a future contingent condition. Here, I think, is where departments tread most carefully, looking for a good reason to believe the candidate will defend by the appointment date. Since this is a requirement, not a preference, usually the evidence that suffices is having a defense date set or perhaps a very plausible timeline that the advisor’s letter backs up persuasively (in the way Tim describes). Perhaps paradoxically, defense dates farther in the future are less likely to be believed. Often, there are other candidates in the pool who are as good, or nearly so, who come with no complications.
    BTW, some universities, including the 23 campuses in the California State University system, have union or other rules that prevent (in most cases) people without PhDs (or the relevant terminal degree for the discipline) from being appointed to Assistant Professorships. In those cases where someone is hired in spring but fails to defend by the August contract start, their contract automatically converts to a Lectureship (at the correspondingly lower pay rate, as I understand it). This is embarrassing for the person hired and also for the department, which gave its guarantee to the dean. The good news is that in the semester following the defense, the contract converts to Asst. Prof.
    Besides this sort of embarrassment, departments and universities are careful about hiring ABDs because very few people actually defend close to the time they originally project, and if someone starts a new teaching job while still trying to finish a dissertation, that’s a recipe for total disaster for everyone involved. It will probably delay the dissertation quite a lot more, and then the hire also runs out of time to meet tenure requirements. I know people who are no longer in the profession because this happened. And the department does not always get to replace the lost line.

    Reply
  5. Dan

    For our last couple of searches, we did not even look at any ABD who did not have a letter from their advisor telling us that their defense date was officially scheduled. “X expects to defend in May”, even if in the advisor’s letter, carried no weight. Perhaps if we were not inundated with well qualified candidates who already have PhDs, we’d be less selective, but it’s just not worth potential hassle.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading