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 (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Changing job-market conventions and applying to senior-level jobs?

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

How have the requirements for job documents changed (if at all) in the last decade? What should documents for associate professor positions do differently than documents for assistant professor positions?

Some context: I'm a TT Assistant Professor who is readying documents for promotion to Associate, and also applying for jobs. In preparing my applications, I noticed that the most cited advice for job application materials is the same (e.g. Karen Kelsky) as when I was as a graduate student. Kelsky's "The Professor is In" is almost a decade old now, and it regurgitates blog posts that were out for several years prior. A lot has changed since then. The book is also written specifically for newly minted PhD's, and gives little to no advice on how job documents should change as one progresses in their career. Can you say how conventions have changed since TPII was published? What conventions exist for those applying for jobs later in their careers?

All good questions. Are any readers in the know able to weigh in?

Posted in

6 responses to “Changing job-market conventions and applying to senior-level jobs?”

  1. senior

    My sense is that senior hires – tenured hires in the USA – are judged almost wholly on the basis of their research record. So the other stuff is just a formality and largely irrelevant. I say this (i) as someone who made a senior move (they could careless about my teaching), and (ii) the fact that I supported someone getting an endowed chair (I wrote a “teaching letter” on their behalf, on quick order by the search committee, who had already decided they were hiring her).

    Reply
  2. The Real SLAC Prof

    My background: I spent the first half of my career at an R1 and then moved at your stage to a SLAC. At the SLAC, I have chaired several searches over the past four years. In total, we received roughly 1,300 applications. While we were only authorized to hire at the Assistant level, we received probably 350-400 applications at the advanced Assistant or Associate (or sometimes Full!) level. In light of that, I think I have a fairly good sense of the current norms that apply to those at your level who are applying for positions.
    I don’t think there are many differences in terms of the documents themselves for people applying to jobs ten years ago at the Assistant level and people applying today at the Associate level. The primary differences I can think of are 1) diversity statements;2) the place of “public philosophy” in application materials; 3) the emphasis placed on mentoring and service.
    While a number of institutions are now getting rid of required diversity statements, and I think more institutions will follow this path in the years to come, many jobs still require these statements. So you may want to see if you can find examples of these statements from other philosophers to get a sense of the conventions surrounding them.
    People certainly did public philosophy ten years ago, but there is both a big increase in how many people are doing public philosophy and changes to how this work is listed on the CV. A decade ago, people would tend to list this under a heading like “Other Writing” toward the end of their CV, but now it is often clearly labeled as “Public Philosophy” in a more prominent location on their CV and can include both written materials and other activities.
    As you become more advanced, there is greater expectation that you will have engaged in mentoring activities and taken on more service work.
    As noted by senior, many senior hires are made exclusively on the basis of research. These positions are often targeted hires. But there are still some “open rank” advertised positions where senior candidates are competing against junior candidates and things other than research may matter. So too, if you decide to apply for jobs at the Assistant level, you will likely be judged on all aspects of your dossier, not simply your research. (If you are applying for Assistant-level jobs, you will want to think carefully about how you will convey to the committee that you are not just applying as part of a back-up plan in case your tenure case at your current institution falls through).

    Reply
  3. Mike Titelbaum

    I would be very cautious about implementing “senior”‘s advice above without attention to context. My R1 department considers teaching very central to its mission. Yes, our most important factor in making senior hires is research. But the other stuff is not merely “a formality and largely irrelevant”. In the search we’re currently running we have already set aside senior files from people who provide no evidence that they’re good teachers, who convey indifference to their teaching, or who don’t seem to have put much thought into how they do it. I don’t doubt there are some endowed chairs, and other types of positions, for which teaching doesn’t much matter. But don’t assume that about all R1 senior positions.
    Oh, and getting back to one of OP’s original questions: One difference when you’re almost tenured is that ideally you would have at least one reference letter from someone who’s at neither your PhD institution nor your current institution. Shows you’re developing a reputation in the field.

    Reply
  4. Tom

    I agree with Mike here. At our R1, we take teaching seriously. Sure, it is the research that we care most about, but we get so many applicants that we’re pretty much guaranteed to get a good researcher, so after our first cut, we really focus on who will be able to benefit our students. In our last search, the person who cam into the fly outs as the strongest candidate immediately put themselves out of contention after a meeting with our grad students where it became clear that they would be horrible at teaching and advising.
    And perhaps it is only because we have been burned by colleagues who don’t pull their weight in service, but we look carefully at applicants’ history of service when hiring at the senior level. We can’t get rid of them if they don’t pull their weight, so we do what we can to figure this out beforehand.

    Reply
  5. another R1 person

    I also agree with Mike. My department doesn’t care about teaching quite as much as his does, but there are definitely people for whom it is the primary concern, and everyone cares about it at least a little. And I work at a fancy R1. I also agree with Tom about service. I will vote (and argue hard) against any candidate who possibly seems like they won’t pull their weight, even if they are super desirable along research lines.
    All that being said I do think the application itself tends to matter less at the senior level than, well, just the person’s record of research, teaching, and service. So I don’t think you need to worry as much about the application itself, as opposed to what you’ve accomplished.

    Reply
  6. M

    I write from an R1-like, non-US context.
    On top of research, we would look for evidence of research direction, external funding, leadership and engagement with the public.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading