The 3rd Biennial Workshop of Mentoring Project for Pre-tenure Women Faculty in Philosophy, co-directed by Louise Antony and Ann Cudd, will begin accepting applications this fall, and take place June 2015.
Mentees will be assigned a networking group consisting of a mentor and four fellow mentees working in similar fields. Each mentor will be responsible for providing written feedback on the workshop papers of each of her mentees, and for participating in discussion at the workshop. Mentees will take responsibility for providing written feedback on the papers of their group members, and will serve as discussion leader and first reader for one paper and second reader for another. In the long term, group members will actively monitor the progress of each others’ careers, offering philosophical feedback and, in the case of the mentors, advice about professional development along the way.
Visit the site, here, for more information.
9 thoughts on “Third Biennial Mentoring Project for Pre-Tenure Women”
I went to the 2nd, in 2013, and I can’t recommend it highly enough.
This looks like a wonderful opportunity.
Rachel, i just clicked on your link. Really get website!
Perhaps someone involved in organizing the workshop could comment on a concern I have. As a pre-tenure woman in philosophy (just about to start my first TT job) I am reluctant to apply to a mentoring program from which I may be rejected. It’s difficult dealing with rejection from job applications, publication and conference submissions, etc. Being rejected from the opportunity to be mentored seems far worse and more personal. A particular conference, journal or job opening may not be a good “fit,” but what does it mean if one isn’t a good “fit” to be mentored? That one has been deemed unworthy of success or help? As a person who has faced regular rejection from those I’ve asked for help in my career, the risk of being deemed unworthy yet again seems higher than any possible benefit from the workshop could hold. It’s a wonderful idea in theory, but why exclude anyone?
I agree with you, anon. And I’m concerned if the mentoring group reflects one “strain” in feminist philosophy (analytic) and not others. I don’t know the basis of “good fit” at work here is.
Anon and Lynn:
I went to the 2nd workshop in 2013, and a broad range of subdisciplines, including topics in Continental philosophy, were represented. One challenge for the conference organizers is to find mentors for the mentees. They will need to be able to place you with an appropriate mentor in order to accept you. (Anon: Try to develop a thicker skin when it comes to rejections. A given rejection may have more to do with questions of fit than merit.)
In a report to Amy Ferrer of the APA regarding the 2013 workshop, the organizers said that they received 46 applications and were able to accept 45 mentees. You can read the report online here: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.apaonline.org/resource/resmgr/grantreports/2012workshop.pdf
I second Rachel’s recommendation, and I strongly urge you too apply.
Hi Everyone — Louise Antony here. I want to respond to the concerns expressed by an anonymous poster. First of all, Ann and I have done our best in the past, and will continue in the future, to accommodate everyone who applies to the Mentoring Workshop. The limits are budgetary. In the first year (2011) we had budgeted for 30 mentees, but managed to stretch our funds to accommodate 45 of the (I think) 47 individuals who applied. The two individuals who were turned down were people we could not fit into existing cohorts. In at least one of those cases, we were able to find a “remote mentor” who read and commented on the applicant’s work, and offered some career advice in response to questions, over email.
Budget will continue to be a limiting factor — Ann and I are pursuing some new sources of funding which we hope will provide increased flexibility and a larger capacity. Another limiting factor is our ability to find appropriate mentors for the individuals applying in any given year. Our senior women colleagues have been incredibly generous in volunteering their time for the workshop and for ongoing mentoring, but obviously it’s a big job and not everyone can afford to do it (or to do it at some particular time).
The second thing I want to say is that the Workshop has no “strain” and indeed no restrictions on field within philosophy. We certainly welcome applications from people working outside the analytic tradition, and have had several cohorts either devoted to Continental philosophy, or including individuals working within the Continental tradition or on Continental philosophers. (I say this with the usual caveats about the increasingly useless terminology of “continental” and “analytic”.) And the Workshop absolutely does not presume that applicants work in or even have interest in feminist philosophy. Again, we have had quite a few mentees who work on feminist philosophy. We’ve had at least one cohort in that area, and a few people sprinkled throughout other cohorts (one of my mentees in a philosophy of mind cohort, for example, was writing on kind concepts, with specific application to feminist theory).
In short: Ann and I will try to accommodate everyone who applies, and we welcome applications from individuals working in any area of philosophy!
Louise Anthony: Thanks for taking the time to respond to my concern. I understand that resources are limited, and I appreciate the effort that goes into organizing the workshop and doing everything that you can to accommodate as many people as possible. I hope this next workshop will be as successful as I have heard the last two were, and I hope to be in attendance.
Louise, I found your reply very helpful, too, It’s a wonderful project.
While it’s good to encourage people to take rejection less personally, emphasizing the role of ‘fit’ may not be the best strategy, for reasons highlighted in this article:
“Academic job rejection hurts because, as they tell us, there are so many qualified candidates and it’s all about fit.” Rejection, he told me, “means being told that you don’t fit in anywhere.”
Comments are closed.