So everyone familiar with the philosophy job market knows that your CV is supposed to list your "Areas of Specialization" (AOS) and "Areas of Competence" (AOC), and most jobs in fact mention one or both of these qualifications with regard to the applicants they are soliciting. AOS, I take it, is usually fairly clear: it is the area in which you have written your dissertation and might include closely cognate areas in which you plan to publish and in which you can do graduate-level teaching.
But I find that, invariably, philosophers have very different views about how a candidate determines his or her AOC. I usually tell students that the AOC comprises those areas where you are willing and able to do advanced or upper-level undergraduate teaching. That can, of course, cast the net quite widely, so sometimes it is advisable to limit the list by putting more weight on willing or emphasizing areas that naturally complement the AOS or areas where the student has substantial coursework background. A very long AOC list (say, six or seven different areas) can look like over-reaching by the candidate, and raise questions about superficiality and seriousness. Or so it has seemed to me.
I imagine many philosophers and job candidates would fine it useful to hear how others view the "area of competence." (I'm happy to hear thoughts about "AOS" as well.) Please post only once; non-anonymous comments preferred; and, as usual, comments may take awhile to appear.
