tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post160764577993847296..comments2023-08-08T00:37:45.098-07:00Comments on A Philosophy Job Market Blog: Cash rules everything around mePseudonymous Grad Studenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00627480292942427387noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-53379322015831902252008-12-05T00:54:00.000-08:002008-12-05T00:54:00.000-08:00'while a candidate might get short-listed or inter...'while a candidate might get short-listed or interviewed on the basis of a sparkling publishing record, they're not going to be hired simply on this basis.'<BR/><BR/>Actually, in the UK, almost all candidates for continuing positions have been hired on precisely this basis for the past few years (going back to the late 1990s)<BR/><BR/>That may change now the dreaded 'research assessement exercise' is no more. But to someone brought up in that system, US practice can often look deeply irrational, and the arguments in favour of it can seem like rationalisations.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17962701091016640341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-78407088048385644932008-11-11T15:45:00.000-08:002008-11-11T15:45:00.000-08:00Back to the original content of the thread...Minne...Back to the original content of the thread...<BR/><BR/>Minnesota just announced a "hiring pause" -- which seems to indicate something less than a freeze. All new hires must be performing a key function or essential part of the academic mission and be aproved on an individual basis.<BR/><BR/>Since Minnesota had at least one philosophy job posted, that might be another one off the table.Inside the Philosophy Factoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12255753259090709877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-9384240187863035272008-11-05T13:13:00.000-08:002008-11-05T13:13:00.000-08:00Needless to say, I have no pubs. But my adviser wa...<I>Needless to say, I have no pubs. But my adviser was rather clear about this: the writing sample is what really matters. If that's good enough, then the committee will *know* that you'll be able to publish (in good journals): you've just submitted something to them that shows that.</I><BR/><BR/>This is true, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. "Trying not to be bitter" makes the same error. Both should take a look at what m.a. program faculty member said at 11-4-08, 1pm.<BR/><BR/><I>Exactly!! This is how the "better" departments operate: they decide what they think about the writing sample, and that's what matters most. That's why it's still true that people without publications get hired on the basis of their philosophical work, not on the basis of some other feature (pegigree, minority status, etc.). And that's why you cannot tell someone's philosophical abilities from looking at their CV.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, partly right, but partly wrong. I imagine some faculty members in some programs do this, but I think it's foolish to imagine that they all do, or even that everyone at the top programs chooses like this. Read m.a. program faculty member at above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-67683200807434870582008-11-05T10:14:00.000-08:002008-11-05T10:14:00.000-08:00I agree with Suomynona--looking to WHERE students ...I agree with Suomynona--looking to WHERE students have published (if at all) seems a useful heuristic to (loosely) determining quality and/or seriousness of an applicant's writing. Your average committee probably has enough time to read the short-listed candidates' respective writing samples, and that's about it--not to read another five, two, or even one additional paper. So, granted, top journals sometimes publish crap papers, and sometimes turn down great papers, but it's a heuristic, and that is (or should be) about all.<BR/><BR/>Regarding journal rankings, the <A HREF="http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-on-journal-rankings-case-of_15.html" REL="nofollow">Brooks Blog</A> offers a fairly reasonable breakdown of most journals. What it doesn't account for, however, is the breakdown of some subdisciplines in philosophy. For instance, how would <I>Philosophy of Science</I> or the <I>British Journal of the Philosophy of Science</I> rank on this list; or, alternatively in aesthetics, the <I>Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism</I>, the <I>British Journal of Aesthetics</I>, or the <I>Journal of Aesthetic Education</I>. Although the Brooks list doesn't account for these, anyone working in a subfield usually has a fair idea of how the journals rank relative to that topic. Estimating merit based on the details of a candidate's publication record is a messy business (especially when a department is hiring for a specific subfield, and doesn't already have anyone working IN that subfield) but it provides at least a rough, intuitive guide--a first step.<BR/><BR/>And while a candidate might get short-listed or interviewed on the basis of a sparkling publishing record, they're not going to be <I>hired</I> simply on this basis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-71953140018941745322008-11-04T16:21:00.000-08:002008-11-04T16:21:00.000-08:007:54,Every journal you mention is clearly an A-lev...7:54,<BR/><BR/>Every journal you mention is clearly an A-level. Maybe phil studies would be A-minus. Google 'philosophy journal rankings' or search leiter's blog, or PEA soup.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-30090028518017867282008-11-04T15:34:00.001-08:002008-11-04T15:34:00.001-08:00I had in mind the rankings like those discussed he...I had in mind the rankings like those discussed here:<BR/>http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-on-journal-rankings-case-of_15.html<BR/><BR/>though only as a heuristic.<BR/><BR/>Here's a rule of thumb: check out the cv of the median faculty members of a department. If they have all been publishing _only_ in better places than where the hypothetical three articles have been published... you may be in trouble.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-8118489268065035612008-11-04T15:21:00.000-08:002008-11-04T15:21:00.000-08:00Although I pretty much agree with Anon 8:28's comm...Although I pretty much agree with Anon 8:28's comments (I feel like I am referring to Alcoholics Anonymous), the listed publications are helpful because committees just do not have time to read every writing sample that comes through. If you have 200+ applicants, you are most likely not going to be able to read even 1/2 of the writing samples (remember, this is philosophy, which is not exactly 'easy reading'; it's not like a paperback you read on an airplane), so you need a quick and easy gauge concerning writing. Thus, the publications on the CV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-27913740646769365602008-11-04T15:17:00.000-08:002008-11-04T15:17:00.000-08:00On the pedigree issue: I have a Phd from a middlin...On the pedigree issue: I have a Phd from a middling Leiter program and have a very good TT job at an attractive MA school. When I was first finishing up the diss and going on the market I resented the Ivy-type folks who were getting more attention than me (after all, I too had some pubs in B+/A- journals). Now that I'm a few years out and have been to many conferences, etc. I have to admit that most of the folks coming out of the best programs are just plain smarting than I am. <BR/><BR/>Now, I'm pretty good, I think. I'm considerably more personable and more effective as a teacher than many of these highest-tier products. At least this is what I tell myself (as it turns out, many of the smartest people are also frighteningly competent teachers too). So perhaps it would be sensible for non-Leiterized programs to prefer me (and those like me) to the super special people. But if a program is going after the very best philosopher they can get in a certain area, then I can't blame them for gravitating toward the folks who started their graduate careers with higher intelligence and who received their training from the best people in their field.<BR/><BR/>In any case, the fact that there are some prominent people who have risen to the highest levels from medium programs suggests that the system isn't completely blinded by pedigree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-77581159296109266312008-11-04T15:09:00.000-08:002008-11-04T15:09:00.000-08:00If the committee thinks that it has something that...<I>If the committee thinks that it has something that is very good and very publishable why should it seek external validation (in the form of looking to see if someone else has deemed the work of sufficient quality to b publishable)? This line of reasoning seems to me all the more compelling if the applicant has other writing available for the committee to peruse. Whether the writing has in fact been submitted, and accepted, for publication seems irrelevant so long as the committee trusts its own judgment.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly!! This is how the "better" departments operate: they decide what they think about the writing sample, and that's what matters most. That's why it's still true that people without publications get hired <B>on the basis of their philosophical work</B>, not on the basis of some other feature (pegigree, minority status, etc.). And that's why you cannot tell someone's philosophical abilities from looking at their CV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-28580178518888874602008-11-04T14:26:00.000-08:002008-11-04T14:26:00.000-08:00Anon 8:28 is right -- whether you've actually publ...Anon 8:28 is right -- whether you've actually published in good places is irrelevant; what matters is your writing sample, which tells SCs whether you can publish in good places. But we all know that SCs don't read all the writing samples. What concerns me is the thought that my application won't get a fair reading -- that it will hit the trash as soon as the SC sees "Ph.D., Blah University," that they won't bother to read my writing sample, and that they won't care that I have in fact published in good places, because a necessary condition for being taken seriously by them is coming from a prestigious program. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic and this sort of thing doesn't actually go on -- but I doubt it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-8027888213758626492008-11-04T13:25:00.000-08:002008-11-04T13:25:00.000-08:00"What journals should we consider as A, B, and C j..."What journals should we consider as A, B, and C journals? Category A seems to include, e.g., Phil.Review, Nous, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Journal of Philosophy, and Mind. What about journals like Philosophical Studies, Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophers' Imprint? Would they be A or B? What do you see as clear examples of B and C?"<BR/><BR/>Good question! I'd like to see some answers here too. Also, what about publishers? Would the A list here be OUP, CUP, Princeton, Routledge?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-28528876200398913062008-11-04T13:00:00.000-08:002008-11-04T13:00:00.000-08:00Anon at 8:28 AM asks about why an actual publicati...Anon at 8:28 AM asks about why an actual publication record should matter at all--why shouldn't the committee members just rely on their judgment about the writing sample as showing how good the candidate's research potential is?<BR/><BR/>Well, first off, both matter--if the candidate has a few pubs in good places, that's terrific, but you still look carefully at the writing sample (and those pubs!) to arrive at an independent judgment of how good the work is.<BR/><BR/>But why rely on publication record at all? At least two obvious reasons stand out:<BR/><BR/>(1) For candidates in a specialized area, I can gain a general impression of the person's writing ability and argumentative skill, but I may not have enough background to know how good the person's work is in that area, really. For instance, a small school may be hiring in ancient phl, because they have a hole in that area right now--no ancient specialists--and one guy is writing his dissertation on (and has a sample dealing with) Aristotle's physics. <BR/><BR/>The committee members-- who work mainly on (i) contemporary epistemology, especially contextualism, (ii) Habermas, (iii) Locke and Berkeley, and (iv) contractarian theories in ethics-- may feel a lot more confident in their judgment that the person does good work in the area if he's had pieces accepted in journals specializing in ancient phl.<BR/><BR/>(2) You're not just looking for the candidate's ability to produce *something* good, but that person can be *productive.* Sure, if a person looks totally brilliant, you can hire him ABD with no pubs., on the basis on glowing letters and a great sample. But there are plenty of people who come out with glowing letters who end up struggling to discipline themselves and establish a consistent record of good publications. Worries that this will happen are a lot less if the person has already demonstrated an ability to get good publications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-24745382097951296742008-11-04T12:13:00.000-08:002008-11-04T12:13:00.000-08:00To return to the main thread... Against Mickey Mar...To return to the main thread... Against Mickey Marketeer's view (first comment, above), I can tell you that my large state university is being hammered--now. In the arts, humanities, and sciences, all searches this year have been suspended. We were also recently informed that we will have to reduce our reliance on term (visiting) positions. In other words, we have to make do with less faculty all around. More "cost-saving measures" are being planned as I type. I suspect other state institutions are suffering similar fates. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Good luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-67532617454103036192008-11-04T10:02:00.000-08:002008-11-04T10:02:00.000-08:00Pedigree has its disadvantages as well. For every ...Pedigree has its disadvantages as well. For every place looking to hire someone with top 5 credentials, there are more than a few places that are wary of considering (or that outright refuse to consider) someone with top 5 credentials. <BR/><BR/>Some committees want to book the Rolling Stones. Some committees never seriously consider booking the Rolling Stones because they think the Stones won't come or that the Stones may flake out after a song or two.<BR/><BR/>Sure, I'm in the Rolling Stones, and being in the Rolling Stones is awesome, but Madison Square Garden really wants Mick and Keith, and I'm Charlie Watts. Don't get me wrong, Charlie Watts fucking rules and his drumming is rock-solid, but let's face it, he's no Mick or Keith.<BR/><BR/>So I can't get the MSG gig because I am not Mick or Keith, but I can't get the smaller gigs either because I'm Charlie Watts from the Rolling Stones and they think Lou Gramm from Foreigner is the safer choice. <BR/><BR/>So, yes, sometimes pedigree plays a crucial role in the hiring process. Just don't assume that always favors those with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-11156766502554837992008-11-04T08:50:00.000-08:002008-11-04T08:50:00.000-08:00I'm a PhD student at an "Ivy," and I can at least ...I'm a PhD student at an "Ivy," and I can at least say that the hiring freeze isn't affecting everything: we're hiring a new faculty member this year, and planning to hire another next year. I suspect the impact of the recession (depression?) will vary wildly from department to department, and not necessarily in any way that correlates with prestige.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-51913330110383114272008-11-04T08:28:00.000-08:002008-11-04T08:28:00.000-08:00Here's what I don't understand about the importanc...Here's what I don't understand about the importance some people seem to place on publishing: the committee has a sample of what is supposed to be your best philosophical work. The people assessing this work are all professional philosophers and, by some reasonable measure, successful (they all have jobs). Presumably many of them are referees for journals. Given how difficult (impossible?) it is to fake good philosophy, why isn't the writing sample more or less sufficient for determining quality? <BR/><BR/>If the committee thinks that it has something that is very good and very publishable why should it seek external validation (in the form of looking to see if someone else has deemed the work of sufficient quality to b publishable)? This line of reasoning seems to me all the more compelling if the applicant has other writing available for the committee to peruse. Whether the writing has in fact been submitted, and accepted, for publication seems irrelevant so long as the committee trusts its own judgment.<BR/><BR/>Some may say that committees will not be able to come to agreement about what counts as a good writing sample. But I doubt that. I don't doubt that people might disagree about whether someone is right and perhaps about what counts as a worthwhile project. But it seems to me that it is not very difficult to agree on whether someone has philosophical chops or whether some piece is likely to be accepted by journals in tier A or tier B (or tier C). But perhaps I'm wrong.<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, I have no pubs. But my adviser was rather clear about this: the writing sample is what really matters. If that's good enough, then the committee will *know* that you'll be able to publish (in good journals): you've just submitted something to them that shows that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-19393970434833257072008-11-04T08:16:00.000-08:002008-11-04T08:16:00.000-08:00Anybody who thinks having a PhD from "an Ivy" is e...<I>Anybody who thinks having a PhD from "an Ivy" is especially valuable is patently a moron.</I><BR/><BR/>This is called "sour grapes" from a non-Ivy person. I too am not from an Ivy school, but it doesn't take a genuis to figure out where there may be some bias for Ivy candidates.<BR/><BR/>I'll mention just one here, which is a twist on the familiar business rule: "No one ever got fired for buying an IBM" (as opposed to buying from some upstart/no-name company). The same is true with hiring depts, who are overseen by deans, provosts, et al.: They can't be blamed much, if things go wrong, for hiring an Ivy candidate. Those candidates are "more proven" than others in the sense that there is an extremely rigorous admission process as well as top-notch grad programs at those institutions; so think of this as a time-saving "pre-screening" of qualified applicants. <BR/><BR/>Pedigree matters in both business in academia, and no argument can change that -- so get over it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-17526948676175702862008-11-04T08:07:00.000-08:002008-11-04T08:07:00.000-08:00Why come the APA hasn't updated (web only) job ads...Why come the APA hasn't updated (web only) job ads since 10/22/08? Two weeks without anyone submitting an ad? Inconceivable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-11540316659170389522008-11-04T07:54:00.000-08:002008-11-04T07:54:00.000-08:00"I think you might have a higher-quality journal i..."I think you might have a higher-quality journal in mind by your 'medium' than I do with my 'meh'. I'm (very roughly) thinking of things like the 'C' list journals, or maybe lower-end 'B' list. "<BR/><BR/>What journals should we consider as A, B, and C journals? Category A seems to include, e.g., Phil.Review, Nous, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Journal of Philosophy, and Mind. What about journals like Philosophical Studies, Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophers' Imprint? Would they be A or B? What do you see as clear examples of B and C?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-44388977799614890002008-11-03T22:56:00.000-08:002008-11-03T22:56:00.000-08:00(replying to 7:50pm) I think you might have a hig...(replying to 7:50pm) I think you might have a higher-quality journal in mind by your "medium" than I do with my "meh". I'm (very roughly) thinking of things like the "C" list journals, or maybe lower-end "B" list. But really, on reflection it'd make more sense to do this in terms of the quality of the papers themselves, and not the quality of the journals (which are, after all, positively correlated but way, way, way far from perfectly so, and some pretty bleah stuff gets into some pretty shiny places). In short: a couple-three papers in print that really aren't so hot will, indeed, lock you out of many of the better jobs. One way of thinking about it is that hiring committees tend to treat your published work, if you have it, as representing something like your top game. And if your top game is "well, ok, I guess, but not terrific," then what inferences will they draw about your everyday game? The person with no publications but with the looks-great-even-though-it-isn't-in-the-can-yet dissertation, however, is giving them only strongly positive evidence of philosophical quality, and no evidence against. And committees will (very reasonably) infer that the person will ultimately be able to harvest usable chunks of that looks-great dissertation, and they'll thus be publishing soon enough, and better than the "meh" person we're contrasting them with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-35346687864567124012008-11-03T22:51:00.000-08:002008-11-03T22:51:00.000-08:00"I followed this post up until this last claim. Wh..."I followed this post up until this last claim. Why would having 3 publications in medium places _hurt_ your chances, compared w/ someone who has no publications?"<BR/><BR/>Because the top places only want people who publish in the top journals. If you have three articles in so-so places, then the assumption is (and I think that the last poster was working with that assumption) that your work isn't good enough to be published in a top journal. <BR/><BR/>That may not be particularly fair, but that mindset is certainly out there.<BR/><BR/>That said, I think that this is only true of a small group of departments, for the vast majority of jobs, having three publications is clearly going to help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-43134950691949470552008-11-03T22:28:00.000-08:002008-11-03T22:28:00.000-08:00having a completed-but-mediocre diss and 3 publica...<I>having a completed-but-mediocre diss and 3 publications in meh to so-so places not only won't help someone on the market -- they'll lock them out from the better jobs.<BR/><BR/>I followed this post up until this last claim. Why would having 3 publications in medium places _hurt_ your chances, compared w/ someone who has no publications?</I><BR/><BR/>He did say "meh to so-so." The idea being that not only do we have no evidence that the candidate will do something really great, we actually have evidence that his best work is only so-so (especially in conjunction with the "mediocre dissertation"). I suppose it's up for debate whether this makes him a worse philosopher on average than the person about whom we only have no evidence of his greatness.<BR/><BR/>Of course, different schools are looking for different things. Research universities and "research" LACs (or whatever the original poster meant by the "best jobs" - not that I agree with him, just trying to flesh out his point) are generally trying to find someone whose abilities are theoretically limitless, while other types of schools may be trying to find someone who's proven he can publish (so that he'll be able to meet their standards of tenure, handle his workload, etc.). <BR/><BR/>This is an interesting conundrum: you might have thought that there was one best strategy to follow, and that how well you did on the job market would be correlated to your success in following that strategy, but that turns out to be wrong. There are two different strategies (publish whenever you can; hold onto your work until you're sure it's tops) that are mutually exclusive and that will determine your success in two different kinds of jobs. (Does this seem correct to people, or am I way off base here?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-12451001380617946692008-11-03T20:16:00.000-08:002008-11-03T20:16:00.000-08:00On the CU Boulder case:We also hired a one year VA...On the CU Boulder case:<BR/><BR/>We also hired a one year VAP from UMass Amherst and a one year VAP from UVA. All were vetted through a rigorous search process, and they're all very good.<BR/><BR/>-- A Boulder fac member.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-34025498311287666432008-11-03T19:50:00.000-08:002008-11-03T19:50:00.000-08:00having a completed-but-mediocre diss and 3 publica...<I>having a completed-but-mediocre diss and 3 publications in meh to so-so places not only won't help someone on the market -- they'll lock them out from the better jobs.</I><BR/><BR/>I followed this post up until this last claim. Why would having 3 publications in medium places _hurt_ your chances, compared w/ someone who has no publications?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-91229815834508608552008-11-03T19:24:00.000-08:002008-11-03T19:24:00.000-08:00There's a very common tendency on these threads to...<I>There's a very common tendency on these threads to think that the easily-quantifiable elements of a CV should be determinative of a hire. "But I had my PhD already, and they are just ABD!" , or "But I have three publications on my CV, and they don't have any!" But these are just pieces in the larger puzzle of a department's deliberations, and their value is purely whatever indication they may be as to the underlying quality of the candidate as a philosopher and/or as a teacher. If there is other evidence for such quality available, then a spare CV won't matter; and, turning it the other way around, having a completed-but-mediocre diss and 3 publications in meh to so-so places not only won't help someone on the market -- they'll lock them out from the better jobs.</I><BR/><BR/>Very well put.<BR/><BR/><I>I am shaking my fists at the heavens just for you (though my fist-shaking may look suspiciously like another sort of hand-oscillation).</I><BR/><BR/>I love you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com