tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post1912343305282545713..comments2023-08-08T00:37:45.098-07:00Comments on A Philosophy Job Market Blog: What's Your Answer?Pseudonymous Grad Studenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00627480292942427387noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-40103691882908407862008-04-06T15:26:00.000-07:002008-04-06T15:26:00.000-07:00Your mom is Anders.Your mom is Anders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-41133543197402693152008-04-04T14:26:00.000-07:002008-04-04T14:26:00.000-07:00your mom's a cylon.your mom's a cylon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-61066765025643256472008-04-04T14:23:00.000-07:002008-04-04T14:23:00.000-07:00Anders is a cylon.Anders is a cylon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-16390236334452398872008-04-03T16:28:00.000-07:002008-04-03T16:28:00.000-07:00Asstro,Cool.Will Phil. for Food:But, as Bobcat sai...Asstro,<BR/><BR/>Cool.<BR/><BR/>Will Phil. for Food:<BR/>But, as Bobcat said, sometimes someone submitting a score for the overall rankings will have to make a judgment about a (e.g.) metaphysician even though the ranker doesn't know metaphysics. Yes, the rankings are supposed to be based on the whole group, but presumably you're supposed to score the group on the basis of your opinion of its members!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-88142265075830081542008-04-03T11:50:00.000-07:002008-04-03T11:50:00.000-07:00Anders is a very nice person. Don't vilify him. Hi...Anders is a very nice person. Don't vilify him. His comment was not one that anyone should feel offended by. (It's open to debate whether other comments further down in the thread are worthy of offense.)<BR/><BR/>Here, verbatim, is what Anders wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>The comment taken from the Philosophy Job Market blog seems highly tendentious (if not just spurious) in its description of the differences between the UK and the US programs.<BR/><BR/>I strongly suggest that the original poster reads the subsequent posts in that particular thread, i.e. the response by 'UK Prof' for a less biased perspective.</I><BR/><BR/>Anders chose the option (a) listed in the main post. Although I agree with Leiter and others that the further (b) could well have been justified, don't lump Anders in with us. He played by the very rules you suggest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-10048769940429292072008-04-02T16:51:00.000-07:002008-04-02T16:51:00.000-07:00Apologies if I'm coming off as a bit lippy. That'...Apologies if I'm coming off as a bit lippy. That's not my aim. But I do find, sometimes, that the principle of charity isn't employed nearly often enough, even by philosophers. FWIW, apart from your responses on supply and demand (which I disagree with), I've found your comments generally spirited, fun, and intelligent. So again, my charge of insanity, while aimed at you (sort of), was really only aimed at your comment.<BR/><BR/>I got the idea that you somehow thought the Leiter rankings were not done anonymously from your earliest post, which was a pretty strongly worded "No, you're mistaken." <BR/><BR/>Now, granted, the charge of insanity was a bit unfair. Insane people make _absolutely_ no sense. But you made some sense, and it was a creative bit of sense too, I'll grant you that. But it wasn't a charitable bit of sense. You couldn't possibly think, for instance, that because a journal posts a list of its blind reviewers that its reviews are then not actually blind. That's either insane or disingenuous. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you weren't being disingenuous.<BR/><BR/>Apologies for any confusions. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-78212849985591585072008-04-02T13:42:00.000-07:002008-04-02T13:42:00.000-07:00asstro,Huh?The question is whether posting your na...asstro,<BR/><BR/>Huh?<BR/>The question is whether posting your name along with the names of a few others would mean you were no longer anonymous, not how you would feel. I don't have an opinion about how you would feel, and I'll certainly take your word for it.<BR/><BR/><I>The point remains: you're kidding yourself if you think that Leiter's peeps are public about their rankings.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think that. What led you to believe I do???<BR/><BR/>You said my reading of 'anonymous' was 'insane'. I'm defending myself against the charge, that's all. I'm perfectly willing to accept ttassprof's clarification about what he meant.<BR/><BR/>Yeesh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-67808029887473564902008-04-02T13:37:00.000-07:002008-04-02T13:37:00.000-07:00Bobcat:The overall rankings are done differently t...Bobcat:<BR/><BR/>The overall rankings are done differently than the specialty rankings. Faculties in the overall rankings are ranked as a group, not for each individual faculty member. So Pitt, for instance, gets good rankings from having a few rockstars on faculty, whether the rest of the faculty are very good or not.<BR/><BR/>Leiter actually solicits those in that subfield to rank the departments for the specialty rankings. That is, someone who works in Leibniz might rank for HPS and Modern. So rarely does it come down to someone guessing whether someone is a good metaphysician or not, because people in M&E rank other programs on their quality in M&E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-15180730043442755172008-04-02T11:17:00.000-07:002008-04-02T11:17:00.000-07:00Does anyone know how the Leiter rankings system wo...Does anyone know how the Leiter rankings system works? I mean do people ever provide reasons for their judgments (to the central committee of judgment compilation, assuming there is something like that)? Usually? Not usually?<BR/><BR/>In any event, I imagine that assessment of whole faculties will often have to be based on claims like, "well, David Lewis said she's a good metaphysician, so I'll say she's good", simply because very few of us are quite familiar with all the work of each figure in each subfield of philosophy.Bobcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04797941051438316014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-6934049377243953742008-04-02T09:32:00.000-07:002008-04-02T09:32:00.000-07:00Prof. J: Are you serious?Sure. If there were onl...Prof. J: <BR/><BR/>Are you serious?<BR/><BR/>Sure. If there were only three of us. But if there were 100 of us, or 271 of us (as in Leiter's case), or 435 of us, I assure you that I wouldn't be as concerned. Matter of fact, I've already self identified as a tt asst prof at one of Leiter's top fifty. (I think I even narrowed it more than that.) That puts me in a pretty small category indeed. A little work and a little speculation might unearth my identity.<BR/><BR/>Do I feel anonymous? Pretty much. Is my identity discoverable? No doubt.<BR/><BR/>The point remains: you're kidding yourself if you think that Leiter's peeps are public about their rankings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-41543877844425015372008-04-02T09:11:00.000-07:002008-04-02T09:11:00.000-07:00Prof. J...I appreciate the cordiality. I think thi...Prof. J...<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the cordiality. I think this is evidence that discussions between reasonable adults can be productive even when parties remain anonymous.<BR/><BR/>I took the original debate (and PGS's question) to concern the appropriateness of anonymous comments on this blog. My appeal to Leiter's condonance of anonymity on the PGR and elsewhere was meant to point out that he can't believe anonymity per se is a bad thing.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I don't think the analogy between referee letters and PGR evaluations is correct. Evaluations of others' work are only as good as the evidence on which they're based. One virtue of soliciting <I>letters</I> from referees (as oppposed, say, to the snap-judgments found in numerical ratings), is that the evaluator is obligated to provide <I>reasons</I> for his/her views by referring to significant evidence, such as a candidate's published work, examples of collegiality, etc. These reasons can then themselves be evaluated by those soliciting the letters.<BR/><BR/>What evidence do PGR evaluators rely on in making their judgments? They're given lists of faculty in each department, but as for how they make individual assessments, we just don't know what evidence they base their views on. Nor can we appraise that evidence for ourselves. It would be nice if, to follow up on Bobcat's query, PGR evaluators were (like letter writers) obligated to provide reasons for their views by explaining the significance of a certain faculty member's recent work, referring to a school's placement data, etc. This may prove arduous, but given the function the PGR's meant to serve, and as Mr. Zero pointed out, that's not an argument against trying. Those evaluators who find the task difficult or feel unprepared/unable to provide such reasons should ask themselves whether they're responsible enough to pass such judgments.<BR/><BR/>(Note also that the sort of reason-giving I'm suggesting here need not require that PGR evaluators publicly reveal their identities.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-22332835424983878962008-04-02T06:15:00.000-07:002008-04-02T06:15:00.000-07:00asstro,That's insane. If Congress voted on legisla...asstro,<BR/><BR/><I>That's insane. If Congress voted on legislation and refused to release the votes of individual legislators, I assure you that people would say that they were voting anonymously.</I><BR/><BR/>And I assure you that if PJMB told you, Mr. Zero, Bobcat and ttassprof that they knew who you were and were going to put your names and institutional affiliations in a sidebar, you would object that your anonymity would be compromised.<BR/><BR/>(In case it's not clear, I agree that 'anonymously' can be used both ways. I'm only responding to the insistence that it can only be used one way, that my interpretation is 'insane' or unimaginable.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-26548425607671248142008-04-02T06:11:00.000-07:002008-04-02T06:11:00.000-07:00Mr. Z.,I didn't mean, literally, that I couldn't c...Mr. Z.,<BR/><BR/><I>I didn't mean, literally, that I couldn't conceive of a situation... blah. I'm worried about your imagination. </I><BR/><BR/>Touché.<BR/><BR/>ttassprof,<BR/>Thanks for the clarification.<BR/><BR/><I>Without the veil, the PGR's list of evaluators would shrink to those who have the cojones to air their views publicly.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that's an unfair way to put it. Individual scores are not revealed for the same reason that referees' letters aren't shown to candidates. We write referee letters, often, for people we know, and it's very uncomfortable to give a public rating of your friends (or even friendly acquaintances). Since we all know this, when we want to get someone's honest appraisal we quite reasonably offer them confidentiality. Don't you think that makes good sense?<BR/><BR/>I agree, of course, about the costs of confidentiality. I've written maybe a dozen tenure review letters. All things considered, I would be happier if the general practice were to show the letters to the candidate. On the other hand, on balance I think it's best for Leiter to keep his individual input scores confidential. There's a balancing of reasons in each case, and I think it comes out differently in the two cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-20742888593046934822008-04-01T19:26:00.000-07:002008-04-01T19:26:00.000-07:00Prof. J:That's insane. If Congress voted on legis...Prof. J:<BR/><BR/>That's insane. If Congress voted on legislation and refused to release the votes of individual legislators, I assure you that people would say that they were voting anonymously.<BR/><BR/>C'mon. Principle of charity and all that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-78496842840610013172008-04-01T19:20:00.000-07:002008-04-01T19:20:00.000-07:00You can't imagine that by 'anonymously' ttassprof ...<I>You can't imagine that by 'anonymously' ttassprof meant that their names aren't given?</I><BR/><BR/>I guess I just kind of thought that everyone knew that their names are there, but their ratings are secret. I didn't mean, literally, that I couldn't conceive of a situation... blah. I'm worried about <I>your</I> imagination. <BR/><BR/>The ratings are secret, even if the raters aren't. That means that the raters can be honest, without fear that their ratings will be made public and people will get pissed off at them. Whatever its drawbacks, that's one nice thing about anonymity, "prof. J."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-90490858024976429802008-04-01T18:41:00.000-07:002008-04-01T18:41:00.000-07:00...and to make full use of my anonymity, let me ju......and to make full use of my anonymity, let me just add that that Anders dude is hot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-83406150473899798072008-04-01T18:39:00.000-07:002008-04-01T18:39:00.000-07:00Prof. J and Bobcat...Mr. Zero's right on what I me...Prof. J and Bobcat...<BR/><BR/>Mr. Zero's right on what I meant. Although the PGR's list of evaluators is publicly available, there are grades of anonymity, and what you <I>won't</I> find anywhere in that report is the ratings that specific faculty members give for specific programs. Why the veil of secrecy at that level? I can think of a number of reasons. Without the veil, the PGR's list of evaluators would shrink to those who have the cojones to air their views publicly - I suspect that would include no more than a dozen currently on the list. That's a pragmatic argument for anonymity.<BR/><BR/>Presumably, Leiter's rationale for allowing evaluators to rank programs anonymously is that it permits faculty to be more honest in their evaluations. I myself find this reasoning a little specious. The sort of anonymous numerical ratings that the PGR solicits seems to me to encourage laziness and an overreliance on snap-judgments and word of mouth that's detrimental to the function it's meant to serve. But leave all that aside. The point is that Leiter must clearly believe that the anonymous airing of views can have a purpose, and the airing of views in words and arguments on this blog is far more open to appraisal than the dry numerical ratings that the PGR provides.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I didn't want to dredge this up earlier, but a number of readers of this blog will recall the nastiness between Leiter and Keith Burgess-Jackson a couple of years ago. Burgess-Jackson's obviously one pepperoni short of a pizza, and some of you will also recall the (very funny) <A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20060920041311/keithburgessjackson.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_keithburgessjackson_archive.html" REL="nofollow">parody blog</A> that drew attention to his mad ravings. That blog, like this one, was run anonymously and solicited anonymous comments from others. Leiter recommended it on several occasions (see, e.g., <A HREF="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/keith_burgessja_1.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/keith_burgessja_1.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>), and although the site's now dead, while it was running he posted comments under his own name a number of times, some of which encouraged the blog's persistence. I mention this only to point out that Leiter's record of tut-tutting anonymity hasn't always been consistent. Compared to that blog, PJMB is a paragon of civility and reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-90080799592278697872008-04-01T16:22:00.001-07:002008-04-01T16:22:00.001-07:00The least the commenters on Leiter's blog could ha...The least the commenters on Leiter's blog could have done is linked to <A HREF="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/" REL="nofollow">this diagram of the Greater Internet Fuckwad theory</A>, so that we could all get a good chuckle out of the whole thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-38984744485328139312008-04-01T16:22:00.000-07:002008-04-01T16:22:00.000-07:00Heeeeeere's Anders:http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/...Heeeeeere's Anders:<BR/><BR/>http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/members/anders_nesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-23363654915469054622008-04-01T15:06:00.000-07:002008-04-01T15:06:00.000-07:00Mr. Zero,Although the list of PGR raters is public...Mr. Zero,<BR/><BR/><I>Although the list of PGR raters is public, the actual ratings are not. I can't imagine that ttassprof meant anything else. </I><BR/><BR/>You can't imagine that by 'anonymously' ttassprof meant that their names aren't given? I think that speaks badly for your imagination.<BR/><BR/>I assure you that's what I thought he meant. If someone suggested that every commenter here at PJMB should have his or her name listed in the sidebar and that this was quite consistent with anonymity, I would presume it was a bad joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-58638734864680615082008-04-01T14:22:00.000-07:002008-04-01T14:22:00.000-07:00Yes, I can't wait for the PJMB revolution. I suppo...Yes, I can't wait for the PJMB revolution. I suppose Mr. Zero will have a pivotal role to play (assuming that the massive chip on his shoulder and penchant for conspiracy theories doesn't get in the way). Perhaps he can be seconded by Tenured Phil Girl. With her rapier wit and liberal use of "fucktard" nothing can stop us. Combine this with the sharp and deadly anonymous barbs so skillfully flung from the safety of a windowless grad student office, the PJMB army shall reign supreme! <BR/><BR/>But I wonder, if everyone is busy fighting the fat cat old guard and breaking open vast Leiter run conspiracies, when will we have time to publish and get decent jobs? Oh that's right, publishing and having a decent job apparently exhausts what it is to be a member of the fat cat old guard. Sorry. I guess I am first on the wall.<BR/><BR/>No worries in the end, I suppose. The more sane and non-whinge loving souls that get tired of this shit and start giving PJMB a pass, the more everyone left sounds the same. Viva la revolucion! Viva mierdas del dip! You bunch of sad wankers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-5000353658458766362008-04-01T13:59:00.000-07:002008-04-01T13:59:00.000-07:00A lovely new instructor job at Southeast Missouri ...A lovely new instructor job at Southeast Missouri State just posted to the web only ads: only a 5-5 teaching load, and I doubt the background check you have to undergo before interviewing is too onerous! But you'd better be sensitive to the needs of women and minorities (though the writer of the ad is apparently not sensitive to the needs of human beings).<BR/><BR/>Seriously, please, nobody apply to this piece of shit job. This is the kind of thing that just has to stop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-79720025462743362012008-04-01T12:26:00.000-07:002008-04-01T12:26:00.000-07:00If it's not anonymous, awesome! Can you post link...If it's not anonymous, awesome! Can you post link to Peter van Inwagen's rankings, please? Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-21701634025897345472008-04-01T12:06:00.000-07:002008-04-01T12:06:00.000-07:00Will philosophize for food ...A movement? Serious...Will philosophize for food ...<BR/><BR/>A movement? Seriously? Let's not get delusions of grandeur, fun as all this is.<BR/><BR/>Just curious - how 'senior' do folks have to be before we count as condemned to our 'haterade' and shut out from the cool kids' clique?<BR/><BR/>Not all senior people are Leiter-lap-dogs. Not all people reading and participating in PJMB are un-senior. <BR/><BR/>That being said, Anders (whoever he is) is indeed clearly a fucktard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-73053404391504893002008-04-01T10:48:00.000-07:002008-04-01T10:48:00.000-07:00Although the list of PGR raters is public, the act...Although the list of PGR raters is public, the actual ratings are not. I can't imagine that ttassprof meant anything else. <BR/><BR/>The fact that the list would be long is no argument against printing it. The fact that it would be hard to justify your ratings is not an argument that you shouldn't try. In fact, the ratings might significantly improve in accuracy if that kind of justification were required--having to explain your decisions might go a long way toward preventing arbitrary or under-informed ratings. <BR/><BR/>Of course, this level of transparency would probably cut down drastically on the level of honesty involved in the ratings. Such is the cost of non-anonymous commentary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com