tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post6557554937008621542..comments2023-08-08T00:37:45.098-07:00Comments on A Philosophy Job Market Blog: Another Day to Wake Up on the Feed Kill ChainPseudonymous Grad Studenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00627480292942427387noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-13773468803070446102008-03-31T15:30:00.000-07:002008-03-31T15:30:00.000-07:00Continental Prof. said:"Continental philosophy ref...Continental Prof. said:<BR/><BR/>"Continental philosophy refers to all forms of non-analytic philosophy excluding American pragmatism and Eastern philosophies [<B>or to translate that into analytic-speak: (Ax)(Cx <-> ~Ax)* (~Px V ~Ex)</B>.]"<BR/><BR/>I just have to point out that the formalization is incorrect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-74722799789844622882008-02-26T16:30:00.000-08:002008-02-26T16:30:00.000-08:00Although "Two Dogmas" is, ironically, about why co...Although "Two Dogmas" is, ironically, about why conceptual analysis traditionally conceived is impossible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-58064628152922665262008-02-26T13:00:00.000-08:002008-02-26T13:00:00.000-08:00"I am certainly willing to say philosophy isn't ju..."I am certainly willing to say philosophy isn't just a common vocabulary, nor a defined subject matter (i.e., M&E and ethics). This is why philosophy wasn't radically altered by the defection of the natural sciences and then of psychology, (though they may have been!). But one of the things that I have always imagined unified philosophy was our method."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a uniform philosophical method. It seems to me that conceptual analysis, for example, is considerably different from from Nietzschean genealogy, which is in turn considerably different from phenomenological reduction. <BR/><BR/>That said, I agree that there must be some unifying feature or set of features according to which various practices are properly termed "philosophical." <BR/><BR/>Clearly "common vocabularly" doesn't cut the muster. As for a "defined subject matter," I suppose it depends on what you mean. Deleuze claims that philosophy involves the creation of concepts. A lot of folks would disagree with that idea, no doubt, but surely Deleuze is right that philosophy has something to do with concepts, or, as he suggests elsewhere, with specific kinds of "problems" (and "solutions"). I don't have a ready-at-hand answer to this question, but I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a "common philosophical methodology."<BR/><BR/>"(I'm not generally a big Leiter fan, but I do enjoy the post he has going on something like this question). If certain areas don't use philosophy's particular sort of close analysis then, no, I don't particularly think they are philosophy. For example, I don't think all literary theory is philosophy of literature."<BR/><BR/>No, and I certainly never meant to suggest this. The so-called "New Theory" of the 1950s was very clearly NOT philosophy, for example (although its stock-in-trade was "close reading" of literary texts, which suggests that "close analysis" in and of itself is not the exclusive province of philosophy). The way I see it, literary theory took a philosophical turn when it began to question the assumptions and presuppisions underlying the interpretive enterprise. This was prompted, in large part, by the appropriation in literary circles of certain in/famous French philosophical theories for which language (meaning, representation, etc) was the central problem (semiotics, structuralism, deconstruction, etc). So most contemporary literary theory is concerned with problems that are appreciably part of what we call "philosophy of language," though obviously its scope is limited to specific forms of language (i.e., "the literary"). To this extent it does this, it is rightly called "philosophy of literature." To the extent that it does something entirely different, it deserves to be called something else.<BR/><BR/>"This isn't to say that it is worthless or shallow - just to say that I think one benefit of giving up philosophy's title as 'queen of the sciences' is insisting on at least some commonalities among the various things that count as philosophy."<BR/><BR/>I agree, but I think we can agree that pinpointing exactly what those commonalities are aint easy. <BR/><BR/>Back when I was in graduate school and dinosaurs roamed the earth, a professor of mine suggested that "philosophy is the discipline which analyzes the presuppositions upon which all other disciplines rest" (or something like that). He wasn't saying this is ALL philosophy is, by the way, but that this is something that sets philosophy apart. I've always thought this is right, though maybe it's not as helpful as I once thought...<BR/><BR/>You always hear buzz about "analyzing fundamental concepts" and such. Again, probably not very helpful on the whole, but it would let us see why Heidegger and Quine, say, are both philosophers. Plenty of "fundamental concepts" under discussion in both Sein_und_Zeit AND "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-78404311307189174722008-02-26T11:14:00.000-08:002008-02-26T11:14:00.000-08:00Coming from a PhD program that actually is contine...Coming from a PhD program that actually is continental-friendly, I still found some of continental prof's assertions puzzling. For example, he ends by saying of 'trauma theory': "...it just employs a different methodology, parlance, etc."<BR/><BR/>I am certainly willing to say philosophy isn't just a common vocabulary, nor a defined subject matter (i.e., M&E and ethics). This is why philosophy wasn't radically altered by the defection of the natural sciences and then of psychology, (though they may have been!). But one of the things that I have always imagined unified philosophy was our method. (I'm not generally a big Leiter fan, but I do enjoy the post he has going on something like this question). If certain areas don't use philosophy's particular sort of close analysis then, no, I don't particularly think they are philosophy. For example, I don't think all literary theory is philosophy of literature. This isn't to say that it is worthless or shallow - just to say that I think one benefit of giving up philosophy's title as "queen of the sciences" is insisting on at least some commonalities among the various things that count as philosophy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-59119086381512160312008-02-26T05:54:00.000-08:002008-02-26T05:54:00.000-08:00Anon 11:53 - Having been an avid lurker of this bl...Anon 11:53 - <BR/><BR/>Having been an avid lurker of this blog for quite some time, I can say with some authority that this topic ("analytic vs. continental") has been done to death. (Hell, I've been dealing with it for several decades now!) I don't really want to get into it with you, but certain things you said are just begging for a response.<BR/><BR/>First, it is an increasingly common view that the terms "analytic" and "continental" philosophy are meaningless. Even Brian Leiter champions this position. <BR/><BR/>Second, Continental philosophy is not monolithic: in fact, people who do CP don't think of ourselves as doing CP, but rather as working on Hegelianism or Marxism or phenomenology or existentialism or hermeneutics or feminism or poststructuralism or psychoanalytic philosophy, etc. etc. As someone else noted awhile back "continental philosophy" was a term coined by Anglo-American philosophers FOR Anglo-American philosophers. Continental philosophy refers to all forms of non-analytic philosophy excluding American pragmatism and Eastern philosophies [or to translate that into analytic-speak: (Ax)(Cx <-> ~Ax)* (~Px V ~Ex).] What qualifies as "non-analytic"? Again, all sorts of philosophical schools and methodologies which, for a variety of reasons, have tended to be ignored, overlooked, or dismissed outright in American, British, Canadian, etc. philosophy departments for the past 50 odd years. Oddly, we CP folks don't think of ourselves as doing anything other than philosophy. It's always the analytic folks suggesting that what we do is "soft" or "fluffy," or that it doesn't even qualify as philosophy. In three decades in the academy, I have never once heard a fellow CP suggest that analytical philosophy ISN'T philosophy. I've heard plenty of criticisms, to be sure, but I've never heard anyone make such a strong and utterly absurd claim.<BR/><BR/>Also, note the many subfields of analytical philosophy which extend philosophical methodologies to fields outside of traditional philosophy (or import non-philosophical methodologies INTO philosophy): philosophy of science, philosophy of math, philosophy of language, etc. How exactly is literary theory any different? Isn't it just philosophy of literature? (Yes, it is). Why can physics and neuroscience be analyzed through a philosophical lens but literature can't? Give me a break.<BR/><BR/>As for CP "being beyond reproach," I think the frustration some people have expressed is a result of blanket generalizations about CP! Remember, we don't think of ourselves as "continental philosophers" but as phenomenologists or deconstructionists, etc. So if you're going to advance a critique, it should be against something REAL and CONCRETE (existentialism, say) as opposed to the non-existent straw man people call "continental philosophy." Better yet, save your critiques for a more proper venue: this is a philosophy JOB blog, remember. <BR/><BR/>It's funny how people mention "trauma theory" and it sends up all sorts of outraged red flags. My guess is that the mention of "game theory," say, wouldn't elicit such a response.<BR/><BR/>Look - trauma theory, as I understand it, is part of post-Freudian psychoanalytic philosophy as articulated by Lacan and his followers (Zizek for example). If you don't think it's philosophy, try reading some of it some time. It's every bit as philosophical as anything Jerry Fodor or Fred Dretschke ever wrote about the operation of the mind; it just employs a different methodology, parlance, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-84295124954299975122008-02-26T05:35:00.000-08:002008-02-26T05:35:00.000-08:00As a recent Ph.D. grad of a Catholic University, I...As a recent Ph.D. grad of a Catholic University, I thought I should explain the advantages we have on the market. The main source of the advantage is the fact that there are simply a dispproportionate number of philosophy jobs available at Catholic colleges. <BR/><BR/>Virtually all Catholic colleges require philosophy courses as part of the central core classwork that every student must take.... some Catholic colleges require as many as four philosophy courses. Therefore, they need many more philosophy professors than non-Catholic schools. <BR/><BR/>Unsurprisingly, Catholic colleges look to the relatively small number of Catholic Ph.D. granting universities as their primary source of candidates. Surprisingly, many Catholic colleges care less about the religious committments of their philosophy professor candidates, than the candidates' familiarity with the Catholic models of higher education (which means that you have an interest in the history of philosophy, expect to teach required core courses instead of a lot of upper level coures, and promise not to publically denigrade the church). We had one job candidate come to our University who had a great CV, but seemed to think that 'being Catholic' would help him get the job. It didn't. He knew nothing about the history of philosophy and came across as religiously shallow. He would have been much better off saying 'I'm an atheist, but I think Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas should be read by every student'. Of course, this isn't true at every Catholic school, but it is true more often than you would expect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-87761785496801345402008-02-25T15:23:00.000-08:002008-02-25T15:23:00.000-08:00I was the one who introduced non-philosophy depts ...I was the one who introduced non-philosophy depts into the mix concerning continental philosophy. Just to clarify what I said:<BR/><BR/>I'm not claiming that getting a degree in Comp Lit, Humanities, or Political Theory will get you a job in Philosophy. It sometimes does, but this is not the rule. Rather, I'm addressing myself to the undergrad who is really into Continental Philosophy and also has her heart set on working in an Ivy or aspiring Ivy. As others have corroborated, this is virtually impossible to do in Philosophy. So, do it via another discipline. This means you'll end up in a Political Theory, Humanities, Comp Lit, etc Dept. That's the cost, but if you like these things (Literature, Politics, etc), then you can make it work. And as I said, you still have to be a star to land in a top institution.<BR/><BR/>I'm suspicious of claims like Anon 8:46 who say "much of what's done in lit departments is not very philosophical and, in my experience, gets tedious fast." This is probably true, much of it is (since much of it is literature) but I think there are depts in which very good philosophical work gets done (I listed ones I thought of, there may be others). Notice too I'm not restricting myself to Lit, I think some Political Theory programs can be great for someone interested in Continental and Politics. I find philosophers, continental philosophers included, love to trash literature depts as a way of feeling good about what they're doing. I sometimes wonder how much exposure to top theory programs they have. But then I'm not tenured at an R1.<BR/><BR/>And since Continental Prof mentioned SPEP, its worth noting that many people in SPEP aren't actually in Philosophy Departments. Most are, but others are in Political Science, Theology, Women's Studies, Comp Lit, and so on. But presumably they're equally Continental Philosophers. The SPEP Executive Committee has two people on it (Robert Gooding Williams and Shannon Lundeen) who aren't in Philosophy Departments (yes, they trained as philosophers, but that just goes to show movement out is also possible). I think it's just too easy to follow the institutional boundaries when defining these things, and as a result aspiring continental philosophers fail to explore what could be very promising opportunities.<BR/><BR/>Of course I don't think one should necessarily be Ivy or Ivy aspiring - I agree with so much of what has been said here about rich intellectually fulfilled lives in very good conditions at other institutions. So by all means go to a philosophy dept to do Continental Philosophy, and follow a lot of the advice given here on how to do it.<BR/><BR/>Just to indulge myself - Anon 11:53:<BR/><BR/>I don't know shit about Trauma Theory. But I find it amazing you're happy to dismiss something as "not philosophy" because its name doesn't coincide with "metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc, even history of philosophy". Be imaginative! I imagine trauma theory deals with issues to do with the Holocaust, child development, moral psychology, violence, power, autonomy... but perhaps you don't think these are proper topics for philosophers to discuss. The call is not to include anything as Continental Philosophy, it's to stop excluding things that you've never read as not being so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-60663891790681671042008-02-25T11:53:00.000-08:002008-02-25T11:53:00.000-08:00Anon 8:01 and Asstro Boy:I think there's still amo...Anon 8:01 and Asstro Boy:<BR/><BR/>I think there's still amount of agreement on what philosophy is: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc, even history of philosophy though there there's a certain benign circularity. If people want to call literary theory philosophy, fine, but it's not, at least as most people use the terms. Plenty of figures in the continental canon did philosophy as it's commonly understood, and are taken seriously by many if not most people working in the Anglo-American tradition. (We might not cite them very often, but then AA philosophy is often selective about what it cites. We aren't wont to produce Willamowitz footnotes like people in literary fields often do.) Heidegger, Husserl, Gadamer, Foucault, Habermas, there are a lot of good thinkers and good philosophers in the continental tradition.<BR/><BR/>An attitude that many pro-continental posters to this blog seem to have is that anyone who does "continental philosophy", however defined, is beyond reproach. And that's crap, just like no one in mainline Anglo-American traditions is.<BR/><BR/>For the most part Anglo-American philosophy still has a center, although I think empirical philosophy is pushing it right now, and that center is largely thanks to the heritage of analytic philosophy but also of other things like Greek and modern European philosophy. I suspect that continental philosophy has been losing its center faster than AA has, and that's why I think it's naive and perhaps self-serving for you all to keep implying that it's monolithic. I'm asking for more detailed treatment of what you're talking about, because<BR/><BR/>I've read some people in the continental canon carefully, and with faculty trained in that field, but I certainly haven't read everything. In any case, I'd argue that the burden of proof is on you to explain how anything called trauma theory can count as philosophy.<BR/><BR/>And as for how this relates to this blog: if you want a job in a philosophy dept, I doubt in general that a degree in comp lit would do it. Maybe those who suggested this are the type who don't really have much training in philosophy, who like folks in MLA fields like to pretend they're doing philosophy when they're really not. As for whether a real degree in continental philosophy would get you a job in an English department, that has been addressed here by others: probably not.<BR/><BR/>I do think people who are pushing the bounds of what we can count as philosophy should attempt to define their terms a little: what is philosophy, what is continental philosophy, what is analytic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-76573673755827159822008-02-25T11:17:00.000-08:002008-02-25T11:17:00.000-08:00Anon 10:25, I'd hire you. Unfortunately I don't h...Anon 10:25, I'd hire you. Unfortunately I don't have a job to give. My CV is probably a lot like yours, and I don't have any offers yet either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-64289350057320739782008-02-25T11:05:00.000-08:002008-02-25T11:05:00.000-08:00I have been on SCs at a couple of pretty top (anal...I have been on SCs at a couple of pretty top (analytic) schools. Fairly standard practice: ignore job applications from less than top 20 or so schools unless the file GLOWS with star quality. I.e. your letters have to say that you are the best graduate in 20 years to even have your file looked at. <BR/><BR/>I think PGS' advice is pretty much spot on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-80506734064763280432008-02-25T11:01:00.000-08:002008-02-25T11:01:00.000-08:00It's too small of a sample to count as high-qualit...<I>It's too small of a sample to count as high-quality data, but a quick look at Leiter's listing of tenure-track jobs sealed up so far gives the lie to PGS's sense of things. There's a very healthy mix of upper-leiterish, lower-leiterish, and unleitered departments represented among the people who have gotten jobs. Northwestern, coming in near the very bottom of the list, seems to be doing best at placement so far, with unranked places like Fordham, Purdue, and Vanderbilt outpacing the top places, which are barely represented so far.<BR/><BR/>Actual data beats armchair job market analysis, I always say!</I><BR/><BR/>It's way too small a sample -- it's biased because it's still early days. The top PhDs competing for the top jobs have not accepted offers yet, and it's only <I>accepted</I> offers that get posted on Leiter. Some top departments haven't even decided who to make offers to yet. And the people competing for the top jobs usually get multiple job offers, and need time to decide. Expect the Leiterrific jobs and candidates to start popping up in the next 2 weeks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-40383504991882977032008-02-25T09:09:00.000-08:002008-02-25T09:09:00.000-08:00Here's the first and most important lesson to lear...Here's the first and most important lesson to learn if you study Continental philosophy: for better or worse, most of the top research-oriented programs in this country implicitly or explicitly favor work in the so-called "Anglo-American" or "analytic" tradition. Insofar as this blog, not to mention other blogs related to the so-called "profession," are chiefly concerned with the mainstream job market, one should take much of what is written in said blogs cum grano salis. Although some of the discussions are carried out at a sufficiently high level of generality to prove useful to Continental philosophers, a lot of the nuts and bolts simply do not apply to Continental philosophers (or to people working in other philosophical traditions outside the Anglo-American mainstream). Ergo a certain amount of judicious discretion is advisable in reading and/or contributing to these discussions.<BR/><BR/>Also, learn a lesson from your elders: some self-identified "analytic" folks like to trash Continental philosophy (it's been that way since I earned my Ph.D. thirty-odd years ago and it remains true today), but you can and should ignore them. Note that there is a difference between "critique" and "trashing." Some people do make good faith efforts to understand Continental philosophy and to found their critiques on the basis of sound exegesis and analysis. These folks deserve to be treated seriously and with respect. As for the people who dismiss everyone from Nietzsche to Husserl to Deleuze without having read or studied them at any length are just prejudiced, or overcompensating, or simply revealing themselves as "insecure" in some way or another. Like I said, just ignore them and move on. <BR/><BR/>That said, the idea that it is impossible (or even just incredibly difficult) to get a philosophy job in Continental is absurd. To be sure, the demand for Continental specialists in the U.S. tends to be much lower than the demand for specialists in other areas, but then again, there are far fewer Continental specialists to go around. In general, this means that the competition for Continental jobs tends to be somewhat less fierce than the competition for jobs in, say, core analytic. <BR/><BR/>The claims about comparative literature, etc., are somewhat anarchronistic. The demand for specialists in theory has waned considerably since the 1990s in comp. lit and related professions. What is more, it is rare that comp. lit programs hire philosophers for such positions. English and literature programs tend to want people who have degrees in literature, or else interdisciplinary Ph.Ds from places like Stonybrook and Purdue. If you want to apply for jobs in literature departments, you generally need to have some competence (if not specialization) in a literary field over and above your specialization in theory. <BR/><BR/>Your best bet, in any case, is to apply to graduate programs that have clout in Continental circles. Any even better better might be to enroll at Leiterrific school in order to become conversant in analytic philosophy or history of philosophy and then work toward achieving a terminal M.A. from said school. This makes you much more marketable, especially if it results in your being able to claim AOCs in "core" areas like history, ethics, etc. (It is probably not advisbable to go on the job market with an AOS solely in Continental unless you also have an AOS in, say, ethics and political philosophy, and/or you have several AOCs in "bread and butter" areas.) <BR/><BR/>Now, although it is indeed nearly impossible for Continental folks to achieve TT positions in "Leiterelite" programs, this does not mean that you are destined to teach at a SLAC or LAU. Many larger Catholic research universities (and a few non-religious research universities) are Continental-friendly, if not outright Continental in orientation. For folks who want smaller teaching loads and greater opportunities for research, jobs at these schools are going to be the most coveted. In Continental circles, being a TT faculty member at a place like Fordham, say, is comparable to being a TT faculty member at any number of Leiterelite institutions in analytical philosophy. It's all relative.<BR/><BR/>As a few people have pointed out, SLAC/LAU jobs generally carry higher teaching loads, but this is not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle. True, you will have less time do research, ceteris paribus, but depending on particular personal and professional circumstances this may end up being a fairly minor "setback."<BR/><BR/>Anyway, don't bother fretting about "rankings" and such if you're working (or planning to work) in Continental philosophy. It is better to consult resources such as SPEP in order to get a sense of what the top graduate programs are in CP as well as what sorts of places are attractive CP candidates. The rules are not COMPLETELY different for us, but they are different enough that much of what you read in the Leiter report, say, is at best irrelevant and at worst antagonistic. <BR/><BR/>A final word of advice: interdisciplinarity is hot right now in CP and other humanities outside the Anglo-American mainstream. (This may also be true in certain Anglo-American contexts, i.e., cognitive science, linguistics, etc., but you get my point). I highly recommend Stonybrook and Purdue if you're interested in going out on more than just the philosophy market. There are/were a number of attractive jobs this year specifically looking for folks with interdisciplinary backgrounds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-26776864952485462752008-02-25T08:46:00.000-08:002008-02-25T08:46:00.000-08:00As a tenured continental philosopher in a research...As a tenured continental philosopher in a research 1 dept., I think the advice to go to grad school outside philosophy is terrible. First of all, continental philosophy is philosophy. Second, much of what's done in lit departments is not very philosophical and, in my experience, gets tedious fast. If you love continental philosophy, you need to do some serious research to figure out where to go to grad school -- go way beyond Leiter's rankings (!), which are of very limited use in this area. <BR/><BR/>Yes, if you get into Chicago you should go there. But the rest of the list is rather arbitrary, as are all the philosophy departments with continental stars left off the list. Still, this isn't too difficult: You should know who is really good in the area(s) that you're most interested in and try to go work with them! (The field is in flux: lots of old continental underground places are withering on the vine and new places are leaping in to fill the void; do some research in your area.)<BR/><BR/>That goes for any area, really, unless you're willing to shape your interests to match the market, in which case you might as well go into a profession that makes some serious money...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-3201845581220364922008-02-25T08:09:00.000-08:002008-02-25T08:09:00.000-08:00Puh-lease, Anon 6:35.Yours is also a _dumb and chi...Puh-lease, Anon 6:35.<BR/><BR/>Yours is also a _dumb and childish_ ad hominem. Analytic, Continental: there are bad arguments all over the place, and stupid people to trot out those arguments.<BR/><BR/>If you're gonna insult people like that, you could at least make the insult plausible. Please give up on this "My methodology is so much better than your methodology" garbage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-15157021289753806592008-02-25T08:01:00.000-08:002008-02-25T08:01:00.000-08:00Anon 6:35:Can you name three thinkers in "trauma t...Anon 6:35:<BR/><BR/>Can you name three thinkers in "trauma theory" and explain why their work is "bullshit"? Or even one?<BR/><BR/>A good philosopher would be able to back up such judgments with arguments, and I suspect you can't (although I'm open to being proven wrong).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-66489277514230816112008-02-25T07:10:00.000-08:002008-02-25T07:10:00.000-08:00"It should also be noted that the schools having d..."It should also be noted that the schools having done well so far are doing well in terms of their specialties and not overall strength. For example, the two Northwestern grads with jobs are in Ancient and 20th c. Continental. The known bias in the PGR rankings toward departments with strength in "core Analytic" areas shows up in this disjunction between Northwestern's overall ranking and its placement record."<BR/><BR/>This is the point - overall strength" is close to meaningless on the job market (and it's a cover for "core analytic"). You get a job based on your specialty. This is why the Leiter rankings can be misleading as predictors of placement.<BR/><BR/>But it's a good reminder to look at the AOS's of the people getting the t-t jobs in any program's placement record. If they're in areas you have no desire to study, it's probably not the place for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-77888128588081167142008-02-25T06:43:00.000-08:002008-02-25T06:43:00.000-08:00UK almost-PhD here, applying to the American and C...UK almost-PhD here, applying to the American and Canadian markets. American BA, UK MA and PhD. Not in philosophy but in a related and also glutted field.<BR/><BR/>The biggest difference between the American and UK systems that I can see is that the UK system is fundamentally more self-directed. You may not have comps, but you still have to read widely and in-depth if you want to be taken seriously as a candidate for an academic position; it's just not officially tested like it is in America. As well, teaching is not built into the programme, and oftentimes the school will not actually offer teaching opportunities, so it's up to the student to find teaching work on his/her own. Depending on one's relationship with one's supervisor, one could be pushed to publish or left completely alone to muddle through on one's own. As for funding, North Americans aren't eligible for AHRC funding, but if a department wants you badly enough, it will fund you.<BR/><BR/>Basically, it's up to the student to make his or her own way through the PhD. On the one hand, there are fewer administrative hoops to jump through. On the other, it requires a lot of self-discipline and drive, especially if you want to enter the North American market when you graduate. And like in America, it's a much better idea to go to an Oxbridge/Russell Group/Group of 1994 university than to an unranked/lesser known one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-86506157707806754542008-02-25T06:35:00.000-08:002008-02-25T06:35:00.000-08:00"something that "Continental" philosophers have be..."something that "Continental" philosophers have been on to for a while: the hermeneutics involved in making different kinds of philosophical claims."<BR/><BR/>That's an epistemological issue, not a hermeneutic one (either in the philological sense which you seem to have in mind, vaguely; or else in the metaphysical sense in which "hermeneutics" has been used in the 20th century). But since my original claim was that since "continental" doesn't have any clear sense anymore when people talk about "trauma theory" and other bullshit as being prototypical examples of the field, then your reply has the decided virtue of begging the question.<BR/><BR/>Once again, the defenders of "continental philosophy" demonstrate a complete inability to read a simple sentence. Maybe that's why mainline Anglo-American philosophers don't have much respect for it: weak thinkers and weak philosophers tend to be drawn to it. (Before you get all in a huff and misread my claim, notice that it is not a critique of continental philosophy as such: it's purely <I>ad hominem</I> and directed at you, jackass.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-72907654815156767772008-02-25T06:10:00.000-08:002008-02-25T06:10:00.000-08:00Surely the relevant question w.r.t. continental ph...Surely the relevant question w.r.t. continental philosophy/analytic philosophy on a job market blog should be whether advice about the APA and the philosophical hiring process attached to it has any bearing on a program that calls itself comparative literature and whose jobs are obtained through the MLA.<BR/><BR/>Call it philosophy, or not, as you wish, but there is a practical divide here, regardless of who gets their pants in a knot over who is the real philosopher the fastest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-60844493254246746452008-02-24T22:25:00.000-08:002008-02-24T22:25:00.000-08:001. I'm at a top 35 program, I work in an area wher...1. I'm at a top 35 program, I work in an area where my institution is ranked very highly, I have an AOC in applied ethics, and I have taught over a dozen different classes (most with full responsibility) for three different schools. I also don't have a single job offer. So, for all the success stories and advice, I believe I instantiate a very reasonable counter example to most of the suggestions for success.<BR/><BR/>2. I have first hand evidence that the people from the top programs are considering multiple offers and are not just snatching up anything that is offered them. Thus, it is not very surprising to me that the lower or unranked programs appear to be doing well right now.<BR/><BR/>3. I think the best advice to all prospective grad students is this: avoid the base rate fallacy. One should consider the placement rate of the school one is favoring as highly important; this rate will tell you, very roughly, the base rate for your getting a job when you finish. Stop believing that you will be lucky, the exception, or what have you - last time I checked that was irrational. I thought we were philosophers after all?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-60006979875317210312008-02-24T21:53:00.000-08:002008-02-24T21:53:00.000-08:00I want to say some things.1) What this advice real...I want to say some things.<BR/><BR/>1) What this advice really amounts to is more a commentary on the effect that the Leiter report has on many students in philosophy than it is responsible advice to prospective students. I think it's a shame, honestly, because there are lots of very good grad students out there who are, right now, walking around feeling bad about their position _because Leiter says their program isn't as good as some others_.<BR/><BR/>Leiter's ranking, please remember, is mostly based on the prestige and influence one, two, or several faculty members on a given faculty, and little else. It doesn't have anything to do with test scores. It doesn't have anything to do with potential. It doesn't have anything to do with the quality of grad students.<BR/><BR/>So....<BR/><BR/>2) choose a grad school that has a concentrated number of people who work in an area that interests you.<BR/><BR/>3) fucking rock that area of interest like you know you can<BR/><BR/>4) if possible, work with one (and there are usually many) of the influential people (noted by Leiter) in the AOS that interests you<BR/><BR/>5) but if they aren't available to you, fuck it. Find a bunch of people who do work in that area, and rock that shit.<BR/><BR/>6) rock your fucking work; and in doing so, work like a motherfucker.<BR/><BR/>7) treat philosophy like your job, not like your hobby. Why? Because it's your _fucking job_, not your hobby.<BR/><BR/>8) if Leiter has you slitting your wrists about your options, remember what I've just said: that the Leiter report is an important indication of what people are thinking about where the big people are in philosophy (so yes, it's fucking important), but it is not an indication of what will be the best and most nurturing environment for you to become the next philosophy rock star.<BR/><BR/>So all of you pissant wankjobs who are wallowing in your tears about your department's placement on the Leiter ranking, please, please, please buck the fuck up and recognize that Leiter offers little more than a popularity thermometer.<BR/><BR/>And Brian Leiter, dammit: look at what you've done to these poor kids!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-80949117759905798382008-02-24T18:03:00.000-08:002008-02-24T18:03:00.000-08:00Thank you, Anon. 1:30, for suggesting such a novel...Thank you, Anon. 1:30, for suggesting such a novel idea.<BR/><BR/>Yawn.<BR/><BR/>Maybe thinking about the differences between Analytic and Continental philosophy would entail something that "Continental" philosophers have been on to for a while: the hermeneutics involved in making different kinds of philosophical claims. Maybe if we realized such a thing, at least it then wouldn't be all about pre-post-or otherwise-Kant as the dividing line between the two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-67681297099778968492008-02-24T16:05:00.000-08:002008-02-24T16:05:00.000-08:00"Trauma theory, psychoanalysis? Are these the sort..."Trauma theory, psychoanalysis? Are these the sorts of things that count as continental philosophy these days? Two questions: are we still talking about philosophy?"<BR/><BR/>"Don't worry about people complaining that "real" philosophy is not done in these programs. That's bullshit. It is, and at a very high level."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-14881465183431359552008-02-24T15:29:00.000-08:002008-02-24T15:29:00.000-08:00Boston University doesn't do that kind of continen...Boston University doesn't do that kind of continental phil; Boston College does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-9799630763607449762008-02-24T15:23:00.000-08:002008-02-24T15:23:00.000-08:00anon 9:49 here,I by no means was intending to talk...anon 9:49 here,<BR/><BR/>I by no means was intending to talk "rubbish" about the UK system. And if by rubbish you mean, I was wrong about stuff well thats possible (I'm so slow at picking up the british slang!), but I think my overall point is important. I know many quite compitent, knowledgeable PhD's over here. From my point of view though (which is limited) it seems like the American system just provides better preparation for the American job market. Its competitive enough as it is. I really do think the American system which forces you to teach and forces you to do more work outside your interests seems to give the average graduate a better chance of landing a job, simply becuase that same person is, for the most part, going to look better on paper than they would have coming from the UK (not better than UK students, but better than they would coming out of a UK university, assuming their quality of work would be the same in either situation). I think its a general consensus that you need to maximize your chances as much as possible, and I think the American system seems to do that, for the american market.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com