tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post7050388654564361197..comments2023-08-08T00:37:45.098-07:00Comments on A Philosophy Job Market Blog: All the things we ever did were always confidential.Pseudonymous Grad Studenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00627480292942427387noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-67528464339136365462007-11-13T21:16:00.000-08:002007-11-13T21:16:00.000-08:00Just to be clear why publications matter in evalua...Just to be clear why publications matter in evaluating applications: departments want to be able to tenure the person they hire. Publications are essential to tenure. If you have a PhD from a top tier PhD program, the assumption is (and letters confirm) that you will have been trained to have what it takes to publish. The less well known the program, the more external evidence will be needed of publishing ability. That has been my experience, at least.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-34829919424664724762007-11-13T20:34:00.000-08:002007-11-13T20:34:00.000-08:00Obviously, publications can help a lot. The less L...<I>Obviously, publications can help a lot. The less Leiterrific your program is, the more they matter.</I><BR/><BR/>Just wanted to agree with what Inside Man said about this, and the rest of the paragraph. (Speaking only for my personal practice at a Research II-type school.) Elaborating a little, the letters that really weigh heavily from Leiterriffic departments are things like "Our best student in five years" and like that. And publications here aren't just the top 5 journals or whatever -- something like <I>Phil Studies</I> or <I>[A,P,null] Phil Quarterly</I> will help you will help you (though more obscure journals might not).<BR/><BR/>And this is all for the cut before the samples get read. Leiteriffic person with publications might not get interviewed because someone didn't like the sample. Also, I use the letters and the dissertation abstract to get a sense of the project even if I'm not reading the sample yet.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and from experience going on the market, I suspect that being out of grad school longer outweighs publishing more, at least past the first year or two. Which completely sucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-44240853950249039402007-11-13T18:53:00.000-08:002007-11-13T18:53:00.000-08:00Having sat in on a few searches, I shoudl also add...Having sat in on a few searches, I shoudl also add that the letters and CV can give a pretty good idea of a candidate's areas of interest, and this is often enough to rule out most applicants to any given job. If a school is hiring in, say, "ethics", they may have something much more specific in mind, say, "contemporary analytic metaethics" so that once it becomes clear that they have plenty of candidates who are actually in that area, candidates whose approach is less analytic, more historical, or verges more towards social and political philosophy may be ruled out. In much the same way, a department advertising in "Philosophy of language" may have no interest, or exclusive interest, in candidates whose work is seriously informed by contemporary linguistics.<BR/><BR/>I've seen plenty of files from Leiter-top-ten schools be dismissed without their writing samples being read for roughly this reason.<BR/><BR/>Just what exactly schools are looking for can be surprisingly hard to guess from their add, so I always encourage our students to cast as wide a net as possible (as I did myself), but also recognize that most of those applications won't be taken are in the right area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-87362867125612253182007-11-13T10:27:00.000-08:002007-11-13T10:27:00.000-08:00Hi, perhaps some of you are unaware of Shin-Kap Ha...Hi, perhaps some of you are unaware of Shin-Kap Han's paper "Solidarity and hierarchy in academic job markets". Kieran Healy discusses it at http://crookedtimber.org<BR/>/2003/11/11<BR/>/solidarity-and-hierarchy-in<BR/>-academic-job-markets.<BR/>Money quote:<BR/><BR/>"there are self-reproducing departmental status systems within disciplines. Job candidates in all disciplines are exchanged in a well-defined manner between three classes of departments. Class I departments, at the top, exchange students amongst themselves and supply lower-tier departments with students but do not hire from them. Class II departments are on the “semi-periphery,” generally exchanging candidates with each other (though there is a hierarchical element to this) and also sending students to Class III departments, which never place students outside of their class and usually do not hire students from within their class.<BR/><BR/>"This broad structure applies to all disciplines, though some draw sharper boundaries than others between Classes I and II."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-58594520709669988722007-11-12T07:32:00.000-08:002007-11-12T07:32:00.000-08:00Like Anon 5:23, I'm also wondering why the Leiteri...Like Anon 5:23, I'm also wondering why the Leiterific person with the excellent publication isn't going to make the first cut. Terrible teaching? A time bomb in the letters?<BR/><BR/>This is part of what makes the process so crazy/frustrating, from the applicant's side of the fence. It seems like the stars are all lining up for you, and then you get blindsided anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-22065744709891069412007-11-12T05:53:00.000-08:002007-11-12T05:53:00.000-08:00"Desirable demographic characteristics"??? WTF? L..."Desirable demographic characteristics"??? WTF? LOL. Was it ever an advantage being a women? Surely not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-17005059630636065852007-11-12T05:23:00.000-08:002007-11-12T05:23:00.000-08:00So what's wrong with Leiterific student with Leite...So what's wrong with Leiterific student with Leiterific publication? Why didn't he make it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-62286602669082555432007-11-12T05:01:00.000-08:002007-11-12T05:01:00.000-08:00Of course, *Ethics* is also a fantastic journal (a...Of course, *Ethics* is also a fantastic journal (and with the lowest acceptance rate).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-33578615632265786312007-11-11T13:28:00.000-08:002007-11-11T13:28:00.000-08:00Yay, thank you!Yay, thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-19991463926185678302007-11-11T12:23:00.000-08:002007-11-11T12:23:00.000-08:00Yes there is (well, sorta):http://wikihost.org/wik...Yes there is (well, sorta):<BR/><BR/>http://wikihost.org/wikis/philjinfo/wiki/startAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-25803012734444027932007-11-11T11:41:00.000-08:002007-11-11T11:41:00.000-08:00juniorperson,There is a wiki that catalogues turn ...juniorperson,<BR/><BR/>There is a wiki that catalogues turn around time for journals along with some other info (if you google "philosophy journal wiki" it is the first result). I know I've seen acceptance rate data somewhere but can't remember where...maybe the APA compiles this somewhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-11008408897502009072007-11-11T10:28:00.000-08:002007-11-11T10:28:00.000-08:00Johnny Cash's advice about publishing is very, ver...Johnny Cash's advice about publishing is very, very good.<BR/><BR/>Is there a list anywhere that details journal acceptance rates and turnaround times? <BR/><BR/>My own experience has been that APQ is very good, with excellent referee comments, turnaround times, and editorial feedback; the same goes for its sister journal PAQ. <BR/><BR/>Anecdotally, *Mind* takes ages to review stuff, as does the (way less prestigious!) *Journal of Value Inquiry*--which will also require you to rewrite your paper completely using its weird house style.<BR/><BR/>InsideMan--what's your view of book reviews? Positive, negative, or neutral? Just wondering...<BR/><BR/>My 2c.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-34923778875659360002007-11-11T08:40:00.000-08:002007-11-11T08:40:00.000-08:00There are more than 5 excellent journals. Inside m...There are more than 5 excellent journals. Inside man's 5 are certainly all excellent, but many would see Philosophy and Public Affairs, Philosophy of Science, and some of the other top-tier (but still general) specialist journals as equally good or better to Mind and PPR.<BR/><BR/>When we are looking at CVs here (middle ranked Leiter), we look for two things in a publication: peer review and originality (i.e. not the 27th round of an ongoing debate in Analysis). Highly selective publications are great, but, frankly, just about any publication is really hard to get these days. So we are interested to see that people have them and that they suggest a fruitful research program. Try to keep your papers in journals and out of edited collections as, even when they are peer reviewed, they always smell of non-peer review. <BR/><BR/>My advice for graduate students trying to publish for the job market is to *not* send a paper to JPhil or Phil Review. They take way too long. Find a really solid journal with a reasonable turnaround time (ask your junior faculty for their experiences) and send it there. For most students, the cost of waiting 6 months to a year is too high, even if your ideas are awesome. (And if you are ready to publish "Two Concepts of Rules, and your advisors know it, where you publish won't make a difference. My advice is for the rest of us.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-1943495998102199892007-11-11T08:32:00.000-08:002007-11-11T08:32:00.000-08:00Inside Man, we greatly appreciate these insights a...Inside Man, we greatly appreciate these insights and are indebted to you for them. In so far as possible, keep 'em coming!<BR/><BR/>Yours, <BR/>Anxious on the MarketAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-13690774089259237792007-11-10T19:53:00.000-08:002007-11-10T19:53:00.000-08:00Thanks to non-leiter guy for the techno tip. To An...Thanks to non-leiter guy for the techno tip. <BR/><BR/>To Anon 8:31<BR/><BR/>Suppose testimony is a hot or central topic in epistemology. I might not know that it is or, even if I do know, I might not care; I might think that it shouldn't be or that work on the topic is generally not good. Or I might, for no particular reason, happen to prefer having as a colleague someone who works on apriori warrant. So I might end up taking a closer look at the apriori warrant candidate and deciding not to take a closer look at the testimony candidate.<BR/><BR/>To Anon 9:31<BR/><BR/>I think there are five excellent journals: _Phil Review_, _JPhil_, _Mind_, _Nous_, and _PPR_. But I'm not sure there's a consensus on this. I haven't had a careful look at many files yet, but already I suspect that there are two candidates with at least one excellent publication who won't make it to the next round. (One is from a Leiterrific school. The other is not.) I can confirm this later.<BR/><BR/>I plan to post something on Leiter rankings -- and perhaps letters -- later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-63755410866769756752007-11-10T08:50:00.000-08:002007-11-10T08:50:00.000-08:00rational = rationalesorryrational = rationale<BR/><BR/>sorryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-23251085955143667392007-11-10T08:49:00.000-08:002007-11-10T08:49:00.000-08:00If I understand it right, Leiter's rational in ran...If I understand <A HREF="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/open_letter.html#arg2" REL="nofollow">it</A> right, Leiter's rational in ranking programs by the quality of the faculty is that it provides grad students with (1) the best training and (2) the best chance at getting a job.<BR/><BR/>About training, he writes, "You can’t get excellent training except from excellent philosophers . . . Excellent philosophers model how high quality philosophy is done. They can give better comments on written work because they are more philosophically acute."<BR/><BR/>About jobs, he says, "With rare exceptions, only philosophers with established reputations in an area of specialization can get students good jobs in that area."<BR/><BR/>So, it seems that someone coming from an even unranked program but who works with an excellent philosopher in that student's AOS should be the kind of person for whom Inside Man and his colleagues are looking. So, this should mean that the specialty rankings and the student's AOS are the most important factor--i.e. they are being trained by the excellent philosophers in their fields and they are getting letters of recommendation from these philosophers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-39573028912334475862007-11-10T07:24:00.000-08:002007-11-10T07:24:00.000-08:00Anon. 7:50 again: I didn't even see the "other" op...Anon. 7:50 again: I didn't even see the "other" option (I don't post much to blogs). I'm in a similar situation non-leiter guy: my program is ranked overall, but only in the 30s, but in the specialty rankings for my AOS, it's ranked higher. <BR/><BR/>I think if a decent amount of weight is placed on the specialty rankings, I'd feel better about all of the weight placed on the PGR in general (and not just for selfish reasons).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-91607160513280811042007-11-10T06:55:00.000-08:002007-11-10T06:55:00.000-08:00Good question, anon 6:34 (BTW: any reason for the ...Good question, anon 6:34 (BTW: any reason for the anonymous posters not choosing the "other" identity and selecting a moniker).<BR/><BR/>My department is ranked in a decent position in my field but doesn't register at all on the Philosophical Gourmet. Does that count for nothing? Isn't it enough to work with someone very well-recognized in your field?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-82208576657545555192007-11-10T06:34:00.000-08:002007-11-10T06:34:00.000-08:00Anon 7:50 again. Thanks for the information Insid...Anon 7:50 again. Thanks for the information Inside Man. <BR/><BR/>Another question: how much do the specialty rankings in the PGR matter? They are a relatively recent addition to the PGR...do people give them as much weight yet as the overall rankings?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-87812549851671312892007-11-10T03:07:00.000-08:002007-11-10T03:07:00.000-08:00This post raises a question that has been on my mi...This post raises a question that has been on my mind: why ask all the applicants to submit material that is not going to be relevant for the first cut? Why not just ask for a cv and a cover letter and then request more material from the 50 or so who make the first cut?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-53111843718288025432007-11-09T21:40:00.000-08:002007-11-09T21:40:00.000-08:00Inside Man, here is a question for you: Is there a...Inside Man, here is a question for you: Is there any evidence that students from Leiterific departments do better in the long run (in terms of publications, service and teaching) than students from Leiterespectable department (or lower than that)? Or do you merely want to hire them because you'd prefer if it said "Princeton" or "Rutgers" on your department webpage?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-65258794138475135482007-11-09T21:31:00.000-08:002007-11-09T21:31:00.000-08:00Inside man, what's an excellent publication (as op...Inside man, what's an excellent publication (as opposed to a respectable one)? My guess is that a JP (Journal of Phil), Mind or PR (Philosopical Review) publications are the only excellent publications. Is that right? Suppose you have one or two excellent pubs but you're from an unranked department and have great letters from non-famous people. Are you in or not (at a leiterespectable department)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-28536095313089367512007-11-09T16:57:00.000-08:002007-11-09T16:57:00.000-08:00I think this debate about whether faculty at top p...I think this debate about whether faculty at top programs can honestly describe a student in the terms "top x on the market" has a very simple answer: they can't. structurally, no individual can have that knowledge. if they nevertheless do so, it's an abuse of power; if their comment is taken literally, it's a damn shame.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-8940655790514156922007-11-09T13:09:00.000-08:002007-11-09T13:09:00.000-08:00"Suppose I read lots of job files last year. When ..."Suppose I read lots of job files last year. When I'm writing a letter for candidate X, couldn't I compare X to all those people whose files I read last year, and judge that X is better? And couldn't I reasonably judge that X will be among the top handful of candidates this year on that basis?"<BR/><BR/>Two points: first, the letter writer said 'best on the market this year', which is a much stronger claim than 'among the top handful' (moreover, 'one of the best three' is narrower than among the top handful of candidates as well, since the latter quantity broadens easily to six or seven).<BR/><BR/>Second, that point aside: I still don't think the claim is justified. Did you do an open search? Were many files discarded before the writing samples were read on some basis other than merit (e.g., fit with department's research or teaching requirements)? Did your department attract applications from all the best candidates last year? (Not necessarily, since many top assistant professorships are filled by people already in TT positions, who apply selectively and not necessarily to every top program.) Is there really that good reason to believe that if Smith is now better than everyone who applied for jobs last year, Smith will be better than everyone who applied this year? I doubt it -- again, the letter writer doesn't know who will be on the market this year (both as ABD and as TT applying elsewhere).<BR/><BR/>But all that aside: it is still hubris (of the kind that foolish blowhards suffer) to think that one is really qualified to tell who is the very best, _even where one to have read the files, writing samples, etc._. (Who is willing to confidently assert, for instance, that so and so is the best philosopher of the past 100 years? Not very many people, I hope!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com