tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post7146998168014194016..comments2023-08-08T00:37:45.098-07:00Comments on A Philosophy Job Market Blog: I was bruised and battered and I couldn't tell what I feltPseudonymous Grad Studenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00627480292942427387noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-90615664934923091332008-12-06T09:34:00.000-08:002008-12-06T09:34:00.000-08:00I think 3:27 might be overestimating the opportuni...I think 3:27 might be overestimating the opportunity cost of going to law school after a PhD.<BR/><BR/>First, the size of law school loans can be a bit misleading. Some law schools (top?) have generous loan forgiveness programs for those who make a commitment to go into education or do public interest work. (what effect the economy may have on this is anyone's guess)<BR/><BR/>Second, the increased job opportunities alone may more than make up for the opportunity cost. Those of us who want more choice about where to live and what sort of career to ultimately pursue may be more than willing to incur the time and debt. After spending years on a PhD only to end up in the middle of nowhere, I know I sure as hell am.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-43797671552364526552008-12-05T20:20:00.000-08:002008-12-05T20:20:00.000-08:00I think your estimates of what a law professor mak...I think your estimates of what a law professor makes are way off:<BR/><BR/>http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2003/10/how_much_money_.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-69320969833468648392008-12-04T15:27:00.000-08:002008-12-04T15:27:00.000-08:00for the jd/phd add approx. three years opportunity...for the jd/phd add approx. three years opportunity cost of not making 55k per year as a non-jd philosophy professor, plus 150k in loans or whatever (including interest) to go to law school and you get an additional cost of 325k for a jd (assuming jd/phds have to pay tuition for law school and that it takes them three years more to finish on average - is that right?) versus a philosophy phd. if they make 20k more a year than we philosophy-only suckers do, it will take them approx. 16 years to earn back the difference. even if that estimate is way off, i'll pass on the jd/phd, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-33995852740269923372008-12-04T14:25:00.000-08:002008-12-04T14:25:00.000-08:00Yo, I just booked a room in Philly for the APA, fo...Yo, I just booked a room in Philly for the APA, for a steal at a sweet non-conference hotel. Now I'm psyched. <BR/><BR/>The only thing that would make me feel better is if I got an interview or two. :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-72459560691252566102008-12-04T09:29:00.000-08:002008-12-04T09:29:00.000-08:00Brutal fact at my University -PhD hire - asst prof...Brutal fact at my University -<BR/><BR/>PhD hire - asst prof of philosphy - 55<BR/><BR/>JD/PhD hire - asst prof of philopshy - 65 + an extra 10K for teaching one night course in the spring in the college of lawAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-14092043895280431712008-12-03T17:52:00.000-08:002008-12-03T17:52:00.000-08:00Why care about fairness in the sense of equalizing...Why care about fairness in the sense of equalizing opportunity? A postdoc is not a scholarship. A postdoc benefits the school that give it, by getting to have that person around, getting to put their name on the person's research, and (sometimes) getting to have that person teach.<BR/><BR/>So it makes sense that they'd want the person who seems best to them on all those fronts.<BR/><BR/>The only "fairness" principles that matters are not discriminating against someone on the basis of a feature that doesn't correlate with their performance, and making sure everyone with the potentially relevant qualifications is aware (insofar as is depends on the job-granters) of the job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-54659665208017043792008-12-03T10:44:00.000-08:002008-12-03T10:44:00.000-08:00The above comments conflate two issues:1) whether ...The above comments conflate two issues:<BR/><BR/>1) whether a J.D. is equivalent to a Ph.D., in which case we were all stupid for earning (or pursuing) a Ph.D., since a J.D. would have made us qualified for all the academic jobs we want (and cannot get) as well as some others (e.g. lawyer in a corporate law firm) that compensate much better than academic institutions.<BR/>2) whether someone with a J.D. should be actively discriminated against because s/he lacks a Ph.D. in a postdoctoral search.<BR/><BR/>Surely (1) is ridiculous. (2) sounds rather mean-spirited when you consider that people with a J.D. might want to do postdoctoral work too. One way to settle this is to consider that people with a J.D. have many more opportunities for employment (particularly outside academia) than people with a Philosophy Ph.D.. So, as a matter of fairness, it makes sense to at least give applicants with a Ph.D. the first shot at the postdoctoral opportunity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-32231097842624462032008-12-03T08:36:00.000-08:002008-12-03T08:36:00.000-08:00Actually, there's only one person having the J.D./...Actually, there's only one person having the J.D./Ph.D. discussion: me. I have both degrees and am conflicted on the issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-7064193993116444712008-12-02T22:53:00.000-08:002008-12-02T22:53:00.000-08:00JDs for some, PhDs for others, miniature American ...JDs for some, PhDs for others, miniature American flags for everyone!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-46196399776505991752008-12-02T18:13:00.000-08:002008-12-02T18:13:00.000-08:00Is it the same two people having the J.D./ P.H.D. ...Is it the same two people having the J.D./ P.H.D. discussion for a couple of weeks now? You two should know that no one else cares.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-50356529100436714662008-12-02T16:58:00.000-08:002008-12-02T16:58:00.000-08:00An M.A., not a Ph.D., is the minimum qualification...An M.A., not a Ph.D., is the minimum qualification to teach. A Ph.D. is a research degree. You might end up in a position where you teach exclusively, but what you are supposed to learn during the Ph.D. program is how to conduct research and make a contribution to the existing literature in your area through the writing of a dissertation. While some people who have a Ph.D. have never taught in their life, it would be impossible to find someone (unless that person has a degree from a diploma mill) who has never conducted research and written a dissertation. It amazes me that someone would be such an idiot to believe that they are earning a Ph.D. in order to learn to teach! If so, save yourself the time/effort, go back to school and earn a M.A., not a Ph.D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-24971506283506152422008-12-02T14:43:00.000-08:002008-12-02T14:43:00.000-08:00Anon 11:53:Anon 3:01 is not begging the question i...Anon 11:53:<BR/><BR/>Anon 3:01 is not begging the question if there is relatively clear burden of proof. And I can't see how the burden of proof does not fall on the one arguing that an exceptional candidate with a JD and no PhD should not, on the basis of some principle, qualify for a post-doctoral position.<BR/><BR/>In any case, (in the spirit of falling prey to informal fallacies), it seems to me that there is a great deal of ire and resentment accompanying most of the posts aimed at excluding JD's from the pool of possible applicants. Get over it. Seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-57346977561441777882008-12-02T08:21:00.000-08:002008-12-02T08:21:00.000-08:00A thought about the wiki and unhelpful rejections:...A thought about the wiki and unhelpful rejections: in my experience, rejection comments typically aren't meant to be helpful. They can be - I've had some helpful ones. But the fact that they're usually meant to justify rejecting a paper rather than to suggest ways to make it better is at least a reason to expect that the unhelpfulness of rejection comments will be higher than the unhelpfulness of R&R comments. Typically, referees are forced to put more thought into R&R comments, so those are likely to be much more helpful.<BR/><BR/>Of course, all this is consistent with people taking rejection badly. I agree we should be really cautious about the info on the wiki. The only thing I really use it for is to get some vague idea about turnaround times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-90354739861041951572008-12-02T08:09:00.000-08:002008-12-02T08:09:00.000-08:00It is that M.D.s and J.D.s emphasize practice, whi...<I>It is that M.D.s and J.D.s emphasize practice, while Ph.D.s emphasize research.</I><BR/><BR/>Umm, no. Most Ph.D.s in philosophy are teaching more than anything else. Those employed in research-only or -mostly or -equally positions are relatively rare compared to the far greater numbers of "working" philosophers schlepping away at non-R1s. Teaching IS the practice here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-12748044353717978192008-12-02T06:51:00.000-08:002008-12-02T06:51:00.000-08:00On the correlation between helpful reviewer commen...On the correlation between helpful reviewer comments and rejection - I'm currently putting a ton of work into writing a constructive response to a paper that I'm recommending for rejection. In spite of this, I'd imagine the author will qualify my comments as unhelpful, because I don't really think the paper has publishable content. In fact, I realise that I am only going to so much effort because I currently don't get asked to review all that often. No doubt, within a few years, I will send rejections back with only the most cursory comments. So it seems likely that it's true that most rejections give few useful comments, directly as a result of authors' tendencies to find negative comments unhelpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-91397620820435248222008-12-02T05:26:00.000-08:002008-12-02T05:26:00.000-08:00Just one, peaceful point of information about the ...Just one, peaceful point of information about the status of a J.D.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes a university cannot hire someone at a 'lower level' than it advertises. One example: if it advertises for a PhD and hires someone from England who has an M. Phil., there could be trouble with the INS, because the university has to declare that there was no US citizen as qualified as the alien they hired. Similar laws can come into play at a state university subject to more strict state government regulations.<BR/><BR/>For these purposes, a J.D. is in general a doctoral degree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-930180104116067812008-12-02T04:04:00.000-08:002008-12-02T04:04:00.000-08:00FWIW, I've also listed an R and said comments were...FWIW, I've also listed an R and said comments were helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-21360934670554936962008-12-01T23:53:00.000-08:002008-12-01T23:53:00.000-08:00Anon 3:01 --You defend the decision to hire a JD f...Anon 3:01 --<BR/><BR/>You defend the decision to hire a JD for a postdoc on the grounds that you are not aware of a "code" or "set of established standards" that forbids this sort of decision. Are you thinking of an explicitly articulated set of standards, like laws or regulations that are encoded somewhere? If so, then the fact that there there are no such regulations hardly shows that the decision is ethically acceptable. On the other hand, if you are saying that there are not even implicit standards forbidding such action, then you are just begging the question.<BR/><BR/>I think the decision is obviously unfair, just as it would be unfair to announce a scholarship devoted to veterans of the US military and then turn around and award the scholarship to a "veteran" of the peace corps. He's a "quasi-veteran," right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-87101247776641211032008-12-01T15:01:00.000-08:002008-12-01T15:01:00.000-08:00The discussion about JDs and PhDs seems pretty ste...The discussion about JDs and PhDs seems pretty sterile and far-removed from the original context. The job was described as a postdoctoral position, which makes it unusual that they would hire someone with a JD, but not inconceivable or ipso facto "unfair." So far as I know there's no code or set of established standards that would make it unethical to choose someone with a quasi-doctorate (JD) for a position described as a postdoc. Unusual, yes. Unethical, probably not. <BR/><BR/>Given the area, its obviously possible (and apparently actual) that someone with a JD has actually done research in that area, is up on the literature, and is in general a good fit for the job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-17172039078274704102008-12-01T08:31:00.000-08:002008-12-01T08:31:00.000-08:00If I knew that my grad students could afford brand...If I knew that my grad students could afford brandy it might be time to look at how much we are paying them - maybe a pay cut is in order in these tight times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-28150948872329503222008-11-30T07:18:00.000-08:002008-11-30T07:18:00.000-08:00Anon 6:40, the point of 4:40's post is not that a ...Anon 6:40, the point of 4:40's post is not that a Ph.D. is a non-professional degree and M.D.s and J.D.s are professional degrees. It is that M.D.s and J.D.s emphasize practice, while Ph.D.s emphasize research. In exceptional cases, usually involving additional degrees and training/internship experiences, M.D.s and J.D.s engage in research and teaching.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-22314044463056150942008-11-29T13:17:00.000-08:002008-11-29T13:17:00.000-08:00For what it's worth, I put an R and said that the ...For what it's worth, I put an R and said that the comments were helpful . . .<BR/><BR/>That wiki is great: thanks for the address, Anon 12:39pm!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-4913065377677706432008-11-29T12:18:00.000-08:002008-11-29T12:18:00.000-08:00I've never received helpful comments along with a ...I've never received helpful comments along with a rejection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-3799406812843667762008-11-28T20:19:00.000-08:002008-11-28T20:19:00.000-08:00On the journals wiki:I really wish somebody would ...On the journals wiki:<BR/><BR/>I really wish somebody would do the numbers on the correlation between "initial verdict: R" and "reviewer comments helpful: N." I love that wiki and I think it's existence is wonderful. But it's simply embarrassing how (at least from a first glance), a rejection automatically gets interpreted as "unhelpful comments." I guess it's possible that nearly all rejections come with unhelpful comments. But we all know that this isn't the most likely interpretation. Rather, it seems pretty obvious that people aren't capable of interpreting comments that accompany a rejection as being in any way helpful. Seriously--see how many times you can count an R corresponding to a Y under "comments helpful?" It just strikes me as really childish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-64150523329916511012008-11-28T18:40:00.000-08:002008-11-28T18:40:00.000-08:00Dear Anon 4:40: I guess you would know about talki...Dear Anon 4:40: I guess you would know about talking out of your ass.<BR/><BR/>First, a Ph.D. is also a professional degree; nearly everyone who pursues one intends to work in academia after receiving the degree. This is a profession. And yes, there are Ph.D.s, J.D.s, M.D.s, etc. who don't intend to work in their respective fields, but this is rare; this does not make any of those degrees less "professional".<BR/><BR/>Second, you seem to be partially agreeing with Anon 9:20 in that your position is that both a J.D. and M.D. are lesser degrees to a Ph.D. (though 9:20 really posed it as a conditional statement, not her or his actual position). But why is a Ph.D. more valuable than the others? Even if it counts as a "scholarly degree", what is the special value in it that makes it so much better than other degrees? Would you trust, say, your life to a Ph.D. over a J.D. or M.D.? Or how about trust about some ordinary, everyday matter: you think Ph.D.s have special insight into these matters? Do you even know any Ph.D.s? (I wouldn't trust most I know, especially those who smoke, following Anon 6:25's post.)<BR/><BR/>Again, echoing Anon 9:20, the various degrees in question seem to be incommensurable. They each demand rigor in different areas, making them difficult to compare. You really should think before you speak (or post).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com