It turns out that, mostly, they like it! With over 1400 votes (pretty good for the middle of summer, at least here in the Northern Hemisphere), 34% thought philosophy of mind "a central, foundational part of the discipline," and another 26% described it as "a major area of research." 27% more deemed it "useful when integrated with psychology and the cognitive sciences": so that's 87% with the most favorable options. 4% described it as a "minor area of research," and only 8% chose the most dismissive option.
Marko Malink, Associate Professor of Philosophy here at the University of Chicago, and Jennifer Whiting, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, both have senior offers from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. (Malink also has a tenured offer from another top department, though I don't yet have permission to name the one.) While both Chicago and Toronto will continue to have strong ancient philosophy programs if they lose these faculty, Pitt will go from being strong in ancient to one of two or three best programs in the U.S. if they can recruit them both. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be resolved in time for the current PGR surveys. (Pitt has already made a junior lateral hire of Jessica Gelber in ancient from Syracuse.)
The National Academy of Sciences is somewhat more selective than the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, though has some of the same "friends of friends" problems in its membership, but perhaps not as bad. Many of the schools on this list do not have medical schools (e.g., Berkeley, MIT, Princeton, Cal Tech, among others), while some are essentially only medical schools (e.g., UT Southwestern and UC San Francisco). In any case, for your amusement, here are the American universities with the most elected Fellows
1. Harvard University (153)
2. Stanford University (144)
3. University of California, Berkeley (127)
4. Massachussetts Institute of Technology (114)
5. Princeton University (81)
6. California Institute of Technology (71)
7. University of California, San Diego (67)
8. Yale University (58)
9. Columbia University (51)
10. University of Washington, Seattle (49)
11. University of California, Los Angeles (39)
11. University of Chicago (39)
13. University of California, San Francisco (38)
13. University of Wisconsin, Madison (38)
15. Cornell University (36)
16. New York University (35)
17. University of California, Santa Barbara (31)
18. Rockefeller University (30)
19. Johns Hopkins University (26)
20. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (25)
20. University of Pennsylvania (25)
22. Duke University (24)
22. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (24)
24. Rutgers University, New Brunswick (23)
25. University of California, Davis (22)
26. University of California, Irvine (20)
27. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (19)
28. Northwestern University (18)
28. University of Colorado, Boulder (18)
28. University of Texas, Austin (18)
28. Washington University, St. Louis (18)
32. Pennsylvania State University (14)
32. Scripps Research Institute (14)
32. University of Florida, Gainesville (14)
32. University of Maryland, College Park (14)
36. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul (12)
36. University of Southern California (12)
38. Arizona State University (11)
38. Ohio State University (11)
38. University of Arizona (11)
38. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (11)
42. State University of New York, Stony Brook (10)
Philosopher David Auerbach (North Carolina State) writes:
This Stone article [http://tinyurl.com/lmqsuf4 ] is remarkably flabby. But it had an interesting consequence (?)—the level of reader commentary was remarkably high (I’m grading on the usual curve here; there were the usual “there’s the trouble with academic philosophy…” comments). Here’s one of the comments:
"As a father of two sons, I actually conducted the experiment described in the article 25+ years ago (this was shortly before strong guidelines for human subjects research had been put into place nationally).
"First, I imposed a delay of several minutes before the moment of my older son’s conception. As the article predicts, the procedure eliminated his birth and later existence. Not only that, instead of a son, my firstborn was a daughter!
"The first outcome could have been a fluke, so, a few years later when the time came to conceive my second son, I decided to replicate the initial trial, this time by slightly anticipating the moment of conception. Confirming the earlier study, the second experiment also produced a positive result: my younger son never came into existence either! And, conformant to the initial outcome, my second child was also a daughter. In other words, by slightly delaying or anticipating the moment of conception, not only I was able to block completely the existence of both of my sons, I was also able to substitute two daughters for them!
"Philosophy is truly a powerful tool. 'Ah ! la belle chose, que de savoir quelque chose!'"
UPDATE: Enoch's reply to Bell has been added at the link, as well as a link to an English version of the document where Prof. Bell does indeed defend the legal permissibility of "gross immoralities," as Prof. Enoch said originally.
The 2014 elections to the Fellowship have been announced; philosophers elected include: Susanne Bobzien (Oxford); Matthew Kramer (Cambridge, Law); Rae Langton (Cambridge); Christian List (LSE); and Cecilia Trifogli (Oxford). In cognate fields also elected were the classical philosophy scholar Stephen Halliwell (St. Andrews) and the criminal law scholar and theorist Jeremy Horder (LSE).
A propos this item, philosopher Kimberly Brownlee (Warwick) writes:
I’m writing on behalf of the British Philosophical Association Exec. Committee about your post this week on journal submission data. At the last BPA Exec. meeting, the committee agreed that we’d like to gather this kind of data from journal editors, as it will be useful for early career researchers deciding where to send their work and for faculty applying for promotion.
We hope to collaborate with the APA to set up a webpage that will make this information publicly available. We’ll keep you informed as this initiative develops.
We received requests from 17 departments in the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australasia for inclusion in the 2014 PGR surveys. Members of the Advisory Board were given the faculty lists and asked to vote on inclusion based on whether they thought the faculties in question might rank in the top cohort in their region of the world (top 50 in the US, top 15 in Britain, top 5 elsewhere). A majority of the Board voted in favor of adding two faculties to the 2014 survey: those at Texas A&M University and at the University of Manchester. The next draft of the faculty lists will include them. (Faculties not included in the 2014 surveys can still be included in the specialty rankings, based on past PGR performance and/or recommendations of members of the Advisory Board in the relevant specialties.)
(We can not include all PhD-granting faculties in the surveys because of the burden on evaluators. We are already including more faculties for fall 2014 than in the last iteration.)
An interesting development; hopefully similar efforts will be made in the U.S. to reverse our insane penal policies. (The Committee responsible for the report was Chaired by the distinguished philosopher of criminal law R.A. Duff [Stirling/Minnesota].)
Recently I have talked to a number of philosophers about the practice of giving honoraria to speakers for department talks. The practices differ from country to country, and department to department. It has struck me that opinions on best practices are correspondingly diverse, with some (especially junior people) quite strongly opposed to the practice. Reasons vary, but many of those who are opposed to the practice focus on what they argue are more deserving ways to direct the resources—more speakers, speakers from more diverse places, more funding for graduate interactions with the speakers, etc. Some have also mentioned that if honoraria are perceived to be the norm, departments will be under pressure to provide them as tokens of gratitude or respect even if neither the department nor the visitor herself supports the practice more generally. It occurs to me that this might make for an interesting topic for discussion on your blog, and that such a discussion might be of value to the profession.
The "more deserving ways to direct the resources" argument seems to me odd: surely there are more "deserving ways" to direct the travel costs of visiting speakers, indeed the salaries of most philosophers, and so on. (If we are tallying up "deserving" ways to spend resources, it seems to me extraordinary to think that "more speakers" would loom large.) If honoraria turn on a general theory of desert, and deserving causes, then most philosophers may be out of work.
The case for honoraria is fairly simple: a visiting speaker works, and the honorarium recognizes her work. The case against is probably equally simple: the work a visiting speaker does enriches her own research, she doesn't need to be paid for it as well.
What do readers think? What are the norms in your department/region of the world?
Christian Wüthrich (philosophy of science and physics, metaphysics), associate professor of philosophy and of science studies at the University of California, San Diego, has been offered an associate professorship for philosophy of science at the Department of Philosophy, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Sherrilynn Roush (philosophy of science, epistemology), Professor of Philosophy at the University of Calilfornia, Berkeley, has accepted appointment as the first Sowerby Chair in Philosophy and Medicine at King's College London.
Two sobering charts. Assuming philosophy isn't an outlier among humanities fields (in either direction), this would suggest that a program placing about 65% of its graduates in tenure-track jobs is about average (recall the earlier chart).
(Thanks to John Doris for the pointer.)
UPDATE: An alert reader points out that the employed figure (roughly 65%) is not necessarily all tenure-stream employment, so the data is sobering indeed.
I think it would be very helpful if philosophy journals would make publicly available much more information on acceptance rates and submission statistics. At dialectica, we have been doing this for the last 14 years:
- The acceptance rate over the last ten years is 8.36% (2320 submissions, of which 194 were accepted).
- In 2013, we published 28 articles and a total of 611 pages (549 excluding commissioned book reviews). Of 298 articles submitted in 2013,
34 were accepted.
- Our turn-around time is reasonably quick (median of 3 months) and our backlog is small (currently accepted papers are published in 4/2014).
- Between 2007 and 2013, 28% of our submissions came from people working in the US, 20% from the UK, 6% from both Germany and Canada, 5% from Italy, 4% from Spain, and 3% from each of Australia, Spain and Switzerland. 12% of the submissions came from Asia (mostly Israel, China, Iran and Hong Kong) and only 1% from Africa.
- Currently, about 12% of our submissions are authored by women. This has been constant over the last 14 years and is surprising, given that about a third of PhDs and a quarter of jobs in philosophy are (held) by women. The acceptance rate of female submissions (16%) is higher than the one of male submissions (14%).
The only other two bits of information I know of are:
- Mind: around 350 submissions a year, cf. http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/ Does anyone know about others? I have heard that the Philosophy Documentation Center has information on acceptance rates, but my institution is not subscribed to it. Does anyone know whether that information is in the public domain? If so, I'd be very interested.
Many readers have sent version of this story about the fraud Zizek. All I have to say is that if it isn't true, then the white supremacist has a strong libel case against those who made the accusation.
UPDATE: Zizek's reply. It's good to know he can express himself clearly and directly when the charge of plagiarism is at issue. (Thanks to Steven Gross for the pointer.)
[H]ere’s the thing about the generation of 10-13 year old boys who came just after me – those born after, say, 1992 – and all 10-13 year old boys since: any one of them can see more naked women on their phone in 10 minutes than most grown men in history saw in their entire lifetimes. They can also, of course, see women performing acts most men in history would never have dreamt up, let alone witnessed. And unsurprisingly, in overwhelming numbers, this is precisely what they choose do. The government, slowly waking up to the issue, issued a cross-party report in 2012 that revealed one in three boys of this age had viewed explicit material online, with four out of five becoming regular uses by the time they were 16.
...[I]ncreasing numbers of men who have reached their early twenties having grown up on this diet of unlimited porn are reporting some draw backs, including a decreased interest in “real” sex, an inability to ejaculate during it and – worst of all for most – erectile dysfunction. At the same time, the young women they’re sleeping with are reporting their own problems, chiefly unrealistic expectations for things like anal sex, facials and general “porn star” behaviour: pressure to look and perform in ways they’re often not comfortable with....
On 16 May 2012, a video of a Ted Talk called “The Great Porn Experiment” was placed on YouTube, and has been watched two-and-half-million times since. In it, a retired physiology teacher called Gary Wilson claims: “The widespread use of internet porn is one of the fastest moving global experiments every conducted.”
His argument is that we don’t know what happens to young men when they can watch an unlimited amount of pornography – both in terms of volume and variety – before they’ve had any kind of real-life sexual experience, because it has no precedent in history. Only now are the “guinea pigs” of the internet era reaching the age where they can tell us.
Any philosophers working on this? Any links to relevant empirical literature on these developments?
Filippo Contesi asked me to share the following message:
To interested academic philosophers in the UK:
In order to examine and address issues of participation faced by minority and underrepresented groups in academic philosophy (e.g. gender, race, native-language, sexual orientation, class, and disability minorities), a number of UK departments have recently started to build a UK network of chapters of MAP ( www.mapforthegap.com ).
With 24 active chapters to date, MAP (Minorities And Philosophy) is already a successful and widespread organization in the US and elsewhere. If you would like to have a MAP chapter at your own institution, this Call For Collaborators is for you. MAP chapters are generally run by graduate students (typically 3 or 4 per department), with some help from academic staff members; undergraduate participation is also encouraged.
At this stage we would be happy to hear especially from graduate students (groups or individuals) at UK Philosophy departments as well as from UK Philosophy academic staff who would like to coordinate graduate student interest in their institutions. Please contact Filippo Contesi ( firstname.lastname@example.org ).
Yena Lee (MAP Director) & Filippo Contesi (MAP UK Director)
Commentary this time from a philosophy graduate student at Colorado. I'm curious what readers make of this. I will permit anonymous comments, but I ask that you choose a stable handle (e.g., "PhD student in the Midwest" or "Untenured faculty, SLAC") and stick with it. Unlike many blogs, I will adhere to my usual policy of not permitting anonymity to serve as a cover for defamation, irrelevant personal abuse, and the like. Stick to the substance, pro or con, and feel free to be critical in either direction, subject to the constraints noted.
UPDATE: Mr. Case's essay has generated a lively discussion, and he indicates in the comments, below, that he will reply to some of the objections. Meanwhile, Sophia Huerter, another graduate student at Colorado, has posted her own extended response to her classmate's perspective on the situation at Colorado. I commend both Ms. Huerter and Mr. Case for their serious (and courageous) contributions to this debate, and I invite further (civilized) discussion in the comment section here. (Since these are both students, not faculty, "civilized" means be kind, and the more critical you want to be, the more likely it is I will require a name attached to the criticisms. Ms. Huerter and Mr. Case have attached theirs.)
ANOTHER: Mr. Case sends a long a link to his second essay, replying to some of the original criticisms. He also writes:
One...wrinkle was ironed out for the benefit of the popular audience. The article states that conscious, demographic-based discrimination in teacher-student relationships is “clearly wrong.” My own view is more nuanced. I’d rather say “It’s a wrong-making feature” or “it’s prima facie wrong” or something like that. But that kind of language sounds like nails on chalkboards to folks in the journalism business who want it to be quick and punchy.
My column doesn’t address Sofia Huerter’s concerns about affirmative action. I didn’t know she had posted one until after I’d sent this to the editors. It will take me a separate column to do justice to it, and I may write one in the near future.
Lucy Allais, a specialist in Kant who currently teaches at the Universities of Sussex and Witwatersrand, has senior offers from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and the University of California, San Diego (the UCSD offer is for the new Henry Allison Chair in the History of Philosophy). Hopefully her situation will be resolved before the fall PGR surveys.
MOVING TO FRONT FROM JULY 8--MORE CORRECTIONS WELCOME
This is the third draft of faculty lists to be used in the 2014 PGR evaluations (that will take place this fall); thanks to all those who gave feedback on the earlier drafts. Here is the third draft: Download PGR Faculty Lists 2014-15_doc
Approximately a fifteen schools have asked to be included in the surveys; the Advisory Board is currently voting on those schools, and schools to be added will be announced next week. No new schools have yet been added to the 3rd draft.
The faculty lists are looking ahead to 2015-16, so faculty retiring in 2015 are omitted; those phasing into retirement by 2016 or after are so listed.
Here are the faculties that are included in this draft:
U.S. departments (top 50 will be ranked): Arizona, Arizona State, Berkeley, Brown, Boston Univ., Chicago, Cincinnati, Carnegie-Mellon, Colorado, Columbia, Connecticut, Cornell, CUNY Grad Center, Duke, Emory, Florida State, Georgetown, Harvard, Illinois/Chicago, Illinois/Urbana, Indiana, Johns Hopkins, Maryland, Miami, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, MIT, North Carolina, Northwestern, Notre Dame, NYU, Ohio State, Penn, Pittsburgh, Princeton, Purdue, Rice, Rochester, Rutgers, Saint Louis, Southern California, Stanford, Syracuse, Texas, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, U Mass/Amherst, Utah, Virginia, Washington/Seattle, Wash U/St. Louis, Wisconsin, Yale
U.K. departments (top 15 will be ranked): Aberdeen, Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, King's College London, Leeds, LSE, Nottingham, Oxford, Reading, Sheffield, St. Andrews/Stirling, UCL, Warwick, York.
Canadian departments (top 5 will be ranked): Alberta, British Columbia, Calgary, McGill, Queen's, Toronto, Waterloo, Western Ontario
Australasian departments (top 5 will be ranked): ANU, Auckland, Melbourne, Monash, National University of Singapore, Otago, Sydney, Victoria/Wellington
Now the important stuff:
1. Comments are open for corrections. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO SHOULD POST CORRECTIONS are the faculty members themselves (who are incorrectly listed, omitted etc.) or the Chair or other responsible administrative person in an affected department. I STRONGLY PREFER THAT CORRECTIONS BE POSTED HERE, SO AS NOT TO DUPLICATE EFFORTS. But if a matter is sensitive, e-mail me at bleiter-at-uchicago-dot-edu.
2. "Cognate faculty" means faculty in other units who are willing and available to work with philosophy PhD students. (For more, see here.)
Remember that departments not included in the surveys can still be ranked in the specialty areas; that determination will be made by the Advisory Board.
With over 1600 votes in our latest poll, 51% deemed it a "central, foundational part of the discipline," and another 12% thought it "a major area of research." A further 23% though it "useful" when "integrated with traditional philosophical questions": so fully 86% chose the most favorable options. 5% chose "minor area of research," and only 9% thought it should be banished to the math department.
UPDATE: Philosopher Christy Mag Uidhir (Houston) points out that the favorable opinion of logic is hard to square with the relative paucity of logicians in most philosophy departments. I can imagine some explanations for this state of affairs, but I'm curious what readers think?
Interesting e-mail from a senior philosopher who earned a PhD at a top 50 department:
One thing that bothers me about the analysis that CDJ [Carolyn Dicey Jennings] presents, and I agree with you that it doesn't make a lot of sense, is that unlike the PGR which is just about faculty quality as it guides placement, placement itself is about candidate quality. Sometimes well trained candidates are just bad interviews. Sometimes people decide they don't want to do philosophy after graduate school. Sometimes people get married and don't want to live in another region of the country. Some people don't want to risk a wandering life on the job market. Lots of things happen that are beyond the control of the program. And after doing an adjunct search this year, those are not unreasonable things to think as a candidate (from a marginal program at least). The pool of candidates for our shitty 4/4 low paying job in the middle of nowhere was amazing.
When I was a graduate student at [school name omitted], we hired a Ph.D. [from a top five department] and she told me once there that you aren't allowed to drop out of the program. She said that they will give you every opportunity to get your life together and to get the degree done. I'll never forget what she said: "Quitting and not completing the program reflects poorly on their judgment, and for that reason they want everyone to stay and finish."
CDJ is well meaning, but her analysis leaves a lot to be desired. People from great programs have great training and get jobs. People from less great programs have adequate training and often get jobs, but often they don't. And for good reasons. Programs at the bottom of the PGR have poor placement for lots of reasons (the lower you go, the more likely other things will push you out of the profession). But the kind of correlation CDJ is trying to force really isn't useful in any way. Ultimately it doesn't take into account candidate factors when trying to correlate with PGR quality rankings. And that's one thing that no one in this business wants to tell people. Sometimes it's the candidate and not the program.
These are interesting points, and, of course, given the small numbers, a couple of people who fall into some of these categories could make a significant difference. As longtime readers know, I have occasionally linked to other efforts to aggregate placement data that were more sensible than CDJ's, though in one case the underlying data turned out to be sufficiently unsound that I withdrew that link. I think the model I provided yesterday is a good one to follow for anyone who wants to pursue this. But I also think it is very important to emphasize that, as with mutual funds, past performance is no guarantee of future success, and prospective students should scrutinize with care not just the on-line placement data at each program, but also the results for individual faculty. Unfortunately, there is no substitute for doing this as part of the search process for a graduate program (assuming your goal is academic employment); even rankings of placement that aren't nonsensical are no substitute for doing this.
UPDATE: [The misrepresentations to which I had responded have been removed, so I am removing the original update.]
From CHE. They actually miss a big part of the story: Bill's political muscle and support goes back much farther than 2008, and dates especially from his time as Dean of the Law School at UT Austin (2000-2006), and the working relationship he established with many legislators. (The legislature deregulated law school tuition [during a time when they were slashing state funding] before the university as a whole got the same outcome--this is when it became clear that Bill would end up as President.) It also has to do with his status as one of the most high-profile lawyers in Texas--like many of my former colleagues at UT, Powers was involved in legal practice, as well as academics during the two decades before he became Dean. (The joke used to be that the most prestigious firm in Texas was the University of Texas School of Law.) I suspect it is true that Bill never treated some of the Regents very well, but it wasn't because he was "arrogant," it was because some of them were low-life yahoos (pals of Rick Perry), who didn't deserve the time of day. There is no harder job in higher education than running a serious research university in a state with both a legislature and a Board of Regents that like to micromanage and which includes a lot of people with very little judgment or competence. Bill Powers handled them all beautifully, all the while defending academic excellence.
Following up on the data from the other day, I've expanded it a bit, and also noted the 2002 PGR rank and the 2011 PGR rank. Total number of graduates during the period follows the school name.
2002 PGR Rank
2011 PGR Rank
% in TT jobs
% in TT jobs at ranked PhD programs
% in TT jobs at top 20 programs
% in TT jobs at research universities and SLACs
New York University (23)
Rutgers University, New Brunswick (36)
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (31)
UC Los Angeles (21)
Yale University (16)
University of Notre Dame (36)
University of Chicago (30)
UC Riverside (23)
Northwestern University (21)
Boston University (35)
I knew from the past (though I had not posted about this) that there would be a very strong correlation between overall PGR rank and placement in ranked programs, research universities, and SLACs (this is true in every academic field, not just philosophy); what surprised me in this little exercise was how much correlation there was between PGR rank and overall tenure-track placement. Of course, the numbers are small, and if two or three people made different decisions (to accept the tenure-track job rather than the post-doc; not to be the trailing spouse for the other's academic career; etc.) the results would be different; so, too, if I had used a different window. (Just after this window, one UC Riverside graduate got a permanent post in a ranked PhD program, while another got a tenure-track position in a research oriented MA-granting program. I treated the ranked terminal MA programs as research university appointments, and I used U.S. News rankings of liberal arts colleges as a rough cut-off for SLACs.)
At the end of the day, bear in mind that even within department, placement success often tracks which faculty you work with. That's why it pays for students to scrutinize placement records carefully. Years ago, as longtime readers will know, I "bullied" departments into posting detailed placement records (by threatening to call them out in the PGR if they didn't). (I put "bullied' in quotes for the obvious reasons: it's now a meaningless term, but it was hurled about then, and at least it was true that I did threaten a real consequence if departments did not produce information.)
One other takeaway, that I expect will be confirmed by a more extensive study along these lines: all else being more or less equal, "brand name" universities still enjoy a slight advantage in job placement. But more on that once we have more information.
UPDATE: U.S. Research universities, for purposes here, were AAU universities, universities with PhD programs (ranked or not), and ranked terminal MA programs; outside the US, it gets a bit trickier, but in general any places more or less analagous to these was so counted.
Philosopher Jonathan Cohen (UC San Diego) invited me to share a rather odd solicitation, which other Southern California philosophers may have received; Prof. Cohen's (apt) response follows the solicitation:
Dear Prof. Cohen,
My name is Dr. Darren Iammarino and I was formerly a lecturer at SDSU and currently I am working at Claremont School of Theology. I am writing to you today to present a unique win-win opportunity that will make you anywhere between 500 and 3,000 dollars per semester. My colleague Chad Tuthill and I, create educational audio podcasts (digital audio files available for download) that specifically discuss the Western and Eastern philosophical traditions in detail. Each podcast is between 45 minutes and one hour long, and they serve as a powerful tool to reinforce the learning week-by-week.
Student evaluations prove that the podcasts are not only well-liked, but also raise the overall GPA of each student. In addition, utilizing ed-tech materials helps to create job security and looks great on peer evaluations, as it will serve to separate you from other faculty members who are not on board with emerging technologies.
The proposition is this: we provide you with a full album of materia l covering all of the major philosophers/philosophical schools and *we will pay you 45 percent of the profit from your students*. In addition, we will give you a bank of test questions for all of the podcasts. The deal is you get 45 percent, we get 45 percent, and 10 percent goes to tech support for our website where the podcasts reside.
What this means is that you do not need to do anything other than assign the material on your syllabus and create an assignment like a quiz or online discussion question that requires the podcasts *on the first week of class*. If you structure it this way we have found that there is a 90-95 percent purchasing rate from the students. The podcasts only cost $24.99 for the whole 16 week album. You can use your current projected enrollments to calculate what that would come out to for your 45 percent. However, on average the pay is around $1,000 dollars per semester based on a class of 85 students, so with two sections it can really add up.
In the end, it truly is a win-win situation because it benefits the students to reinforce the material via a mixed media format, and it benefits you financially as well as pedagogically. We are more than happy to meet with you during your office hours/Skype or elsewhere to discuss the details, but truthfully, it is quite straightforward and a simple way to help boost the income of underpaid and under-appreciated faculty.
Thank you for your consideration. Please visit [link omitted] to hear sample clips of the podcasts.
Darren Iammarino, PhD (Philosophy of Religion)
Chad Tuthill (Audio Engineer/Production)
------- begin response from JC
So let me see if I've got this right. Your idea of a "win-win opportunity" is that I should use my position as a professor at my university to require that my students buy your product (which obviously is completely unrelated in intellectual terms to any course I teach) so you can profit, and in return I get a financial kickback?
I would call that not a win-win opportunity, but a cynical attempt to get me to exploit my position and my students so as to line your own pockets.
That you offer to share the profits with me makes things worse rather than better. While there can be situations in which professors appropriately assign materials that earn them (e.g., royalty) income, these situations are defensible only if (unlike the situation here) there is a plausible intellectual case for the particular materials chosen. And, if anything, the justificatory bar should be higher than usual in such cases. By offering a payoff to the instructor, you are positively inviting instructors to make choices for the wrong sorts of reasons (viz., non-intellectual ones), at the direct financial and intellectual expense of the very students placed in our care.
What you propose is avaricious, intellectually irresponsible, and a fundamental abuse of our role as instructors and scholars. No thanks.
I have unfortunately come to expect the level of cynicism and exploitation you exhibit from a commercial press, but am esp disappointed that a scholar/teacher would stoop to this level.
UPDATE: Prof. Peter Atterton, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at San Diego State University, e-mails to point out that Mr. Iammarino "used to teach in the Dept. of Religious Studies and also in Classics and Humanities at SDSU, not in the Dept. of Philosophy."
Continental Philosophy Farhang Erfani, a philosopher at American University, provides a useful set of links to news, events, interviews, reviews, videos, etc. related to "Continental philosophy" (broadly construed)