Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Job Placement Information on Departmental Websites

Colleagues in other fields are often impressed by how much information about job placement philosophy departments now make available on their web sites.  It was not always that way, alas.  About six years ago, I used the Update Service to the PGR--which reached several thousand philosophers--to suggest that departments be more forthcoming about this information, citing some models and indicating that in future editions of the PGR I would call attention to departments that were not providing such information, since that should surely be a warning to prospective students.  Departments, for the most part, reacted constructively and did the right thing, posting information about recent job placement on the web.  (One philosopher--a Kantian moral philosopher no less--objected to my "bullying" departments that perhaps preferred to keep the information secret.   There are, I suspect, many lessons to be learned about Kantian ethics from this example, but I'll save that for another day.)

Of course, the quality of information departments provide varies quite a bit in quality, reliability and informativeness.  I have mentioned, in the past, that the Michigan site is a real model of disclosure and detail, while the Texas site, among many others, is at the opposite end of the spectrum (even though, I should add, Texas job placement has improved markedly in recent years, but the site is both relatively uninformative and not entirely accurate).  It is in this context that I wanted to share an e-mail from philosopher Miriam Solomon at Temple University:

Recently, I compiled my department's placement statistics.

In doing so, I consulted the placement statistics that other departments have posted, and found considerable variability in reporting, which may lead to misleading comparisons.

For example, some departments just list those PhD graduates who have gone on to academic jobs and leave off the ones who dropped out; some departments omit those PhD graduates who "did not seek a job" or "went on the job market with geographic restrictions"; some departments list only the first placement, which may be temporary; some departments list job offers received and others job offers accepted; one department actually counts MD/PhDs as having "tenure-track"

jobs if they have a medical residency. In my opinion, the best information comes from those departments that list all their PhDs (by dissertation title) with full employment records.

May I propose that we have some standardization in compiling statistics here? If, as we recommend, students should take placement record into account in selecting graduate programs, we should provide them with the most usable, impartial, data as we can.

So what do readers think are model placement sites?  What information should be standard?  What presentation is most conducive to informing students while respecting the legitimate privacy interests of, for example, unsuccessful job seekers?  No anonymous postings; post only once.

Will Demographics Result in a Job Crunch in the Near Future?

A philosopher on the earlier thread about admissions posted a comment raising issues that deserve separate attention.  She writes:

I don't want to start a wave of paranoia, but I think it might be worth it for the profession to start some long term planning in grad admissions. It is my understanding that in about a decade (ie not long after the incoming grad class finishes their dissertations), the college age population is going to drop somewhat dramatically. The statistic I have heard floated is that this year's kindergarten class is the smallest since WWII. With about half as many students as are currently enrolled in college to teach, I suspect that universities will be cutting the number of faculty. What this likely means is no retirement replacements. Rather than create another situation like that of the late 80s and early 90s, the profession might well want to begin thinking now about how to handle these demographic changes. Grad admissions might be a clear area to strategize around. Another area might be the inclusion of philosophy into HS curricula (so there is a non-university arena for job-seekers). And while I never thought about these issues as a grad student (I didn't even know they existed), it might well be some handy information for grad students to have as they think about getting through their programs in a timely manner.

My impression of the demographics (at least for the US) is similar to this philosopher's.  References to data or trends, analyses of the implications of demographic shifts, and what the profession should be doing about all this are welcome in the comments.  Usual commenting rules apply:  post only once, non-anonymous preferred, etc.

How to Dance Your Way to a Job

Of all the advice for job-seekers we've discussed over the years, this is the most interesting!  Congratulations to Neil, esteemed former student and collaborator!

How to Best Prepare for Job Interviews at Schools with a Primary Emphasis on Teaching

A philosopher at a ranked PhD program writes:

I and some of my colleagues have the sense that we could do a better job helping our grads apply for jobs where the emphasis lies on teaching.  I would appreciate any advice from people who have served on Search Committees seeking to fill such jobs.  In particular, what are the elements of a really stand-out dossier, and a fantastic initial APA or phone interview?

Usual commenting rules apply, though as long as you have an e-mail that confirms your identity, it is not necessary to post your full name in the comments section.  Post only once please!  Comments may take awhile to appear.

Should a Philosophy Grad Student at a Non-Anglophone University Write His/Her Dissertation in English?

A graduate student at a German university writes:

I am a philosophy student at [a university in Germany] and will start with my PhD thesis soon. Because I am contemplating heavily whether I should write it in English or not, I have the following question for the philosophical community - and I guess/hope that it will be of great interest for many of the Leiter Reports' readers outside the English-speaking world:

"Imagine your philosophy department - in the English-speaking world - has a free postdoctoral position and it is up to you to decide who will get the job. Do you take into account a candidate who has published in, say, German, French or Spanish? Do you hold in esteem a paper in the, e.g., "Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung" at all? Has a candidate who has written (and published) his PhD thesis  in a foreign language any real chance to get the job? Thanks a lot for your comments!"

My guess is that a lot depends on the area of philosophy in which the student is writing.  While historians of philosophy are often actively engaged with scholarship in languages other than English, this seems to me, at least anecdotally, to be much more rare among those working in various contemporary fields, from philosophy of language to ethics to epistemology.  In consequence, a German student working in, say, philosophy of mind would probably encounter a very basic obstacle to being taken seriously in Anglophone departments, namely, the inability of most philosophers to read the work.  What do others think?  Usual rules on comments apply. 

Including Letters of Recommendation from Students in a Dossier?

A philosopher writes:

My colleagues and I are conducting a job search for a tenure-track position.  Several of the dossiers submitted to us have included letters of recommendation written by the job candidate's former students and speaking highly of the candidate's teaching ability.  This is a new phenomenon to us; we have conducted several searches in recent years and have never before encountered recommendation letters written by students.

Among my colleagues, opinion has been divided, with some feeling indifferent about the letters, and two feeling quite displeased about them.  (I suppose the negative reaction stems from worries about the job candidate cherry picking class favorites and soliciting letters from them, or even pressuring them into writing one.)

I wonder (a) how often your readers who have served on recent job search committees have encountered letters like this; and (b) what they have felt about such letters (did they hurt the candidate's chances, help them, or make no difference)?

My inclination is that it is a bad idea to include student letters of recommendation, since their probative value is extremely limited, certainly when compared to anonymous class evaluations.  What do readers think?

Publishing Advice for Graduate Students

Thom Brooks (Newcastle) has produced an updated version of his helpful guide, which we discussed last year (and Professor Brooks acknowledges the help he got from this feedback in the new version).   You can discuss the new version with him at his blog.

"How the APA Stole Christmas"

Here, courtesy of bioethicist Carl Elliott at Minnesota.

Philosophy Job Market Wiki

Judging from the wiki, and what I'm hearing locally, it's been a busy week for the scheduling of APA interviews--my guess is that will continue at least into the middle of next week.  (I can recall, many years ago, getting an interview call from a "top ten" department on Dec. 23!  Of course, that was a welcome call to receive, though it was the very last interview to be scheduled.)  Best of luck to all those on the job market!

Think of the Search for a Job as a "Marathon," Not a "Sprint"

Some useful advice for job seekers posted here.

Advice about Submitting Manuscripts to Publishers

A philosopher writes:

I noticed that an old thread about editorial practices of philosophy journals (delay, etc.) is generating new interests. I was wondering if you would consider creating a similar thread on editorial practices of philosophy book publishers. I am a young philosopher who recently sent a manuscript to an important press and who is curious about how things normally proceed. Are missed deadlines, emails that are not answered, etc. the norm in this domain? What is the usual amount of time it takes for a manuscript to be reviewed? Is sending the same manuscript to many publishers a big no-no?

Another philosopher writes:

A friend phoned me a bit earlier today to ask advice about correct practice in submitting book manuscripts/proposals to publishers.  I don't know if you think it appropriate to open this question on your blog or if you have time to give a personal reply, but if you can do either it would be greatly appreciated.  I'm not really sure what the expected behaviour is here for dealing with book publishers.

My friend works in cognitive science/philosophy of mind/philosophy of language/ linguistics.  He recently submitted a manuscript to a publisher, a publisher where he would like to be considered in good standing whether or not they publish his book.  He wanted to know if he could reasonably send the manuscript to other publishers while the first publisher goes through its review process.

I had two thoughts in response to this.

1.  As far as I know although it is clear that refereed journals have a strict expectation that an article will not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time, I am not aware of any similar expectation with regard to book manuscripts or proposals.

2.  It seems to me to be a bad idea to annoy a good publisher by telling them that one has agreed to publish a book with another publisher while the book was still under review at the original publisher.

I'm not sure which consideration should have more weight, or if there are other considerations I am overlooking.

Comments are open; I will try to weigh in myself when I have a chance.  My experience here is somewhat limited, because I have never had occasion to do "cold" submissions to presses, as opposed to solicited ones.  But I've heard various anecdotes, but it would probably be more useful for those with first-hand experience to offer their perspective.  Since I know a number of philosophy editors at major presses read this blog, I encourage them to comment as well about their expectations and procedures!

Job Placement from One Leading Department Over a Decade

Michigan, as I've noted in the past, presents unusually detailed and informative placement data on its website, which permits one to get a detailed picture of how the job market looks coming out of a top department.  I focus on Michigan only because the data is so thorough and because I have a good handle on where the graduates listed are teaching now (though the site is fairly up-to-date).  Michigan was also clearly a "top" department during the period I'm going to examine--uncontroversially top ten, perhaps top five for much of this time.  I have made a casual, but not systematic, study of the competition, and my conclusion is that only two top departments (Princeton and MIT) have, for this period, significantly better placement records than Michigan.  NYU and Rutgers seem to be developing stronger records at present. 

There were 46 graduates who earned the PhD between 1990 and 2000 at Michigan.   Of these, 9 do not presently have academic positions, and 3 others have non tenure-stream positions.  In other words, 1 out of 5 graduates of a top PhD program are not in an academic position, and about 1 out of 4 are either out of academia or in a non tenure-stream position.  That's the sobering news.

Now the more hopeful news.  About 41% of the graduates (19 philosophers) have tenure-stream (in many cases, now tenured) positions in PhD-granting departments.  (16 philosophers, about 35%, have tenure-stream positions in PGR-ranked PhD or MA-granting departments.)  About 9% of the graduates have jobs in excellent liberal arts colleges. 13% of the graduates during this period now teach in "top 20" philosophy departments, while 3 graduates (about 7%) teach at "top ten" departments.

Depending exactly on how one assesses various jobs, it's fair to say that 60% or more of the graduates during this period have excellent academic positions--at research universities or departments with a strong research orientation, or very good colleges, places with good students and reasonable teaching loads. 

Remember that these statistics are drawn strictly from those who completed the PhD (that's part of what makes the first set of figures so sobering).  Attrition rates vary quite a bit is my impression.  I started at Michigan in the fall of 1988, and of my class of nine, two never finished the degree.  But next year's class had a much higher attrition rate, over 50%.  But I am inclined to think the more meaningful stats concern those who finished the program.  It is one thing to spend a couple of years in grad school and then move on to something else.  It's another thing to invest six or seven or eight years in earning a PhD.  Students quite reasonably want to know:  what happens to me after all that effort?

UPDATE:  A couple of folks, in correspondence, suggested that perhaps those no longer in academia left voluntarily to do something they preferred.  In most (perhaps all) of these cases, the graduates were seeking academic employment, and failed to secure it.  What I am less sure about is whether or not some of these individuals had a "floor" for the kind of academic employment they would accept, such that they would prefer careers outside the academy to certain kinds of jobs within the academy.

Employed Philosophers with Search Experience: Step Up to the Plate!

There are many students seeking reasonable information about the hiring process on this thread:  post some (signed) answers!!!

How Do Departments Decide Whom to Interview at the APA?

A reader calls my attention to this posting which purports to be by a faculty member at a school ranked between 13 and 35 in the last PGR.  (It may well be by a faculty member, I have no real basis for judging.)  This anonymous faculty member writes:

I’m at a Leiterespectable department that has aspirations of being Leiterrific. Our deadline was last week, and we’ve received hundreds of applications. We’ll be holding a series of meetings over the next month to come up with a list of a dozen or so candidates that we want to interview at the APA. The first step is to rule out all but 50 or so of the applications. Each file will get looked at by more than one committee member. We’re responsible like that. But on what basis do you think that we will rule out all but 50 or so of the applications? I’ll give you a clue: it doesn’t involve reading any writing samples. It’s not that we’re not required to read any writing samples. Nor is it that some irresponsible committee members won’t read writing samples. It’s that we’re all encouraged not to read any part of any candidate's writing sample at this stage.

That’s right, boys and girls. I know you’ve been slaving away at your writing samples for months now. I just wanted to tell you that, if other departments are anything like ours, chances are that most of the departments that reject you will reject you without reading your work.

Unfortunately, the post does not specify the criteria the search committee does rely upon.  I take it that at most departments faced with several hundred applications, most dossiers are, in fact, put to one side without reading the written work.  But the sorting principles at this early stage are hardly unreasonable ones.  A minority of the dossiers are probably put to one side based on pedigree, i.e., they come from a department that the hiring department does not view as providing credible training in philosophy (that may or may not correspond to the PGR results, it depends on the hiring department, but there is probably some rough correlation).  For the remainder, members of the search committee will at least look at the CV, read the dissertation abstract, and, most importantly, read the letters of reference.  Assuming the CV and abstract make the candidate a good fit for the position, what the letters say and who they are from is probably most crucial at this stage, and will determine which dossiers will get detailed scrutiny in the final round (i.e., whose writing samples will be read with care).  Contrary to what the anonymous faculty member implies, the reason to work hard on your writing sample is because it will now play a huge role in deciding who among the, say, fifty candidates that get scrutinized will actually get one of the ten or fifteen interview slots at the APA.

The anonymous poster, above, is a bit too flip about all this, and makes it sound more unreasonable than it in fact is (maybe it is in fact quite unreasonable at that person's department, but I doubt it).  It's also worth emphasizing that the preceding may not characterize the hiring process at a liberal arts college or a university emphasizing undergraduate teaching and the like.  These programs will surely also be taking into account pedigree and letters, but the pedigree that matters may be the pedigree with which the department has had good experience, and, especially if it is a small department, there will be as much or greater interest in things like collegiality, responsibility, teaching competence, and so on, than simply research excellence, which tends to drive hiring at departments in research universities.

I am opening comments, subject to two ground rules:  (1)  those purporting to describe departmental hiring practices will have to post under their actual names, or the post will not be approved; (2) grad students and job seekers may post questions or comments anonymously, though these will be approved based on relevance and content.  Post only once; comments may take awhile to appear.

Philosophy Job Market Wiki for 07-08

It's up-and-running here. 

Preparing a Tenure File

A young philosopher in a tenure-stream position writes:

You have done many posts that help out graduate students.  I'm hoping that you can post a request for info on tenure applications, for the benefit of faculty coming up for tenure.

What kind of statement is a tenure committee looking for?  A narrative regarding one's research, teaching, and service to the university?  What are cardinal sins to avoid?  What must one include?  What are the dos and don'ts?  How differently do philosophy faculty and administrators interpret or evaluate the tenure file?

Comments are open.  No anonymous postings.  Please post only once.

How do philosophy departments evaluate the "teaching credentials" of candidates?

Michael Cholbi (Cal State, Pomona) has initiated an interesting discussion of the topic here.

Philosophy Job Market and Publishing Advice

A useful round-up of links here, courtesy of Aidan McGlynn.

Protecting Philosophical Ideas with Copyright?

I have opened a discussion on this subject at my law school blog in response to an inquiry from a philosophy graduate student.  One of my law colleagues, an expert on copyright, comments, and I am hoping other legal experts will weigh in.  Issues about the misappropriation of someone else's philosophical work or ideas often come up in informal conversation; faculty and students may find the discussion of the legal protections available of some value.

How to Reject a Rejection Letter

This is quite funny, in a dark humor kind of way.

What is an "Area of Competence"?

So everyone familiar with the philosophy job market knows that your CV is supposed to list your "Areas of Specialization" (AOS) and "Areas of Competence" (AOC), and most jobs in fact mention one or both of these qualifications with regard to the applicants they are soliciting.  AOS, I take it, is usually fairly clear:  it is the area in which you have written your dissertation and might include closely cognate areas in which you plan to publish and in which you can do graduate-level teaching.

But I find that, invariably, philosophers have very different views about how a candidate determines his or her AOC.  I usually tell students that the AOC comprises those areas where you are willing and able to do advanced or upper-level undergraduate teaching.  That can, of course, cast the net quite widely, so sometimes it is advisable to limit the list by putting more weight on willing or emphasizing areas that naturally complement the AOS or areas where the student has substantial coursework background.  A very long AOC list (say, six or seven different areas) can look like over-reaching by the candidate, and raise questions about superficiality and seriousness.  Or so it has seemed to me.

I imagine many philosophers and job candidates would fine it useful to hear how others view the "area of competence."  (I'm happy to hear thoughts about "AOS" as well.)  Please post only once; non-anonymous comments preferred; and, as usual, comments may take awhile to appear.

Which Journals Publish "Discussion Notes"?

David Velleman (NYU) forwards to me a query he received from an author who had submitted a "discussion"-style piece to Philosophers' Imprint, which (alas) does not publish discussion pieces.  The author wrote to Professor Velleman:

[I]t is actually quite difficult to find an appropriate place to send it to, as most journals these days are quite reluctant to publish discussion notes. Even Analysis, where the target article originally appeared, was not interested. The author of the target article, to whom I sent my paper for comment, seemed to agree with me that there were potentially issues with his arguments, which would need to be addressed. But how to make this public? Given the general inflation in publications in philosophy, it seems that space for "mere" discussion is disappearing. Can you recommend a journal to a junior philosopher looking for a publishing venue?

I'm sure others have the same question.  Answers, anyone?  As usual, non-anonymous posts strongly preferred.  Post only once; comments may take awhile to appear.

Negotiating a Job with Multiple Offers in Hand (Leiter)

A student on the job market who is in the enviable position of having multiple offers writes with some questions about what kind of negotiation is appropriate for a candidate in his/her situation. 

1. What sort of things can one negotiate about? (salary? sabbatical? teaching relief? benefits?)

2. How much money/time/etc. are we talking about here?

3. Who is my natural ally in this endeavor? Here is what it seems like to me:

   -- Other junior faculty at the institution would be willing to try to help (telling me what worked for them, etc.).

   -- The chair, to some degree. The chair wants to help me, but he (or she) needs to get along with the dean too.

   -- As far as I can tell, it is mainly the Dean that is trying to keep my salary as low as possible.

4. What sort of things would people find insulting? How might you step on people’s toes? It is a foreign enough project for me that I’m worried I’m going to make a faux pas.

5. (related) Are there risks to asking if there is anything they can do to improve the offer? I don’t want to alienate my future chair...

For purposes of discussion let us suppose that A is a top 10-15 PhD-granting department, while X is a PhD-granting program at a research university, but not in the very top ranks.  I set out some of my initial thoughts, below.  I have opened comments below and invite readers to concur, correct, or amplify, as seems appropriate.  I do not have a clear sense of whether non-research universities will negotiate about terms of employment, and so invite readers to comment on that in particular.  My comments shall be premised on the idea that we are talking about research universities, where I know such negotiation is common.

1.  Negotiation--but always approach it delicately!--seems to me appropriate in the following circumstances:  (a) you have offers from comparable departments and the terms (salary [taking some account of cost-of-living], teaching or other duties, research support) differ in significanct ways; or (b) you have an offer from A, and you want to negotiate with X in the spirit of getting X to offer you an inducement to join them.  These are the two best situations in which to raise questions about the terms of employment.  You could, of course, ask A to match X's terms, but, in general, I don't recommend it, and you had better be prepared to go to X at the end of the day if you go that route. 

2.  Topics for negotiation most commonly include salary (but bear in mind cost-of-living!), research leave, research and travel support, and (less often for a junior) teaching load.  (Perhaps most important for junior faculty is stability of your courses:  preparation is time-consuming, and it is very helpful to have a set of courses that you can repeat year after year while on tenure-track.)  If X has offered you 60K and A has made you an offer of 65K, it isn't crazy to see what X is willing to do on salary to get you to go to X over A.  If A and B--both top 10-15 departments let us suppose--have offered you 65K, but B gives you 3K per year for travel, and A guarantees only 1K, it seems quite fair (esp. if you prefer A!) to ask A if they can do better.  (Benefits are rarely, if ever, open to negotiation:  health, disability and life insurance, retirement plans, educational benefits, etc. are almost always set at a university-wide level:  no department or college will have control over them.)

3.  My inclination is to think that it is a bad idea to say, "Can you improve the offer?" in the abstract.  Be concrete.  If you have a spouse and a kid, it seems to me quite fair to say to A, "I am thrilled to have the opportunity to join your wonderful department, but X is offering so much more that I'm not sure I can support the family.  Is there any chance that you can offer a better salary?"  If you have the offer from A, but are thinking about X, it is not unreasonable, in the current market, to expect X to pay a bit of a premium--in salary, or support, or leave--to get you.

4.  Chairs do, indeed, serve under (and sometimes at the pleasure of) their Deans.  But any negotiation must start with the Chair.  Read the signals carefully!

Bear in mind that particular institutions, regardless of "prestige," may operate under all kinds of constraints.   Some may feel that they are so wonderful that they do not need to meet any outside offers.  Some may have a strong internal norm regarding equity of treatment:  why should you get more than the Asst Prof hired last year, who, as a matter of pure chance, didn't have an outside offer?  You may have received an offer on a divided vote, which means the department will not be at all disposed to cutting a special deal.  And so on.

Non-anonymous comments stand a much better chance of being approved; please post only once, as comments may take awhile to appear.

Should Faculty Up for Tenure Apply for Jobs Elsewhere? (Leiter)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY TO ENCOURAGE MORE COMMENTS

A tenure-track faculty member at a good department recently wrote to me, reporting that a tenured colleague elsewhere thought "it was standard to go on the job market the year that one was up for tenure whatever one thought of one's chances":

His reasons [for saying this]: the unpleasantness of hanging around and the advantages of giving oneself more shots at the market if one gets denied tenure, the potential pressure on one's home institution created by an outside offer, and the general increase in visibility. He also claimed that one should apply only to roughly peer institutions to avoid indicating a lack of confidence. I have heard similar things from others. But I did just want to get your opinion. Does all the above sound right to you? One further question: should one only apply for tenured positions because applying for tenure-track positions also gives the wrong signal that one is not confident?

I am curious what philosophers with experience think about this.  My impression is that junior faculty up for tenure, especially though not exclusively at departments where tenure is often denied, do usually make a selective search that same year, applying for both tenure-track and tenured posts at "peer" departments in a very capacious sense of peer (e.g., someone up for tenure at one of the very top departments might apply for tenure-track jobs at any of the top 20-30 PhD-granting departments).  But I am not really confident that my impression is accurate.  Input from others would no doubt be helpful to many junior faculty who face this question.  Non-anonymous posts will be be preferred, as usual, though substantive and well-informed anonymous posts may also be approved.  Please post only once, as comments may take awhile to appear.  (As readers may have inferred from the dearth of postings lately, things are a bit hectic currently.)

Velleman on the Newcombe Competitions and How Philosophers Present Their Work (Leiter)

David Velleman (NYU) writes with the following interesting information about the Newcombes and the selection process; I would particularly urge graduate students and young philosophers to heed the points about presenting one's work to non-specialists.  Professor Velleman writes:

Having served on the final selection committee for the Newcombe Fellowships (though not in the most recent years of the competition), I'd like to add some background to your comments on the distribution of the awards.

The Newcombes were funded by an endowment from a nonacademic family, but the inspiration for them came from the philosopher Robert Adams, who was a friend and personal advisor to the family, having been (as I recall) a neighbor when he was young. Bob's role in the early years of the program may explain why it elicited more applications, and better applications, from philosophers than from students in other disciplines. To my knowledge, there has always been a philosopher on the final selection committee, but these days the vast majority of applications come from English, History, Anthropology, Politics, and so on.

In my experience, the applications from philosophers look weak by comparison. The very best applicants from other disciplines display truly stunning feats of scholarship, fieldwork, and intellectual synthesis; they write vivid and stimulating descriptions of their projects; and they can make the significance of those projects clear to nonspecialists. In my years on the committee, its membership was highly inter-disciplinary, but everyone could discuss the merits of all the applications -- except those from philosophers. When philosophical applications came under discussion, the other committee members would often turn to me and say, "Can you explain the point of this -- if there is one?" There were years when the committee said, in effect, "Well, we want to give some fellowships to philosophers -- tell us which ones." 

I'd like to be able to say that these remarks manifested a prejudice against philosophy, but they didn't. The other members of the committee were widely read, highly intelligent, and open-minded. The fact is that in the context of the entire appllicant pool, I too found the Philosophy applications unimpressive, sometimes embarrassingly so. I did my best to advocate for the philosophers, but it was an uphill climb, even in my own mind.

Now, part of the problem may be that graduate students in other disciplines have more experience writing grant applications. Anthropology students, for example, have to apply for funds to support their dissertation fieldwork, and the Anthroplogy applications were among the most impressive. But our applicants tended to do poor job of presenting themselves even when compared with the applicants in English, where grant opportunities are just as rare as in Philosophy.

Another part of the problem may be that doing original philosophy is simply harder than, for example, doing fieldwork in a region or archive that no one else has studied. Ph.D. candidates in Philosophy are understandably immature when compared with candidates in other fields.

Still, I have to attribute much of the problem to our discipline's indifference to making itself understood outside a fairly narrow region of academia. The Philosophy applicants came across as not having bothered to explain themselves. I managed to explain what they were up to, but the mere fact that I had to explain it, when the applicants from other disciplines had done their own explaining, put me at an obvious disadvantage as advocate for the Philosophy applications.

I don't know whether our insularity contributes to our underrepresentation among recipients of other national honors. I suspect that it does.

I wonder what others who have served on these kinds of selection committees think?  Non-anonymous comments will be very strongly preferred.

Some Observations on the Philosophy Job Market... (Leiter)

...from a young philosopher serving on his first search committee.  His post has comments open, so it might be interesting to hear whether others concur with his remarks.  (A lot [not all] of what he says strikes me as right on the money.)

A "Guide" for Graduate Students about Publishing (Leiter)

There is some interesting and thoughtful advice here in this short essay by Thom Brooks, a political philosopher at the University of Newcastle.  I'm not sure I agree with all of this (e.g., I don't think American grad students, at least, are well-advised to spend time writing book reviews--but the situation may be different in the UK), but it's worth a read.  I invite comments from readers on the general topic of publishing as a graduate student.  As usual, comments may take awhile to appear, so please only post once.

Advice for Academic Job Seekers

It's that time of year when students on the job market may want to check out the various threads archived under this category.  Now might also be an apt time to read this old post on "The Distribution of Philosophical Talent."

Best of luck to all job seekers! 

Advice for Philosophy Job Seekers

Brian Weatherson (Philosophy, Cornell) has some interesting thoughts.

Becoming a Law Professor

Useful discussion by Orin Kerr (Law, George Washington) and Randy Barnett (Law, BU) all collected here.

Philosophy Hiring

If you haven't looked at the comments here in a few days, you should, since there is much interesting discussion and good advice from a number of philosophers.

Hiring Practices at Less "Elite" Universities

Another philosophy graduate student writes: 

I read with interest the comments concerning gappy CV's and found it piqued when discussion turned to less elite universities.  I, as many graduate students, imagine that I will be headed for a school in the bottom 30-50 or below and would appreciate it if you'd be able to open up a post for comments that might cover these two questions:

1. How are hiring practices different from elite universities to more average ones?  i.e. how are things like time to Ph.D., adjuncting experience vs. publication, private sector work experience, involvement in "fringe" philosophical communities (e.g. a publication in a journal of theology, continental philosophy, etc.) weighed differently by these different schools?

2.  Does anyone have any advice on how to find a) non-elite universities that offer elite-university type positions, i.e. reasonable teaching schedules with time for research and b) how to get a job at one of these universities?

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear answers to these questions, and if you could post them somehow I'd (and I'm sure others) would appreciate it greatly.

One initial observation:  it may be useful to distinguish between those schools which grant the PhD (or other graduate degrees), and which are "research universities" or research-oriented (some of these are more "elite" than others, but my guess is they have a lot in common in terms of hiring practices); versus liberal arts colleges (which themselves divide in to the elite and less elite); and then other colleges and universities which may have undergraduate education as their primary mission, but themselves may vary in selectivity of admissions and the degree of emphasis they do or don't place on research.

Commenters should, of course, feel free to reject or modify these distinctions, as they deem relevant.

Philosophy Grad Student Seeking Advice: How Important is a "Continuous" CV?

A grad student writes with a question that probably affects other as well; here is her question (I've removed personal details):

From what you know about the philosophy job market, how important is it to have a continuous CV? If I am aiming at a tenure-track research position am I shooting myself in the leg by not going on this market straight after grad school? How much will it hurt me to be a visiting scholar or an adjunct for a couple of years, assuming I spend these years writing publishable papers?

My partner, also a philosopher, will be starting a tenure-track position next fall in a US university. Instead of going on the market in 2005 I could just be a visiting scholar at his department for a year or two and then having published a bit more I could hit the market. However, faculty at my department discourage this. There is, I am told, much prejudice against people who have gaps in their CVs. Nobody cares if you take 8 years to finish your PhD, they say, but people do care if you take 6 years and then hang out for another 2 doing  non-tenure-track things. Well, what if people know that [for visa reasons] the 8 year option was not open to me, will I still be penalized?

Another context in which a similar question may arise is if a philosopher was contemplating to have a baby first and then go on the market when the baby is one year old. Is this sort of behavior also punishable, so to speak? Of course, I don’t mean this question normatively, just as a matter of fact.

Comments are open; I invite philosophers to offer their advice, which will no doubt be of value to this student and others confronting comparable issues.

Advice for Academic Job Seekers

Those seeking teaching jobs in law or philosophy may want to review the items in this category, which many job seekers reported finding helpful last year. 

Best of luck to all job seekers during this stressful process!

What should law teaching candidates expect at the "meat market"?

The "meat market" is the annual hiring convention sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools; this year, it is the weekend after the U.S. election (which means most interview teams will either be very depressed or very relieved). One candidate on the teaching market (not a UT graduate) e-mails this morning with a good suggestion:

"Although I know we are all now preoccupied with the upcoming election, I was hoping that you might offer a post addressing what the interviewing committees typically look for in the 20 minute AALS 'meat market' interviews....Perhaps you could offer your insights (I've already read your helpful guide for Texas students), and then leave a comments section open for other law professors to participate?"

Here's what I wrote in the aforementioned on-line guide concerning the "meat market" interviews themselves:

"At the law-school hiring convention in November, try to attend the session (usually scheduled at the beginning of the conference) on interviewing: it may have useful advice. The typical interview proceeds as follows: (1) a couple of minutes of chit-chat when you enter (e.g. 'Did you have Doug Laycock?' 'So, how was it working for Vinson & Elkins in Houston?'); (2) a question either about (a) something you have written (e.g., a student note) or (b) a more open-ended question about your scholarly interests, plans, or research; depending on how effectively you respond, the ensuing discussion can last for the next 10-15 minutes; (3) perhaps some questions about what you would like to teach/what you are able to teach; and (4) 'Do you have any questions for us?' Some good questions to ask are: Is there a writing requirement for students at your school? Are there opportunities for faculty to work with students on independent studies? What sort of research support is available to faculty? Is there summer research support? Are there summer teaching opportunities? How often do you have colloquia with faculty from other schools? What are your school's goals over the next five years? What is the length of the tenure-track, and what are the expectations?

"For the better schools, question (2) is the make-or-break moment in the interview. If you can talk intelligently and clearly for 10-15 minutes about a research project or a scholarly interest, you will quickly become a standout candidate. (Usually, candidates present an outline or 'precis' of a project or thesis that they plan to develop in a job talk, if they are invited back to the school for further interviews. Be prepared to defend your 'precis' in some depth.) Far too many job candidates arrive at interviews having never thought seriously about scholarly issues related to law, and thus are completely unable to speak about any when asked. This is your moment to shine: you show the interviewers that you're serious about scholarship and a scholarly career (that you're not just tired of long hours at your law firm, and that you're not just looking for a 'cushy' academic post to retire into); you impress them with your clarity of thought and expression; you demonstrate your potential as a teacher by your effective communication of ideas and arguments. Ideally, you should rehearse this part of your job interview with faculty advisors prior to the hiring convention (though don't over-rehearse, or you're likely to sound wooden)."

Comments are open; no anonymous posts, please.

Advice for New Job Seekers on the Law Teaching Market

A prospective candidate for law teaching jobs this coming year writes to ask whether I would post advice on the law teaching job market for those new to it. In fact, I have a lengthy document on this subject at my homepage here. It is aimed at Texas students, but much of the information is of general applicability and interest. There is discussion of the mechanics of the job market, interviews, factors to consider and investigate in looking at schools, and the like. I gather, from correspondence, that many law students at other schools utilize this site, which confirms my impression that it will be of value to those not from UT. But any UT alums thinking about law teaching ought to get in touch with me ASAP! At this point, it is probably too late to begin preparations for this year's teaching market, but it is not too early to begin planning for next year. (Note: this latter point is UT-specific--unlike, as far as I can tell, every other top school in the country, we actually prepare detailed information on our candidates, including collecting references in advance, which we then share with hiring schools nationally. This takes time! Most top law schools just leave their grads at sea on the teaching market, unfortunately.)

Here's my basic advice in a nutshell:

(1) Of the 1,000-or-so resumes submitted to the AALS each year, at least 500, probably 700, are non-starters: the candidates are wasting their time.

(2) To not be wasting your time, you should have (a) a very strong academic record from strong academic institutions; (b) at least one post-law school publication; and (c) at least two recommenders who are established legal academics. Your recommenders ought to have agreed, in advance, to recommend you!

That's a slight over-simplification; for the details, see the site above.

More Advice for Academic Job Seekers (in Philosophy specifically): an addendum to Part I of this series

Philosopher Sean Kelly (Princeton) has called to my attention something important, namely, that the American Philosophical Association has issued an official policy statement on offers of employment here. Note, in particular, the APA's recommendation that:

"In normal circumstances, a prospective employee should have at least two weeks for consideration of a written offer from a properly authorized academic officer...."

Thanks to Professor Kelly for this pointer.

Earlier postings in this series are here.

Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Part II

(The first installment in this series is here.) Two questions: How do I prepare for a campus visit, and what information should I get from the school where I'm interviewing? Suppose my spouse/partner is also seeking an academic job. Is it appropriate to raise that issue with the schools interviewing me, and if so, when? What should I be looking for from these schools?

3. How do I prepare for a campus visit, and what information should I get from the school where I'm interviewing?

Law schools and philosophy departments have somewhat different norms on this score. Let's take law first.

Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Part I

NEW UPDATES AT THE END

Academic job seekers in philosophy may already be familiar with the short article the Chronicle of Higher Education asked me to write some time ago on "Landing a Faculty Job in Philosophy." And anecdotal evidence suggests many of those on the law teaching market have seen my longer document on getting in to law teaching here. But both these documents speak to earlier stages in the job search process, and not to the kinds of issues that confront academic job seekers in law and philosophy at the late stages of the process. (Note to philosophy readers: the law school hiring convention has already taken place, and some law school teaching candidates are already at the stage of fly-backs and offers.) Over the next several weeks, I'm going to post some of the common questions I get from Texas students I am advising on both the law and philosophy markets, and the answers I give. Since I know a number of current job seekers are readers of the blog, I hope some of this advice will prove useful. (I invite faculty to e-mail me with their thoughts on my answers, or with supplemental information that seems pertinent.)

Two questions for today:

(1) How long should a job candidate have to respond to an offer of a job?

(2) What should I be finding out about the job before accepting?

(1) How long should a job candidate have to respond to an offer of a job?

The bad news is that there are no generally accepted norms governing this any more, even if one looks just at the American market (which will be my focus). It is very rare for a candidate to have less than two weeks to decide on an offer, and a month is not uncommon. There are differences between the law and philosophy markets on this score. In the philosophy market, it is becoming increasingly common--at least, that is my sense based on accumulated anecdotal reports--for departments (other than the very top ones) to make "exploding offers," i.e., offers with short (e.g., two-week) deadlines. This is a bit less common in law (though, again, not unknown), in part because the very top candidates on the law teaching market normally have multiple good offers, which is rarer in philosophy. (I can recall more than a dozen years ago, Gideon Rosen, now at Princeton, having 8 or 9 offers from top 25 PhD-granting programs, but that was extraordinary.) (It may also be because law candidates know that employment contracts are close to impossible to enforce!)