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.
