A political theorist writes:
I am pleased that the Leiter Reports continues to provide a forum for discussing the important issue of gender imbalance in academic philosophy. It needs to be noted, however, that some of the regular discussions regarding both admission to graduate schools and the hiring of faculty are deeply troubling regarding the accessibility of the profession to individuals from poor or working class families.
It probably goes without saying to this audience that the wealth and education levels of parents play a crucial role in one’s development of the skills necessary to gain admission to selective undergraduate institutions (including how to navigate the process of admissions). Among first-generation college students, fewer than 1 in a 100 graduate from high school with the SAT scores in the 146 most selective American universities (Bowen, Kurzweil, and Tobin 2005). In fact, poor students are frequently passed over for less qualified (according to institutional standards) students from wealthier families who will pay full tuition, be likely donors, have counselors with connections to admissions directors (Schmidt 2007, Atlantic Monthly 2005, Sacks 2003, Toor 2002). Moreover, need-based financial aid has fallen sharply as a percentage of tuition, leading many of those unlikely few who are selected to choose a lower-tier college, where aid is more likely to be scholarships and grants instead of loans (Schmidt 2007). Not surprisingly, children of wealthy parents are 25 times more likely to attend one of most selective schools than children of poor families (Carnevale and Rose 2003). As a result, graduate admissions processes that focus on pedigree may functionally shut poor students out.
Class plays a profound role in an individual’s willingness to assume the financial risks involved in pursuing a career that requires 9-15 years of largely unremunerated and often costly job training. Having the resources to purchase the latest books, travel to conferences, having friends and family with experience in academia to show you the ropes, to not have to work to support yourself or help your family, and so on plays a major role in a person’s ability to be successful in graduate school. These factors are almost completely unrelated to a person’s talent and dedication as a scholar or teacher of philosophy. Nonetheless, they may play a profound role in one’s ability to have a career in the profession, in ways that could be mitigated by changes to our norms and institutions. To give just one example, consider the following oft-mentioned job market strategy: do not enter the job market early, because PhDs tend to become stale. If this is an accurate reflection of the job market, such a norm has significant consequences for the accessibility of the profession to poor and working class individuals. Such students are likely to need more development time in graduate school. They are also unlikely to be able to afford it, likely to have worked quite a bit during graduate school, and faced substantial pressure to finish the dissertation and get a job that paid real money.
The central purpose of philosophy programs is not to further equal opportunity. Nonetheless, many of the norms and practices within the profession, as represented in discussions in forums like the Leiter Reports, have the effect of making the philosophy profession far less accessible to poor and working class individuals, in ways that shape individual opportunities, the diversity of perspectives within the academy, and indeed the sort of work that is found interesting by those in the profession.
Thoughts from readers on these issues? Signed comments preferred, though students need only include a valid e-mail address. As usual, submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.
