Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Should current job seekers be worried about offers that have not been accepted?

MOVING THIS TO THE FRONT FROM MARCH 24--MORE FEEDBACK WELCOME

Short answer:  no.   Here's what a reader wrote to me:

I'm not sure if you'll find this to be too frivolous for discussion, given that lives are on the line, but I'm wondering if you've heard of universities planning on cancelling faculty searches that are currently underway.  I'm thinking of situations that some might be in around now, namely, those who have a "verbal" offer--by which I mean a call or email which states that the department has voted to offer the applicant a TT/T job--but nothing official on paper from the university.  Given the hit that university endowments are now taking with the drop in the market (e.g., Harvard), I wonder whether some of those institutions might scale back future labor costs where they can, and pull back on commitments before a contract is in place.

A few thoughts about this in no particular order:  (1) universities budget at least one year ahead, so the economic impact will be felt on next year's job market, not (primarily) on this year's; (2) I can imagine administrators deciding not to permit discretionary hiring this year, with an eye to the future, but that would not mean revoking unofficial offers; (3) an e-mailed offer is still a written offer, so do get something in writing, but that advice always applies, not just now; (4) schools with huge endowments are precisely the ones that won't take drastic steps and won't be revoking open offers; and (5) I'll be surprised if any schools revoke informal open offers.   Next year's academic job market, I fear, will be very bad.

UPDATE:  A reader at a state flagship university tells me that their administration just announced an end to all discretionary hiring, which does not affect any existing offers.

Bad signs for the academic job market in 2020-21

Many schools are already announcing hiring freezes.  As the article notes:   "the hiring freezes have implications for an already brutal tenure-track job market. Next year’s hiring cycle could be nonexistent."  That's probably too strong, but advertised jobs will be few and far between next academic year.   (Related coverage.)

UPDATE:  Berkeley just announced a hiring freeze today; I quote the announcement:

Today we are instituting a campus-wide hiring freeze. We therefore ask that you do not initiate any new searches and suspend those that have already begun. The Office of People and Culture (formerly central human resources) is completing work on a hiring-freeze plan which will be shared with managers and supervisors shortly. The campus will be making very limited exceptions to the hiring freeze, making only select hires that protect against a significant business disruption and/or a significant health, safety, or ethical compliance risk.  All academic hiring requests will be carefully reviewed by the Provost’s office.

We also ask that you carefully monitor expenses as we enter the last quarter of our fiscal year and hold off on any major expenditures until our budget picture becomes clearer. Please consult with your manager/supervisor or department/division head for guidance.

The University of California has tended to go through cycles of feast and famine, but they are clearly anticipating famine if they're taking this step now.

 

Visa problems for foreigners teaching or studying in the U.S.?

A young philosopher writes:

I hope you’re staying safe. I want to thank you for your coverage of the pandemic, which has been immensely helpful to us all.

I also wanted to bring attention to a related issue. The pandemic is creating additional problems for foreign faculty and students on visas. Many visas have residency requirements, and some of these have not been updated or had exceptions made for them in light of the pandemic. Because of this, some are finding that in traveling to safer places, or failing to travel back to more dangerous ones, they are at risk of losing their visas and therefore their employment.

If it helps, let me illustrate this issue with my own example. I am a [non-US] citizen who is (was?) a lecturer in the philosophy department at [U.S. research university] on a J1 visa (for short-term, international scholars). Because of the pandemic, I found it advisable to return to [my home country]. I informed the university and department of my intention to return to [my home country], which I did. A day later the university terminated my employment for ‘voluntarily violating my visa’, in particular the residency requirement. I will no longer be getting paid this term, and my courses and students are now in jeopardy (the university has still not informed them of the change, as evidenced by their continued emails to me, and online lectures are slated to start Monday morning).

In discussing this with other international faculty, at [my former U.S. university] and elsewhere, it has become clear that many are deciding to withhold certain information from both the administration and the department. This so as not to jeopardize their visas and employment. I am hoping that you might be able to bring attention to this issue and prevent others from jeopardizing their own employment or studies.

This the first I've heard of this, but my guess is others are in similar binds or having similar problems.  IF any of my law readers know more about the visa rules, please weigh in.  Links and advice from those with relevant experience are welcome.

Kramnick on Kelsky (and her ilk): "a war profiteer of the collapsing job market"

Great line from philosophically-minded English professor Jonathan Kramnick (Yale) on Karen Kelsky, whom we noted the other day:

Jonathan Kramnick, a tenured professor who has led job-placement efforts for three English departments over almost 20 years, calls her "a war profiteer of the collapsing job market."

"Her client base is anxious and captive," says Kramnick, who now teaches English at Yale. "No one can offer all-purpose advice across all disciplines."

"The Professor is in," aka, Karen Kelsky

People occasionally ask whether her services are worth it.  I'm skeptical based on what I've heard.   You can see some reactions from her paying clients recounted here.  A few excerpts from different individuals:

(1) I paid $150 for cover letter editing. She offered to read and comment on up to 4 drafts of cover letter with that money . I think the first and second drafts are helpful but the third and fourth aren't. I felt like she was editing after the second draft just to fulfill the contractual responsibility and to make me feel my money was well spent. I agree with hanginthere that reading her blog or her recent book will suffice. BTW, she made all of her new clients after Aug 2015 to buy a copy of her new book. And she is not at all nice.

(2) I have [used her service], it cost me $400… and I regret I did.  She is extremely condescending and almost rude in her correspondence, her cuttings prove that she does not read, she changes the meaning of your statements, she pays no attention. Her advice consists in making you buy her book.  It feels like a scam.

(3) I used her this year for my cover letter and research statement. It's a waste of money, and I really wish I hadn't done it. She doesn't personalize her advice, and you can tell that she cuts and pastes most of her feedback because it's so generic....

A new philosophy job market wiki

A reader on the job market called it to my attention and suggested I share it.  Wikis are only as good as their contributors, and bear in mind that not everything is necessarily accurate, but hopefully if enough folks participate it will provide some useful information.

What are cover letters for? (Do's and don't's)

A graduate student in philosophy writes:

Would it be possible to pose the questions in the subject line to the blog? Some questions: how much tailoring to the department is necessary? How cheesy does tailoring (period) come off? Do you need to mention that you'd be excited to "collaborate" with people in the department? How do you say that without still sounding like a grad student fan? Do hiring committees really care if we mention that we want to advise the Philosophy Club? It'd be nice to hear from established academics whether they really matter, and if so, why. After all, all the information they contain could be gleaned from the CV and the research and teaching statement. And that just leads me to think that they are meant to carry all the relevant information that would let someone decide on their basis alone whether to continue looking at the rest of your dossier. If that is the case, and they are that important, then we could use a little more guidance. 

To be clear, placement officers in my program have given some advice on this, but not much. Many of the faculty in my program come from a time when cover letters were not even a thing. 

There are some jobs--"open" positions at research-intensive departments, for example--where cover letters don't really matter.   But for the vast majority of positions, they are important and should be responsive to the ad, especially with regard to areas the department looks to hire in.   (If the ad doesn't mention the "Philosophy Club" don't mention it in the cover letter!  But if you created the "Philosophy Club" for undergraduates, and you're applying to an institution where the main job is teaching undergraduates, you might mention it.)   Anyway, comments are open for advice from faculty who have been involved in hiring.  Submit your comment only once.

On being an American philosopher in China

This is an interesting account.

Pedigree and quality

It's rational for hiring schools to consider pedigree, as we've discussed on many prior occasions.  In the PGR era, everyone knows that an Ivy League name is compatible with being a top 30 or a top 5 department, and students and more faculty know that excellence in various specialties does not track "brand name" of the university, but rather faculty excellence in the subfield.

Harvard, because it has the "brand name," has perhaps had more latitude in ignoring pre-PGR pedigree factors than other departments, and has done so with remarkable success.  Consider that the current tenure-track faculty includes PhDs from Wisconsin and UC Riverside, and mid-career tenured faculty with PhDs from Penn and UC Irvine.  I know of no other top ten department with as many faculty with PhDs from non-top 10 programs.  Yet in most of these cases, the faculty were hired from programs that were at the very top in the PGR specialties at the time (e.g., UC Riverside in Continental philosophy, UC Irvine in early modern).

Transparency about refereeing

MOVING TO FRONT AGAIN, ORIGINALLY POSTED NOVEMBER 1--QUITE INTERESTING SET OF COMMENTS; MORE WELCOME

A junior philosopher elsewhere writes:

I've been meaning to write to ask if you might be willing to discuss journal review practices again on your blog. Some of your prior posts on the subject have been so useful. It would be good practice for journals to make much more explicit whether they are (and historically have been) triple blind, double blind, or neither, including publications based on conference proceedings (I'm thinking of the "Oxford Studies " series, for example). The lack of transparency is troubling, especially given that journals seem to change their review practices over time. Several publications I assumed were triple blind turned out not to be; and as a young scholar, one may not want to waste one's time with journals that are less than fully blind. It might also be worth pointing out that a publication's reputation in the discipline should be based on complete and accurate information regarding its review practices. 

"Triple blind" means, I take it, that the editors who pick referees do not know who the author is; the referees do not know who the author is; and the author does not know who the referees are.   "Double-blind" (author and referees are unknown to each other) is fairly common I think; my impression is many of the Oxford Studies volumes are single-blind (authors don't know the referees).   It would be interesting to know which journals are now triple-blind, so feel free to post links in the comments (or to comment on any related aspect of this issue).  Submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.

 

Letters of recommendation are essential...

...even if some people write useless letters, as they do.  But the arguments here are not sensible (for example, "prestige bias" is a canard, as we've noted before).  As a senior philosopher elsewhere wrote to me last week:

In many years on hiring committees I have found these letters extremely valuable in distinguishing the A candidates from the A- candidates.  Maybe they aren’t so helpful though in distinguishing the B+s from the Bs?  I can’t think of another explanation for why someone would make such a bizarre anti-meritocratic suggestion.  Another oddity is that she seems to think that the ostensible purpose of these letters is to “contextualize” the candidate.  I have no idea what that means.

I concur.  In winnowing down an applicant pool, I look at three things:  (1) where was the applicant trained; (2) is the applicant a good fit for the position (based on training, interests etc.); and (3) the letters of recommendation.   I'm sure I am not alone in such an approach to figuring out which applicants warrant closer scrutiny of their writing samples.   Although, as we have noted before, too many letters are written in code, with time and experience, one can learn to decipher the code (and one also learn which letter writers are utterly unreliable).  And, happily, letters increasingly provide comparative assessments, which are far and away the most meaningful data point.

Survey of philosophy job seekers

Philosopher Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga) asked me to share this with readers (there are more details about the survey at the linked site):

If you are planning to apply for academic jobs this year, we hope you'll consider participating in our study "The Philosophy Job Market: Applicant Profiles and CV Review." Our aim in this first phase is to get a picture of job market applicants: what journals are they publishing in (if at all)? for how many classes are they the instructor of record (if at all)? There has been, as far as we know, no systematic attempt to collect information about people going into the job market. In the second phase of this study, we will the collected information to randomly generate CVs and investigate the behavior of potential search committee members in reviewing them.

In consultation with the Gonzaga University IRB, it was determined that IRB approval was not needed for this phase project. IRB approval will be obtained for the second phase. Nonetheless, all responses will be kept private and information secured on the hard drives of the investigators. Results will be made available at leiterreports.typepad.com, dailynous.com, philosopherscocoon.typepad.com, and philarchive.org

The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. Participants will be entered into a drawing for two $25 Amazon gift cards. If you are willing to participate, you can find the survey here. Please email Charles Lassiter at lassiter@gonzaga.edu if you have any questions.

The link (in case it shouldn't carry over with a simple copy and paste job) is: https://gonzaga.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b8dXHKBn1pRWR3n

PGR rank and tenure-track placement down the line

This is about what one would expect:  a strong but not perfect correlation between PGR rank and later tenure-stream placement.  Unlike some others, Professor Weisberg sensibly looks at  the correlation between PGR rank in 2006 with those who got PhDs six to eight years later, i.e., those who were relying on the 2006 rankings in choosing programs (an example of an earlier effort that wasn't so sensible).

How accurate are department placement pages?

MOVING TO FRONT AGAIN (ORIGINALLY POSTED MARCH 11):  Discussion continues in the comments

Not quite twenty years ago, I began pressing philosophy departments to provide comprehensive placement information on their homepages.  That effort was largely successful, and the average philosophy PhD program typically makes available better placement information than the average PhD program in other fields.  But periodically the issue arises about how accurate or complete this information is.  For example, a Wisconsin graduate (who is employed) wrote the other day as follows:

I wanted to make a follow up comment to your latest post about academic placement. I often wonder how accurate departmental descriptions of placement history are. For instance, I graduated from UW–Madison. On the Department's placement history, there are a number of people listed as "Did Not Seek Academic Employment" who in fact did seek such employment. They simply didn't get academic employment, and eventually gave up. "Does Not Seek Academic Employment" is a more accurate descriptor. (I'm not one of these people, just to be clear.)

I wonder how common this practice is.

I'm opening comments for other examples:  please include links.  And representatives of any of the departments named are free to post explanations or corrections as well. 

Placement in PhD-granting programs

Given the time of year, this is worth linking to again.  Also this (note esp. the junior numbers).

User-editable spreadsheet listing philosophy jobs

Shaun Wallace, a PhD student in Computer Science at Brown University, asked me to share the following:

We at the Brown HCI research lab built a user-editable spreadsheet containing over 150 current Philosophy faculty job postings. We thought it might be useful for graduate students on the job hunt:

https://drafty.cs.brown.edu/ajobs/#!data?-?2~Philosophy

Anyone can freely edit basic columns; such as subfield, search chair information, deadlines, who is interviewing, etc…

Personal/Private Data: If you SIGN-UP to create an account, you will have access to additional columns to track your status and private notes for each position. Only you can see this information. ;)

Our hope is to expand this system across other fields to better support the broader academic job market. To help connect those on the job hunt to universities by leveraging the efforts of both parties to keep this dataset current and up-to-date. 

Not sure how necessary this is in the era of PhilJobs, but it promises to include some additional information.   Comments/thoughts from readers welcome.

The best journals specializing in moral and/or political philosophy

So with over 310 votes in our last poll, here are the results (the top 20 are bolded):

1. Ethics  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Philosophy & Public Affairs  loses to Ethics by 201–60

3. Journal of Political Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 243–18, loses to Philosophy & Public Affairs by 217–41

4. Journal of Moral Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 253–13, loses to Journal of Political Philosophy by 147–77

5. Utilitas  loses to Ethics by 246–16, loses to Journal of Moral Philosophy by 131–104

6. Oxford Studies in Metaethics  loses to Ethics by 245–14, loses to Utilitas by 114–108

7. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 254–10, loses to Oxford Studies in Metaethics by 110–109

8. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics  loses to Ethics by 249–13, loses to Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy by 121–97

9. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice  loses to Ethics by 250–21, loses to Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics by 118–116

10. Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 245–10, loses to Ethical Theory and Moral Practice by 129–95

11. Politics, Philosophy & Economics  loses to Ethics by 246–8, loses to Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy by 100–96

12. Economics & Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 236–14, loses to Politics, Philosophy & Economics by 109–72

13. Journal of Applied Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 245–15, loses to Economics & Philosophy by 99–88

14. Journal of Ethics  loses to Ethics by 249–13, loses to Journal of Applied Philosophy by 105–92

15. Social Theory & Practice  loses to Ethics by 249–13, loses to Journal of Ethics by 112–94

16. Social Philosophy & Policy  loses to Ethics by 246–9, loses to Social Theory & Practice by 109–72

17. Journal of Social Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 247–8, loses to Social Philosophy & Policy by 88–85

18. Journal of Value Inquiry  loses to Ethics by 249–12, loses to Journal of Social Philosophy by 96–87

19. Political Theory  loses to Ethics by 240–10, loses to Journal of Social Philosophy by 86–84

20. Public Affairs Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 242–12, loses to Political Theory by 101–73

21. Res Publica  loses to Ethics by 245–11, loses to Public Affairs Quarterly by 89–83

22. Bioethics  loses to Ethics by 233–14, loses to Res Publica by 88–80

23. American Journal of Bioethics  loses to Ethics by 230–14, loses to Bioethics by 83–55

24. Hastings Center Report  loses to Ethics by 229–9, loses to American Journal of Bioethics by 81–51

25. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal  loses to Ethics by 233–10, loses to Hastings Center Report by 64–57

A couple of observations of my own.   The top four are pretty solidly the top four:  each outperformed the next closest journal by a wide margin.  Special kudos to Robert Goodin (founding editor of J. of Polit Phil) and Thom Brooks (founding editor of J. of Moral Phil.) for establishing their journals' reputations so quickly and effectively.  Outside the top four, there is more clustering, with some effective ties.  I was astonished by the strong showing for Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, a journal I don't think I'd ever had occasion to look at--but it may be that it has a higher visibility in Europe, from which, as we know, many readers hail.  Given the number of important papers that have appeared over the years in Social Philosophy & Policy, I'm surprised it didn't land squarely in the top ten:  my guess is this has something to do with the fact that while the papers are ultimately peer-reviewed, it is an invitation-only journal.  Finally, it's striking that the journals specializing in bioethics do not seem to have a strong reputation, compared even to other "applied" journals; that is consistent with my own impression that bioethics is still viewed by many philosophers as a weak field.

Comments from readers?

Journals that publish the best work in moral/political philosophy, poll results (Part 1)

Not quite 300 folks voted in last week's poll.  Several readers wrote that they thought it was a mistake to include generalist journals that publish some moral/political papers along with the specialist journals; others pointed out omissions, including Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Social Theory & Practice, Res Publica, and Social Philosophy & Policy.  In light of these concerns, I will run a second poll shortly with only specialty journals in moral and/or political philosophy.  But here are the top 25 from the first poll (I've put an * next to those journals that are specialty journals in these areas):

1. *Ethics  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. *Philosophy & Public Affairs  loses to Ethics by 151–66

3. Philosophical Review  loses to Ethics by 180–29, loses to Philosophy & Public Affairs by 147–60

4. Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 200–18, loses to Philosophical Review by 102–58

5. Nous  loses to Ethics by 195–18, loses to Journal of Philosophy by 93–72

6. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research  loses to Ethics by 200–18, loses to Nous by 86–76

7. Mind  loses to Ethics by 195–16, loses to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research by 84–77

8. *Journal of Political Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 202–20, loses to Mind by 99–86

9. Philosophical Studies  loses to Ethics by 210–11, loses to Journal of Political Philosophy by 104–85

10. Australasian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 209–14, loses to Philosophical Studies by 101–62

11. Philosopher's Imprint  loses to Ethics by 205–12, loses to Australasian Journal of Philosophy by 84–82

12. *Journal of Moral Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 212–13, loses to Philosopher's Imprint by 90–84

13. *Utilitas  loses to Ethics by 207–15, loses to Journal of Moral Philosophy by 102–75

14. Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 206–14, loses to Utilitas by 88–81

15. *Ethical Theory and Moral Practice  loses to Ethics by 213–14, loses to Philosophical Quarterly by 92–84

16. *Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 211–10, loses to Ethical Theory and Moral Practice by 96–76

17. *Politics, Philosophy & Economics  loses to Ethics by 203–15, loses to Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy by 94–80

18. Canadian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 212–6, loses to Politics, Philosophy & Economics by 84–79

19. *Journal of Ethics  loses to Ethics by 210–10, loses to Canadian Journal of Philosophy by 96–70

20. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  loses to Ethics by 210–8, loses to Journal of Ethics by 89–73

21. American Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 202–11, loses to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society by 72–66

22. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 208–6, loses to American Philosophical Quarterly by 69–54

23. European Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 208–12, loses to Pacific Philosophical Quarterly by 72–63

24. Ratio  loses to Ethics by 211–10, loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 71–70

25. *Journal of Value Inquiry  loses to Ethics by 209–10, loses to Ratio by 83–52

More reactionary Christian viciousness

Justice Department defends anti-trans discrimination by businesses.

Best journals for moral and political philosophy?

Philosopher Peter Vallentyne (Missouri) suggested it might be worthwhile to once again run some reader polls on the best journals in vaarious areas.  I'll start with the best journals for moral and political philosophy:  this includes some generalist journals that regularly publish moral and/or political philosophy papers, as well as specialist journals.  Rank order them based on the quality of the work they publish in moral and political philosophy.  There are 34 choices; unfortunately, new choices can't be added once the poll has started, but hopefully there are no egregious omissions.

A reality check on the Oseroff scandal and the APA Blog (UPDATED)

Given that the Twitter Red Guard continue to dissemble and moan about Professor Stock's and my expose of the APA blog scandal, perhaps a reality check is in order.

Nathan Oseroff, a man in his late 20s, who has a prominent on-line position with the American Philosophical Association (that he continuously advertises), took it upon himself to launch a jihad against feminist philosophers, especially philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex) who held what he, in his superior wisdom, deemed to be a "morally unacceptable" opinion about the proposed gender self-ID law in the United Kingdom (this law would permit anyone to redesignate their gender for all legal purposes without any medical or other oversight, evaluation or waiting periods).  This man used his role at the APA blog to post a comment attacking Prof. Stock on the APA's blog that violated blog guidelines (the editor in charge of the blog apologized to Prof. Stock, removed the comment and briefly suspended the offender--remarkably, he has not been removed entirely). 

This adult male also took to social media to defame Prof. Stock as someone who directed "hate" at her students and colleagues.  Doing so would be grossly unprofessional conduct, but this man's only evidence for his libelous charge was that Prof. Stock had a different view about the gender self-ID Law in the UK than he did.   In addition, it turns out that this man also abused his role at the APA to "police" the conference practices of a philosophy society that had actually accepted one of his papers, even though the APA, let alone its blog or its editors, has no authority about how professional societies referee papers.

This adult man, who is almost 30 years old, objected that no one should criticize him since he is a PhD student in philosophy. Some of his fellow Twitteratti, endorsed this view (unsurprisingly, they are all similarly situated:  adults in school engaged in stupid on-line conduct!).  

I suggest that Donald Trump should enroll in a PhD program soon, since some segment of the population apparently believes that misconduct is entitled to a free pass if the perpetrator is an adult PhD student.  (Unfortunately for Trump, that segment may consist only of the Twitter Red Guard.)

More than half of U.S. law schools look at social media presence of applicants...

...which sometimes leads to rejection.  I suspect both hiring departments and admissions committees in philosophy will start doing this more systematically in the years ahead--yet another reason why students, and especially graduate students seeking jobs, should have either no Internet presence or a wholly professional one (i.e., no ranting about politics, abusive tirades about faculty or fellow students, narcissistic displays [e.g., going on about one's mental health, one's sex life, one's private affairs] etc.).

Job Candidate Mentoring for Women in Philosophy

Philosopher Amanda Greene (UCL) asked me to share the following:

The Job Candidate Mentoring Program for Women in Philosophy (https://jobmentoringforwomen.wordpress.com/) is recruiting both mentors and mentees for the upcoming job market season. Mentors should currently hold a permanent academic post and have had job market experience at the junior level in the past seven years. The application deadline for mentees is Sept 8th. Preference will be given to job candidates who have not participated in this mentoring program before. Other job candidates seeking mentorship are encouraged to participate in the Cocoon Mentoring Project.

Do young philosophers *really* need to be on social media for professional reasons?

The answer I would have thought is obviously 'no,' but philosopher Rebecca Kukla (Georgetown) takes a different view.  She writes:

I will focus on the role of social media for graduate students and untenured faculty in philosophy. I think there’s no doubt that staying off of social media altogether can actively harm your career, while using it wisely can actively help you, and can genuinely enrich your professional and intellectual life. A huge number of professional opportunities show up first and most prominently on Facebook, both as formal announcements and through informal discussions. A great deal of philosophical conversation that shapes the debates in our field happens on social media. Co-authorships and collaborations often take root online. People get to know one another’s personalities and research through these media. it clearly helps in getting interviews and invitations if people already know who you are, and like you and think highly of your ideas. I have certainly learned about the work of graduate students and young scholars through social media, and then offered them invitations and opportunities, used and assigned their work, and sought out their company at conferences as a result.

This may, indeed, have been her experience in some of her fields, and so to that extent, it's worth noting for those with similar interests.  But in philosophy of law, or post-Kantian Continental philosophy, none of this is true:  I've never seen "philosophical conversation" on Facebook or similar social media platforms having any affect on the actual debates, which arise from actual scholarly work presented in the traditional fora and formats.   I'm not aware of anyone in these fields who got an invitation based on Facebook presence either.   So I wonder:  how widespread a phenomenon is the kind Prof. Kukla describes?  I'm skeptical based on my corner of philosophy and social media.

Deciding between graduate school in philosophy and law school

A recent philosophy graduate gave me permission to share his questions, which might be of interest to others:

I am currently deciding between graduate school in philosophy (I graduated in honors philosophy from [school name omitted] in 2015) and law school. In the long run I am considering whether to pursue philosophical or legal academia. I have benefitted greatly from your advice to prospective philosophy graduate students and prospective law school students with philosophical interests on Leiter Reports. Since I have a couple of questions that as far as I can see have not been directly discussed in a Leiter Report blog post I thought I would email them to you in case you have the time to answer them.

1. My primary area of philosophical interest is political philosophy. In the spirit of your post on the difference between the study of political philosophy in political science and philosophy departments, I am wondering about the difference between working in political philosophy in a law school or in a philosophy department. What would you say are the most significant differences that someone considering both options should take into account?

2. a. If one were to plan on obtaining a philosophy PhD and a JD separately in order to pursue legal academia, is there a significant difference academically in doing one of them first? For instance, would there be a significant impact on one's study of the subjects themselves? on job market chances?

b. If there is, is one course of study preferable? In other words, is it more beneficial to come to the study of law with significant training in relevant philosophical areas (political, moral, epistemology), or to come to the study of philosophy with philosophical questions arising from one’s study of law?

Here are my answers:

1.  At many good law schools (see this section of the PGR), there are serious opportunities to study political philosophy, but even at the best law schools, given that most of your studies will not be philosophy-related, you can't get adequate training to do professional work.  At best, you can acquire competence with themes, authors, and arguments, but you won't emerge as a political philosopher with a JD only.

2a.  I've known students who have done it in both directions, and had good success at it.  PhD programs seem, in recent years, to be keen to admit those with a good JD record, but those who come to the JD with a PhD in philosophy already have a set of intellectual and disciplinary skills that can help them thrive and do quite well in law school.

2b.  I don't think there's a one approach fits all answer to this question.  But I'm opening comments for thoughts from other readers.

 

 

Blast from the past: What is an 'area of competence'?

Back in 2007.  Opening comments here, in case readers think anything has changed in the interim.

Where tenure-stream faculty at the U.S. top 20 (2017-18) got their PhDs

This is where all tenure-stream faculty (junior and senior) at the PGR top 20 programs for 2017-18 earned their PhDs.  Remember that Harvard and Princeton were the top departments in the country from the mid-1950s through the 1980s (Harvard for much longer than that before, though Harvard declined more than Princeton in the 1990s); in the 1990s, first Rutgers, then NYU emerged as dominant programs.  MIT's PhD program began in the early 1960s, and was a top ten program from the start (early faculty included Hilary Putnam and John Rawls); Pittsburgh emerged as a philosophy powerhouse in the early 1960s as well.  Michigan had a top ten, often top five, PhD program from the 1950s onwards.  UCLA emerged in the 1950s (first with Hans Reichenbach, then Rudolf Carnap, Richard Montague and others) as a major PhD program, while Berkeley became a more prominent player in the field in the 1960s.  Yale went from top ten status in the 1950s, through many years of conflict and decline, before reemerging in the 1990s as a major PhD program.   Cornell was one of the top ten programs from the 1950s until the early 1990s.  Columbia, like Yale, had ups and downs, sometimes in the top ten, sometimes not even in the top twenty.  Chicago was a solidly top ten program during the time Donald Davidson was on the faculty (1976-1981), and a top 15-20 program most of the rest of the time.  Stanford has been a top ten program since the 1960s, with Patrick Suppes and a young Donald Davidson, among others.

Programs are ranked by the total number of graduates in tenure-stream positions in the current U.S. top twenty, though I also note the number of those faculty who are untenured but on tenure-track; in ten years time, Rutgers and NYU will be giving Harvard and Oxford a run for the money (probably Berkeley too).

1.  Princeton University (55 total, 7 currently junior)

2.  Harvard University (43 total, 4 currently junior)

3.  Massachussetts Institute of Technology (31 total, 5 currently junior)

4.  Oxford University (24 total, 3 currently junior)

4.  University of California, Berkeley (24 total, 7 currently junior)

Tenure-track jobs by area advertised in 2017-18

Marcus Arvan (Tampa) has put together his annual analysis of the areas in which jobs were advertised this hiring year; particularly striking is the distribution of AOS for the 228 tenure-track jobs that were advertised:

Breakdown by AOS - Tenure-Track Jobs Only (228 jobs)

• Aesthetics: 1 job (.04%)
• Continental: 9.2 jobs (4%)
• Core: 28.8 jobs (12.6%)
• History/Traditions: 36.2 jobs (15.9%)
• Open AOS: 40.5 jobs (17.8%) – many at small schools (~60%)
• Religion: 5.25 jobs (2.3%)
• Social identity (race, gender, etc.): 11.7 jobs (5.1%)
• Science: 14.8 jobs (6.5%)
• Value theory (ethics, political): 79.2 jobs (34.7%)

A few observations of my own.  As noted earlier, this was indeed a good year for Continental job seekers.  And the early signs that the "core" is dying do seem borne out by these statistics:  how "core" are areas that account for only 12.6% of all jobs advertised?  On the other hand, some parts of the so-called "core" (language, mind, metaphysics, epistemology) spill over into parts of philosophy of religion, philosophy of race, philosophy of gender and, sometimes, value theory, so perhaps the statistics aren't as bleak as they look--and some of the "open" jobs will, of course, go to those working in "core" areas.  That 5.1% of the jobs had an AOS for philosophy of race and gender is stunning (that's more than for Continental or philosophy of religion, let alone aesthetics), though one suspects some of these may really be "hidden criteria" searches.  Value theory continues to have the most job ads, but probably also the most job seekers.

Comments from readers on this data welcome.

Forecasting an increase in demand for "elite" colleges and a significant decline otherwise

This bodes ill for many institutions (and thus for the academic job market), and will  surely intensify competition for perceived "eliteness."

PhilSkills

A reminder about this interesting site featuring interviews with philosophers with careers outside academia.

Athena Networking and Mentoring Workshop for Graduate Student Women in philosophy...

...is now accepting applications for the 2018 workshop.

(Thanks to Liz Harman for the pointer.)

Journals that publish the best-quality articles on figures in the post-Kantian Continental traditions of philosophy

So with more than 160 votes in our poll from last week, here's the top ten:

1. European Journal of Philosophy  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Journal of the History of Philosophy  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 80–37

3. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 75–40, loses to Journal of the History of Philosophy by 64–45

4. British Journal for the History of Philosophy  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 91–26, loses to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research by 57–48

5. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 87–26, loses to British Journal for the History of Philosophy by 52–44

6. Philosophical Review  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 92–21, loses to Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie by 61–32

7. Inquiry  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 100–10, loses to Philosophical Review by 44–41

8. History of Philosophy Quarterly  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 101–14, loses to Inquiry by 46–44

9. Review of Metaphysics  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 92–24, loses to History of Philosophy Quarterly by 46–44

10. Philosopher's Imprint  loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 95–12, loses to Review of Metaphysics by 46–43

Note the tight clustering (in terms of vote differentials) outside the "top five."   EJP probably should come out on top, though I will say there's been a decline in the quality of the Nietzsche papers they've published in recent years.    I probably should have included Journal of the American Philosophical Association, since it has published papers on Continental figures, but it's also still quite a new journal.  (The quality at JAPA has also been uneven, it seems to me, but it's still early days.)

Several of these journals publish Continental articles quite infrequently (e.g., Phil Review, PPR), though it is true that when they do publish such articles, they tend to be of good quality.

On-line job portals that will not accept letters from Interfolio?

A reader writes:

In the comments below one of your recent posts, Daniel Kaufman (and others) shared eye-opening reports that some online portals don't accept letters from Interfolio, even though to applicants they appear to. Many universities use customized versions of the same few portals. So if, e.g., MSU (Daniel Kaufman's employer) doesn't accept Interfolio letters, presumably Interfolio won't work with any university (e.g., U of Utah) whose portal is a version of that same PeopleAdmin platform.

Would it be possible, as a service to all of us on the market (and to committees who want to hire the best candidates!) to post a thread on this? Such a thread could ask people who've served on search committees to comment with their university (or its portal system platform, if they know it) and whether it accepts Interfolio.

Comments are open.

Placement in PhD-granting programs in the new academic job placement report

MOVING TO FRONT FROM OCTOBER 3

I've started to look a bit more at the data from the new placement analysis (commissioned and paid for by the APA no less), and there were plainly some peculiar choices made in how to frame the data.  As David Chalmers points out, post-docs are lumped in with fixed term appointments, adjuncting, and VAPs, i.e., as simply "not permanent appointments."  That's extraordinary, given that some who take them postpone tenure-track jobs to do so, and many use them to launch into highly competitive tenure-track positions.  Even more curious was the decision to create a "placement ranking" based on "permanent placement" without regard to school quality.  Three of the schools in this "top ten" for permament placement--University of Virginia, University of Florida, and University of Tennessee--also have 0% of their graduates placed into PhD-granting programs.  (I'll have more to say about their permanent placements, below.)  By contrast, taking the report's data at face value (I can not represent that this is safe to do, but let's assume it is), here's how a ranking of U.S. programs by placement of graduates into PhD-granting programs (i.e., research universities and departments) would look (for schools with  at least 20% placement into PhD programs):

1.  University of California, Berkeley (59%)                               

2.  University of Pittsburgh (HPS) (43%)                                    

3.  Rutgers University, New Brunswick (36%)          

3.  Princeton University (36%)

5.  Massachussetts Institute of Technology (35%)

6.  Carnegie-Mellon University (33%)

7.  Harvard University (31%)

7.  New York University (31%)                                                          

7.  University of California, Irvine (Logic & Philosophy of Science) (31%)

10. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (26%)

11. University of Pennsylvania (25%)

12. University of Chicago (24%)

12. Yale University (24%)

14. Columbia University (23%)

15. Stanford University (21%)

15. University of Arizona (21%)

17. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (20%)

17. University of Southern California (20%)

Of course, this list looks a lot more like the PGR, especially when you factor in the specialty rankings which capture the niches of excellence at places like Irvine's LPS and Carnegie-Mellon. 

Still more complaints about on-line application systems and job ads

Another job seeker writes:

I wanted to share with you -- and if you think it is worth positing, with your blog readers -- an annoyance about some recent job postings that require application through an online system. There was a similar complaint recently about having applications and letters, which must be separately uploaded by referees, due on the same day (Oct. 9). I fully agree with this. Not all letter writers are available at all times, and it is unrealistic to ask candidates to be sure that letter writers will be available at the relevant times. And not all letter writers want to use services like interfolio. I would like to point out in addition, that there is often a discrepancy between the advertisement and the actual online application about what documents are required and that there is often no mention of when letters are required. Thus, the advertisement might say that a CV, research statement, and evidence of teaching effectiveness is required, as well as the contact information of letter writers. But once logged into the application system, and only once personal information has been entered and saved, it turns out that, say, a statement on teaching is also required, or in my case, transcripts. While the advertisement stated that contact information for referees was needed, one referee wrote to me that day saying he hoped he had met the deadline -- I had no idea that there was a deadline for letters, or that it was on the same day. There was no mention of a deadline in the advertisement or during the online application process. A colleague applying for a job in the UK in a different field found out -- again, once the online application was well underway -- that she should paste into a box an explanation of how she meets the criteria announced, though there was no mention of these in the advertisement. In my case, not having applied for jobs in recent years, I had to dig up a transcript, whereas my colleague had to put together a new document -- something like the cover letter used for other positions. Another kind of case might be one in which only the online application system lists a research statement as optional in additon to a dissertation summary. This means, I take it, that the research statement need not summarize the dissertation.

My beef is not with the fact that certain documents are required rather than others; these are reasonable demands and especially in philosophy, they are relatively standardized. And, apart from the worry that my letters will not be accepted, these were relatively minor annoyances, since both of us have done this before. But it does take some time, and I imagine that it would take more time for someone who is new to this, who is perhaps more concerned to proofread everythign several times, and perhaps especially for foreigners, who might want to ensure that their writing is fully idiomatic, etc. And a minor annoyance could turn into a more major one on a day full of teaching or other responsibilities. So, my plea to philosophy departments is to make sure that their advertisements accurately reflect (i) the documents that will be required and those that are optional in the online application process, and (ii) the deadlines not only for an application but, if applicable, for the receipt of letters of recommendation. It should not be that hard to do so.

Huemer's polemic against letters of recommendation

David Boonin (Colorado) kindly calls to my attention his colleague Michael Huemer's case against soliciting letters of recommendation.  Prof. Huemer is always pleasingly contrarian, though it seems to me his case is stronger in this instance when it comes to letters of recommendation for senior candidates rather than rookies.  With regard to rookies (1) no appointments committee has time to review in detail the submitted work of all applicants; (2) pedigree (the applicant was trained at a program with which one has had good experiences) is both under- and over-inclusive for narrowing the applicant pool down; (3) the same goes for publications; and (4) letters can be quite helpful, as long as one knows how to read them.  If one does appointments enough, one gets better at deciphering the codes in which they are written, and you learn who is reliable and who isn't (in the late 1980s and 1990s, Hilary Putnam wrote one too many time in letters of recommendation that "now I know what it was like to have Wittgenstein in class" that it became a joke in the profession--none of those young philosophers, to the best of my recollection, turned out to be major figures in philosophy). 

More worries about on-line application systems

A graduate student writes:

Since you posted recently on letters of recommendation and online portals, maybe you would be interested in giving some airtime to another supremely vexing issue in this regard: a number of proprietary application portals prevent applicants from generating the emails with upload links before submission, and instead only send referees links for uploading letters of recommendation after the applicant has fully submitted the application. However, they maintain (or at least espouse to) the same deadline for letters of reference as for the application itself. (Some applications state explicitly that upload links go dead at the deadline.) The result is that an applicant who submits the application on the day of the deadline has given his or her referees something like a 12-hour window to upload their letters. 

I struggle to understand why one would design an application portal in such a way; the response that students should take care to submit well before the deadline to ensure that their referees have time seems to defeat the very purpose of having a single deadline for applications and referees. (And indeed, the Harper-Schmidt postdoc at UChicago only generates upload links for referees after submission, but the deadline for referee submission is 2 weeks past the deadline for application submission.) Similarly, the claim that it would reduce incomplete or partial submissions (by not collecting letters until complete applications had been submitted, thus avoiding letters for incomplete applications) is vitiated by making applications incomplete on the other side of the equation-- they now have complete materials but incomplete letters! The single conceivable benefit I can think of is that letter-writers can be certain that they are only writing for someone who has submitted a full application -- but is that really an acceptable gain for knowing that either the applicant or the writer will be harried by the process? 

 Are there reasons for this that I'm missing? Is there any justification? It just seems like an unnecessary, added inconvenience for all involved in an already stressful process. 

This year's amazing job market for post-Kantian Continental philosophy: the new hot area?

I confess I've never seen anything like it in 25+ years of watching these things.  There are jobs expressing serious interest in post-Kantian Continental philosophy at Berkeley, Notre Dame, Rice, Boston College, Harvard, Durham, William & Mary, Haverford, among other places!  The old "core analytic" is dying, but the much-neglected post-Kantian Continental seems to be enjoying a new "market demand."

Perhaps Anglophone departments have figured out that (1) post-Kantian Continental philosophy is a magnet for enrollments, given how interesting and influential across disciplines figures like Marx and Nietzsche and Foucault are, and (2) the quality of the candidates teaching in this area is now as high as in any other specialty?

One big advantage of having turned over the PGR burden to others is that I can now speak much more freely about what I think about trends in academic philosophy.   My prediction is that the most successful departments going forward will be those that offer serious coverage of post-Kantian philosophers on the European Continent.

Bias and neglect of non-Western philosophy in Anglphone departments is very real, but hardly surprising, given the remoteness of language and culture; much more surprising has always been the neglect of European philosophy of the last two centuries:  translations of these figures are widely available; the ideas of the great 19th-century thinkers in particular permeate the entire curriculum in Western universities; and, perhaps most importantly, there are now a large number of serious young scholars--in terms of basic scholarly discipline and philosophical competence--working on these issues.  For a long time, there was clearly an issue about finding young philosophers interested in the post-Kantian traditions who were not muddleheads.  That time is now past.   The best young scholars working on the post-Kantian Continental traditions are as good as the best scholars of early modern or ancient philosophy, not to mention the latest expert on the metaphysics of grounding!

The idea that any good department, whether at the PhD level or the undergraduate level, would not have a specialist in the rich European traditions post-Kant will soon, I am hopeful, become a relic of the past.  

ADDENDUM:  When I talk about post-Kantian Continental philosophy, I mean the German Idealists (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel), Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Horkheimer, Adorno, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Foucault--I do not mean charlatans like Zizek or the latest silliness out of Paris.  It's the former figures who now regularly attract excellent and philosophically informed scholarship, and it is these figures that the recent job ads are targetting.

Jobs limiting applicants to just three letters

Philosopher Barbara Herman (UCLA) writes:

As Placement Director, I'm seeing an issue that's of general interest.  A number of schools, either because of the structure of Interfolio or their own online application systems, are only accepting three letters of reference for job applicants.  They are giving no guidance about whether they are expecting the applicant to include a teaching letter, or want only research letters.  Some of these schools respond to inquiries about this state of affairs with surprise and then say they will accept more letters by email.  Some others in effect shrug.  Very active or well-connected placement directors are able to get more attention for their students.  That's good, but hardly fair.  Since you reach a great many programs through your blog, I wondered if it might be of use to call attention to this so that schools might work towards being more uniform or at least more informative about their practice.

I'm grateful to Prof. Herman for raising this problem.  Comments are open for suggestions or for hiring departments to clarify their policies, as the case may be.

Academic job placement report

Here it is.  I've not had a chance to examine it, though the lead author on the report has an uneven track record and I had heard complaints from others that the placement data was incomplete, but it may be that has been rectified in the final version.  In any case, comments are open for those who have had a chance to examine the report to weigh in with the positives and negatives, what's interesting and useful, what's less interesting or dubious, etc.

The growing mismatch between jobs for philosophers and what the leading PhD programs emphasize, or, the so-called "core" is dying

PhilJobs is starting to fill up with ads, though not as many ads as one would like to see (at least not yet).  But what is striking is the pattern in areas of interest:  lots of value theory and history of philosophy (esp. early modern, but also a fair bit of 19th-century), some currently "trendy" areas like philosophy of race and gender, but very little "core analytic" (as the Stanford ad puts it), i.e., very little philosophy of language and mind, metaphyscis & epistemology, the latter being the historical "prestige" trackers in the profession for the last half-century.  But as I've remarked before, what is prestigious and central at the top PhD programs may no longer bear much relationship to most of the jobs that exist.  That seems increasingly true (we've seen other signs of it).

Far too many PhD programs currently operate on what we might call "the MIT model":   little or no history of philosophy or post-Kantian Continental philosophy, certainly no non-Western philosophy, but lots and lots of "core analytic" (sometimes with some philosophy of science thrown in), plus a bit of value theory, though mostly to the extent it is close to the former areas.  The MIT model served MIT well when Robert Stalnaker was active and training tons of students, and before Stephen Yablo was, tragically, taken ill (though Yablo is still teaching happily).   Perhaps the MIT model can survive as a viable model for graduation education, and might do so if MIT were the only purveyor--but the University of Southern California, despite being a much larger faculty, has adopted the MIT Model with a vengeance, and Rutgers has largely migrated in that direction.  Other "MIT model" programs--wholly or heading in that direction--include Michigan, Texas, U Mass/Amherst, Rochester, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, among others. 

A close, but preferable (at least by my lights) relative, is the "Princeton Model," where the investment is heaviest in "core analytic," but there is also a substantial commitment to history of philosophy and sometimes even post-Kantian Continental.  NYU followed the Princeton Model, more successfully than Princeton, which no doubt explains its dominant position in Anglophone philosophy.  "Princeton Model" departments include Pittsburgh, Yale, Berkeley, UCLA, Harvard, Brown, and Cornell, among many others.

Free letter delivery service for the job market

Philosopher David Faraci writes:

Graham Leach-Krouse and I are pleased to announce that MARGY, our free letter delivery service, is up and running for the 2017 job market season. Applicants are invited to use our system to send confidential letters of recommendation to schools that are accepting submissions via email. For more information, people can go to https://margymail.com or email admin@margymail.com.

The Differing "Codes" in Which Letters of Reference are Written

MOVING TO FRONT, SINCE IT'S LETTER-WRITING SEASON (originally published January 10 2010, and moved to front periodically since)

A young philosopher writes:

We all know how important letters of reference are and how much weight they have in the decision who to interview at the APA or at least for making the first cut. There were comments in an earlier thread on this blog that seem to suggest that at some point of the decision process this is the most important factor and many of my colleagues share this view.  

 

The problem is the following: not every letter writer seems to be playing the same game. And I am not referring to the notorious US/UK difference in this respect. Some professors are very explicit about giving comparative statements about their student, e.g., “she is among the best three students I have ever had” and then if this professor does not make such a statement in the case of another student, it is to be assumed that this student is not so great. But there are professors who do not follow the same rules in their letters: they just never make comparative statements. And this is true of some excellent philosophers from some excellent departments. So how are we supposed to assess these letters? Are we, letter readers, supposed to know the idiosyncratic habits of all letter writers?

Some of these issues were discussed in the Chronicle almost a decade ago, in what is still a timely article, and we also addressed them back in 2003; as I noted then:

Part of the problem with these letters--besides their uniform inflation and hyperbole--is that the code is hard to interpret. For example, letters will frequently conclude with one of the following recommendations:

I recommend X warmly/highly.

I generally assume that this is a weaker recommendation than:

I give X my highest recommendation.

But maybe not: it could depend on the writer?

And how does "highest recommendation" compare to:

I recommend X without reservation.

The same? Stronger? Does it depend on the author again?

And how does the warmly/highly recommendation compare with,

I recommend X with enthusiasm.

And does one writer who says the latter necessarily mean to convey less enthusiasm than a different writer who says,

I recommend X with great enthusiasm

I'm not always sure. Nor am I always sure whether "warmly" means the same as "highly" or whether "warmly" is really code for "not enthusiastically," and so on.

I have chatted with others, here and elsewhere, about this subject, and if there is a consensus among readers of such letters it is this: what is most meaningful in a letter of recommendation are explicit comparisons with other graduates of the program or other philosophers working in the same area. All the "warmlys," "highlys" etc. just don't help. Philosophers ought to drop them, and say, "X is the best student since Y and Z that we've had" or "X's work is comparable to the work of A and B," where A and B are employed philosophers working in that area. Such comparisons are slightly distasteful, and there's no guarantee that Y and Z, or A and B, won't see the comparisons; but there's no question they are MUCH MORE informative than the code words.

Thoughts from readers on these issues?  Signed comments preferred, as usual; submit the comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.

Why prospective grad students need to know about academic hierarchies, part 211

This study did not include philosophy, but I'm sure the pattern in philosophy is the same:

The data revealed that just a quarter of all universities account for 71 to 86 percent of all tenure-track faculty in the U.S. and Canada in these three fields. Just 18 elite universities produce half of all computer science professors, 16 schools produce half of all business professors, and eight schools account for half of all history professors.

While elite universities, with their deep resources and demanding coursework, surely produce great professors, the data suggest that faculty hiring isn’t a simple meritocracy. The top schools generate far more professors than even just slightly less prestigious schools. For example, in history, the top 10 schools produce three times as many future professors as those ranked 11 through 20.

Where untenured tenure-track faculty at the "top 20" U.S. PhD programs got their PhD 2017-18 edition (UPDATED AND CORRECTED)

MOVING TO FRONT AGAIN--REVISED AGAIN

The following universities have the most PhD graduates in "top 20" philosophy programs for 2017-18 ("top 20" is construed loosely to include some on the cusp given the last PGR).  For some schools PhD graduates of cognate programs (like HPS at Pittsburgh, and Logic & the Methodology of Science) are also counted, given their close ties to philosophy.  The number of graduates of each school currently in untenured tenure-track positions appears in parentheses after the name of the PhD-granting university. 

1.  Princeton University (8)

2.  New York University (7)

2.  Rutgers University, New Brunswick (7)

4.  University of California, Berkeley (6)

5.  Massachussetts Institute of Technology (5)

6.  Columbia University (4)

6.  Harvard University (4)

6.  Oxford University (4)

6.  Yale University (4)

10.  Cambridge University (3)

11. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2)

11. University of Pittsburgh (2, both HPS)

The following schools have one PhD graduate each in an untenured tenure-track position in the "top 20" currently:  Stanford University; Cornell University; University of Chicago; University of Maryland, College Park; University of Wisconsin, Madison; University of York; University of California, Los Angeles; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; University of California, Irvine; University of Western Ontario; University of Texas, Austin; University of Arizona; University of Leeds; University of California, San Diego; University of Paris I-Pantheon/Sorbonne; University of Toronto; University of Potsdam.  Below the fold is a listing of the PhDs at each "top 20" school; please e-mail me with corrections.

Virtual dissertation groups, once again

Joshua Smart writes:

VDG is a free service that connects graduate students to provide feedback on dissertation work. Members are grouped with two others working in the same general area of philosophy. About once a month, one member sends some work (3-6K words) to the others, who return feedback and comments in a week or so.

While advisors and committees are important, it can be incredibly helpful to discuss one’s work with peers in a lower-stakes environment, and it can be particularly enlightening to do so with those who take a different approach, outlook, or focus. Not only that, but there is evidence from psychological research that thinking about problems in relation to persons who are geographically distant can increase creativity. With students in programs from many states, countries, and every continent with a philosophy Ph.D. program, Virtual Dissertation Groups is a great way to capture some of these benefits!

You can sign up to participate here. Open sign-ups go through Sep. 15. (Conditional sign-ups through Sep, 22.)

I would be glad to hear from past participants whether this was valuable.  Comments are open for that.

Blast from the past: "David Publishing"

Back in 2013, but still relevant.

AOS for jobs in 2016-17

The "core" was not so core.

Lots of new junior hires posted...

...at PhilJobs.

Job interviews, once again

This NYT piece is making the rounds; interviews for philosophy jobs are, usually (one hopes), more substantive.  We've discussed the issue here before.  Is there anything new to say?