Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Reasons you didn't get the job that have nothing to do with you or the quality of your application

Apt remarks by philosopher Paul Schofield (Bates) on Twitter; a couple of highlights:

The ad is written with a specific candidate in mind, who the department intends to hire. That candidate is not you.

The department thinks you're too much like, or not enough like, the other members of the department (somehow, both of these are reasons for throwing out a candidate and you never know which it is when you send an application off).

There's another candidate on the market exactly like you and departments are picking between you and that person, perhaps arbitrarily or perhaps on the basis of some leg up that that person has. You are otherwise perfect, but this person's existence ruins your year/career.

Jobs at selective liberal arts colleges and the expected decline in college enrollments in the coming years

At Philosopher's Cocoon, there is an interesting discussion of expected changes in enrollment patterns and whether that is in any way connected to a perception of fewer jobs at SLACs this fall.  Comments are open there.

Links to resources for graduate students

Adam Patterson, a PhD student at Syracuse University, has compiled an extensive set of links about reading philosophy, writing philosophy, teaching philosophy, the job market, etc.  Not all the sources are of equal quality, but many are quite good, and some I'd never seen before (e.g., Connie Rosati [Texas] on how to read philosophy [aimed at undergraduate students]).

Just to put journal submissions in perspective

It turns out one of the papers recently selected by the Philosopher's Annual as one of the "ten best" of the year was, in fact, desk-rejected by one of the handful of very top journals, and then rejected, after R&R, by another top journal, before finally landing in a different top journal!  So from desk rejection, to R&R rejection, to one of the "ten best" papers of the year!  As the author aptly remarked:  "opinions about he merits of philosophical work can vary."  Indeed!

Best "general" journals of philosophy, 2022, via the Condorcet method and via an average of both methods

The results of the most recent poll (with 479 votes) are below the fold.  Contrary to what I had thought, however, it turns out that there are ways for sophisticated Internet users to vote multiple times in this poll, just as in the earlier pairwise poll (where it is easy to do so, but one has to vote a lot to have an impact).  Despite that the results were fairly stable across both kinds of poll (a striking exception was Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society).  So here is a ranking based on the average rank of each journal in both polls (avg. in parentheses), each of course subject to the limitations of on-line polling:

1.  Philosophical Review (1)

2.  Nous (2.5)

3.  Mind (3)

4.  Philosophy & Phenomenological Research (3.5)

5.  Journal of Philosophy (5)

6.  Australasian Journal of Philosophy (6)

7.  Philosophers' Imprint (7.5)

7.  Philosophical Studies (7.5)

9.  Philosophical Quarterly (9)

10. Synthese (10.5)

11. Analysis (11)

12. Canadian Journal of Philosophy (12.5)

12. Ergo (12.5)

14. Erkenntnis (14.5)

15. European Journal of Philosophy (15)

16. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (16.5)

17. American Philosophical Quarterly (17)

18. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (17.5)

19. Inquiry (18.5)

19. Journal of the American Philosophical Association (18.5)

Runners-up for the top twenty:  The Monist (21.5) and Philosophical Perspectives (21.5)

A Condorcet poll of the best "generalist" journals of philosophy

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY (SUNDAY) AFTERNOON--MORE THAN 300 VOTES ALREADY(THANKS!); THE POLL WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL TOMORROW.

The poll is here.  Condorcet is much harder to game than the pairwise poll scheme, and it is also difficult to vote more than once, since it tracks IP addresses.  "Generalist" journals means journals that publish in several, but not necessarily all, areas of philosophy:  e.g., M&E/Language/Mind, science, value theory, history, logic.  Omissions from the last pairwise poll have been corrected.  Go to it!

A new survey on the best "general" philosophy journals

The last survey was in 2018.  This new survey uses the pairwise comparison method.  "General" here means journals that publish in several different areas (if not all of these):  e.g., value theory, metaphysics & epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, history of philosophy.  If this works, I'll run some more pairwise comparison surveys about journals in particular areas of specialization.

2021-22 philosophy job market

Philosopher Marcus Arvan (Tampa) offers his informative annual assessment, with useful comparisons to prior years.

Where untenured tenure-track faculty at the U.S. "top twenty" earned their PhD, 2022

MOVING TO FRONT FROM APRIL 4--CORRECTED

Following up on last week's post:  tenure-track junior faculty at the U.S. "top twenty" programs earned their Ph.D.s in philosophy from the following programs:

1.   New York University (8)

2.   Massachusetts Institute of Technology (7)

2.   Princeton University (7)

2.   Rutgers University, New Brunswick (7)

5.   Harvard University (6)

6.  Yale University (5)

7.   University of California, Berkeley (4)

8.   Columbia University (3)

9.  Cambridge University (2) (both Notre Dame)

9.   Oxford University (2)

9.   University of California, Irvine (2)

9.   University of Chicago (2) (both Columbia/Barnard)

9.   University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2)

9.   University of Southern California (2) (both Michigan)

Plus one each earned a Ph.D. from Indiana, DePaul, Paris I, UC Rvierside, Wisconsin, Harvard's Government Department, North Carolina, Toronto, Cornell, Pittsburgh, York (UK), Western Ontario, UCLA, and Potsdam.   Below the fold are the top twenty departments with the PhDs of their untenured faculty.  Please email me corrections. 

"Philosophers at risk" visiting scholar opportunity at Cornell

Details here:  

The visiting position is for a duration of 2–4 months, anytime during the academic year at Cornell. The fellowship provides air-travel expenses; a stipend of $7,000–$9,000 (depending on duration of stay); assistance with US visa application; full access to library and other scholarly resources at Cornell; and other, informal, academic assistance as may be needed. The visiting fellow will be hosted by the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell....

Eligible applicants include those "at serious risk of political, ethnic, or religious harassment or persecution in their country of residence," among other eligibility requirements.  U.S. residents are not eligible (even if, like Professor Kershnar at Fredonia, they are targets of political persecution for their research).

University of Chicago Law School will hire a Law & Philosophy Fellow for 2022-23

The ad will appear by early December (with a closing date for applications in late January).  The theme of the Law & Philosophy Workshop in 2022-23 will be "Political Realism, "covering both historical (e.g., Thucydides, Hobbes, Machiavelli) and contemporary figures and themes.   AOS:  Political philosophy, with knowledge of Workshop theme essential."  When the ad is live, I will post again about it.  Please email me with questions.

"Athena in Action"...

...is now accepting applications from women PhD students in philosophy for its summer 2022 Workshop.

(Thanks to Liz Harman for the pointer.)

Google is hiring philosophers...

...to work on ethical issues related to artificial intelligence.  Since Google is, like very capitalist enterprise, fundamentally about profit maximization, we'll see how much ethics they can abide!  But the job might interest some readers out there.

ADDENDUM:  As philosopher Sebastian Lutz (Uppsala) reminds me, Google has had a vexed history with its ethicists.

Finding academic mentor(s)

A junior philosopher on tenure-track writes:

I wonder if you could put a question -anonymously- to your readers, which might interest other (early career) scholars as well. How would you go about finding an academic mentor, specifically to discuss and strategize about scholarly and career-related questions at the tenure-track level? I’d be interested to learn what people in a position to be a mentor think about this: do you consider it something worth your while? Under what conditions? Of course, relationships could develop through research-related activities. But I reckon that there could be mentor-mentee relationships outside of primarily research-related interactions, too. Have some of your readers established such relationships, and have they been fruitful for both parties?

AALS Section on Jurisprudence seeks mentors and mentees

Mihailis Diamantis (Iowa) asked me to share this, which I'm happy to do:

The AALS Section on Jurisprudence runs a mentorship program for pre-tenure-track scholars.  They seek both mentors and mentees who work on philosophy and law, broadly construed.  Mentors will provide guidance on the job market process and feedback on at least one substantial paper project.  Mentees should intend to apply to tenure-track positions in one to two years.  To participate in either role, complete this brief survey: https://uiowa.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eSe92oNGbs0aTC6.  Questions: mihailis-diamantis@uiowa.edu.

A look at the 2020-21 job market, such as it was

Courtesy, as usual, of philosopher Marcus Arvan (Tampa); an excerpt:

[T]he actual number of junior TT jobs in philosophy advertised this year on PhilJobs appears by my tally to be 118, down from 224 last year. So, unfortunately, compared to last year, junior TT jobs this year appear to be roughly half of what they were last year....

In any case, here's a summary of what I found:

TOTAL (junior-level) TT jobs advertised in philosophy = 118

• Open AOS: 29 jobs (24.6% of all TT jobs advertised)

• 'Core areas' (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 7.5 jobs (6.4% of TT jobs)

• Value theory (ethics, social, political, law) = 51.6 jobs (37.8% of TT jobs) 

  • Ethics & Applied Ethics (biomedical, environmental, AI ethics, etc.): 38.25 (26.3%)  
  • Social, Political, Law, Econ: 12.13 jobs (10.3% of jobs)

• Science (including philosophy of technology & AI) = 13.8 jobs (11.7%)

  • Philosophy of Science: 4.2 jobs (3.6%)
  • Philosophy of Technology: 6.1 jobs (5.2%)
  • AI/machine learning: 1.25 jobs (1%)
  • History of life-sciences: 1 job (1%)

• History = 7.15 jobs (6.1%)

  • History (open): 2.75 jobs (2.3%)
  • 18th-19th Century: 1 job (1%)
  • Medieval: 1 job (1%)
  • Ancient: 2.4 jobs (2%)

• Social identity (race, gender, feminism) = 8 jobs (6.8%)

  • Feminism & gender: 3 jobs (2.5%)
  • Race & African-American philosophy: 5 jobs (4.2%)

• 'Non-western': 7.7 jobs (6.5%)

  • Non-western: 2.45 jobs (2.1%)

  • African philosophy: .5 (.5%)

  • Asian philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)

  • Buddhist philosophy: .5 jobs (.5%)

  • Caribbean philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)

  • Chinese philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)

  • Indigenous philosophy: .25 jobs (.2%)

  • Islamic philosophy: 1 job (1%)

  • Latin American philosophy: 1 job (1%)

• Continental philosophy = 1.4 jobs (1.2%)
• Philosophy of Religion = 1.5 jobs (1.3%)
• Aesthetics = 0 jobs (1 job in Art History)

As in prior years, the "core" is no longer very core on the job market, unless it turns out all the "open" jobs are going to philosophers in the "core" (some are).  19th- and 20th-century Continental philosophy continues to be outrageously neglected, despite it being one of the most fertile periods in the history of philosophy, hugely influential across all the humanities and social sciences.   See Professor Arvan's post for the details of how he calculates the preceding.   Comments from readers welcome.

Resources for non-academic careers

Philosopher Shane Wilkins, a member of the APA's Committee on Non-Academic Careers, asked me to share information about two new resources:

The first resource is the new Beyond Academia webpage to replace the old print edition. The goal of the website is to provide useful, actionable information for departments, graduate students, and others who are interested in a career switch. The website should be accessible to everyone.

The second resource is an upcoming APA webinar  on “Launching a Non-Academic Career” to be held 4/28/2021 at 1pm eastern time. The three panelists for the discussion will be 

• Gina Helfrich, PhD (Non-profit technology sector)
  Program Officer for Global Technology, Internews
• JC Lau, PhD (Video game development)
  Producer, Harebrained Schemes
• Shane Wilkins, PhD (Public administration)
  Management Analyst, U.S. Department of Agriculture

The facilitator for the panel will be Sherri Lynn Conklin. Please note that registration is required for the webinar, and there will be a video recording available after the fact but registration and the video link are both restricted to members of the APA.

We hope that these two resources will be helpful to an important constituency within the philosophical public and would greatly appreciate your help in making sure that everyone who would like access to this content is aware of it.

Will U.S. graduate enrollments shrink in the years ahead?

That's one prediction in this CHE piece:

Whether by cohort reductions or would-be students leaving the pipeline, graduate education will reach an eventual new equilibrium that may not match the graduate-student populations of the last decade, says Earl Lewis, who was president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation from 2013 to 2018 and is now director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Social Solutions.

“By the time we get to ’25 or ’26, we may look back and realize that we’ve reached a new plateau, that it was not as high as it was in 2010, let alone 2015,” Lewis says.

Will this mean the job market will be better in 2025 or 2030?   Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic, given the general retrenchment in investment in higher education.

Norms for job hunting by faculty recently hired into the tenure-track

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME

A philosopher elsewhere recently wrote to me wondering about what norms there are (or should be) regarding junior faculty in tenure-stream or equivalent positions shopping around for other jobs.  Of course, academia operates on something like a "free agency" system:  while schools may have obligations to tenure-stream faculty regarding continued employment, faculty do not have comparable legal obligations to schools.  But aside from legal obligations, faculty presumably have some at least modest obligations of loyalty to their institutions.   If a school, for example, makes special accommodations for a new faculty member (e.g., in teaching load, or in support for an external fellowship, etc.), then is it bad form for that new faculty member to immediately begin shopping for a new post?   But what if the new faculty member is asked by a school elsewhere to apply, is it then acceptable to apply for that post?  Does it depend on the reasons a junior faculty member is shopping around:  e.g., is it more acceptable when the junior faculty member is trying to solve a "two-body" problem, then if s/he is just trying to land a "better" job along some dimension.  Thoughts from readers?  Submit comments only once, they may take awhile to appear.

"Virtual Dissertation Groups," once again

Joshua Smart asked me to share this, which I'm happy to do:

What it is: VDG is a free service for those working on their doctoral dissertations in philosophy. Since 2014, we’ve connected students from over 30 countries to provide peer feedback on dissertation work with a minimal time commitment.

How it works: Each dissertator is placed in a group of three on the basis of a short survey about their project/area of work. About once a month, one member sends some work to the others—3,000 – 6,000 words—who then return feedback and comments in a week or so. (While this has typically been in the form of written comments, the survey now includes an option to indicate a preference for holding video discussions.)

Why it’s good: 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 even just thinking about problems in relation to persons who are geographically distant can promote creative insights. With students in programs from many states, countries, and every continent (well, except Antarctica), Virtual Dissertation Groups is a great way to capture some of these benefits!

How to Join: To sign up, just fill out the short survey at www.jasmartphilosophy.com/virtual-dissertation-groups. Sign ups are open through January 16th (conditional on availability afterward).  

Blast from the past: the job market and "stale" PhDs

Back in 2012.   There may be less of an effect on PhDs in 2020 because of the world-historic catastrophe that everyone is familiar with, and the resulting collapse of the job market.

Philosophy job postings in 2020 down by roughly 50% from 2019 and 2018

Philosopher Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga) looks at the grim numbers.

Gideon Rosen (Princeton) answers "five questions"...

...about himself, his work, his conception of philosophy, his fears, as part of the podcast series run by philosopher Kieran Setiya (MIT).  I've listened to a couple of these, but this was one of the most interesting I thought.

"Ethics" jobs and moral psychology

MOVING TO FRONT FROM SEPTEMBER 4--ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WELCOME

A graduate student elsewhere recently asked me whether someone with an AOS of "moral psychology" can apply for jobs advertised as "ethics."   I'm inclined to think the answer is "yes," although whether a moral psychology AOS is well-received will probably depend on the kind of moral psychology one does and the kind of department advertising the job.  I realize posing a question before the Labor Day weekend isn't a great idea (so may move this forward next week), but here it is.  What do readers think?  Submit comments only once, they may take awhile to appear.

"Virtual Dissertation Groups," once again

Via Joshua Smart, per usual:

What it is: VDG is a free service for those working on their doctoral dissertations in philosophy. Since 2014, we’ve connected students from over 30 countries to provide peer feedback on dissertation work with a minimal time commitment.

How it works: Each dissertator is placed in a group of three on the basis of a short survey about their project/area of work. About once a month, one member sends some work to the others—3,000 – 6,000 words—who then return feedback and comments in a week or so. (While this has typically been in the form of written comments, the survey now includes an option to indicate a preference for holding video discussions.)

Why it’s good: 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 even just thinking about problems in relation to persons who are geographically distant can promote creative insights. With students in programs from many states, countries, and every continent (well, except Antarctica), Virtual Dissertation Groups is a great way to capture some of these benefits!

How to Join: To sign up, just fill out the short survey at www.jasmartphilosophy.com/virtual-dissertation-groups. Sign ups are open through August 29th (conditional on availability afterward).

Best places to publish in ancient philosophy and related questions

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 15--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME

A reader writes:

I know the top 4 specialist journals are (1) Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, (2) Phronesis, and tied for (3) Apeiron and Ancient Philosophy, but I've wondered about, e.g. The Journal of Ancient Philosophy, and also about the importance of varying between specialist journals and general history of philosophy journals. Also useful would be advice from established scholars on the extent to which one should form one's paper differently for an ancient philosophy specialist journal as opposed to a general history of philosophy journal as opposed to, potentially, a classics journal.

Signed comments will be very strongly preferred here.  Thanks.

Directory of "Philosophers in Industry" (i.e., outside academia)

Philosopher Marcus Arvan (Tampa) has created  this useful resource intended to help academic philosophers network outside of academia, given persistent shortages in academic jobs particularly in the COVID-19 era."   There is information at the website about how to contact Professor Arvan to add a name.

Distribution of jobs by area in 2019-20

Philosopher Marcus Arvan (Tampa) has again compiled the data on the job market.  I'll repost just one data point, the number of tenure-track jobs, with the distribution of jobs by area of specialty (AOS):

Junior-level TT jobs advertised = 224

• Value Theory = 76.8 jobs (34.3%)
• Open: 46 jobs (20.5%)
• History: 27.5 jobs (12.3%)
• Science (including cog. sci) = 24.5 jobs (10.9%)
• Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 18.5 jobs (8.3%)
• Social identity (race, gender, feminism, disability, etc.) = 11.7 jobs (5.2%)
• Non-western: 11.6 jobs (5.2%)
• Continental: 7.75 jobs (3.5%)
• Religion: 1.25 jobs (0.6%)

As in prior years, we continue to see the decline of the analytic "core" areas (although some "open" jobs and some "social identity" jobs may go to folks in the "core").  Despite the foolish claim that philosophy departments in the U.S. are departments of "Western" philosophy, two centuries worth of Western philosophy (under the heading "Continental") account for just 3.5% of the the advertised positions, while non-Western philosophy jobs make up 5.2%.

It would be interesting to know the AOS of those who got the "open" jobs; if anyone compiles that data, please let me know.

More signs of the times: University of Chicago announces cost-cutting measures in light of the pandemic and the economic consequences

The University of Chicago is wealthy (but not as wealthy as Princeton or Harvard or MIT!), so this announcement is not surprising (and somewhat less draconian than Berkeley's recent announcement--e.g., there will not be a complete hiring freeze):

• All individual faculty, staff, and administrative salaries for the academic year 2020-21 will remain at current levels (except when contractually required).

• New staff hiring will be strictly limited to those fully supported by external grant funding or critical to the core mission of the University.

• Academic hiring will be slowed.

• Discretionary spending will be suspended.

• Non-personnel expenditure reductions will be implemented. The details of implementation will be directed by the provost through the work with deans, vice presidents, and other leaders.

I'm curious to hear what other schools have announced--feel free to add links or descriptions in the comments.

UPDATE:  Here's another example, Bradley University, a private university in Peoria, Illinois, with about 6000 students and a $300 million endowment, is expecting a decline in enrollment and is planning to cut expenses by 25%.

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 (and even putting aside that she's a nut).   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.)