Philosopher Marcus Arvan (Tampa) offers his informative annual assessment, with useful comparisons to prior years.
Philosopher Marcus Arvan (Tampa) offers his informative annual assessment, with useful comparisons to prior years.
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 26, 2022 at 09:38 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 21, 2022 at 10:35 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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).
Posted by Brian Leiter on February 11, 2022 at 08:20 AM in Academic Freedom, Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 18, 2021 at 04:52 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Legal Philosophy, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
...is now accepting applications from women PhD students in philosophy for its summer 2022 Workshop.
(Thanks to Liz Harman for the pointer.)
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 02, 2021 at 01:03 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
...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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on October 11, 2021 at 08:36 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News, What is Philosophy? | Permalink
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?
Posted by Brian Leiter on July 05, 2021 at 09:21 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News | Permalink | Comments (5)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on June 14, 2021 at 06:51 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Legal Philosophy | Permalink
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%)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 19, 2021 at 06:31 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News | Permalink | Comments (1)
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 AgricultureThe 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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 15, 2021 at 09:31 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News | Permalink | Comments (0)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on February 17, 2021 at 09:09 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, The Academy | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on February 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News, The Academy | Permalink | Comments (41)
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).
Posted by Brian Leiter on January 07, 2021 at 05:51 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on December 22, 2020 at 06:53 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Deja Vu All Over Again (Repostings of Earlier Items of Interest) | Permalink
Philosopher Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga) looks at the grim numbers.
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 06, 2020 at 07:20 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
...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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on October 19, 2020 at 09:29 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News, What is Philosophy? | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on September 06, 2020 at 02:21 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report | Permalink | Comments (6)
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).
Posted by Brian Leiter on August 19, 2020 at 06:15 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on June 18, 2020 at 07:48 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report, Philosophy in the News | Permalink | Comments (6)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on May 06, 2020 at 08:48 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 28, 2020 at 09:57 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News, What is Philosophy? | Permalink
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):
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%.
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 08, 2020 at 06:51 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, The Academy | Permalink | Comments (3)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 03, 2020 at 06:01 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, The Academy | Permalink | Comments (9)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 01, 2020 at 08:26 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, The Academy | Permalink | Comments (2)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on March 23, 2020 at 08:31 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Coronavirus, Issues in the Profession, The Academy | Permalink | Comments (2)
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."
Posted by Brian Leiter on March 07, 2020 at 06:28 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Karen Kelsky ("The Professor Is In"), The Academy | Permalink
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....
Continue reading ""The Professor is in," aka, Karen Kelsky" »
Posted by Brian Leiter on March 05, 2020 at 05:30 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Karen Kelsky ("The Professor Is In") | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on December 19, 2019 at 10:04 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 21, 2019 at 07:16 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers | Permalink | Comments (20)
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 12, 2019 at 07:28 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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).
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 06, 2019 at 05:28 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 05, 2019 at 07:31 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News | Permalink | Comments (34)
...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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on October 30, 2019 at 11:21 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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
Posted by Brian Leiter on September 06, 2019 at 01:20 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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).
Posted by Brian Leiter on June 05, 2019 at 05:43 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Carolyn Dicey Jennings, Philosophical Gourmet Report | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on March 19, 2019 at 08:37 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report | Permalink | Comments (23)
Posted by Brian Leiter on March 08, 2019 at 01:38 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 15, 2018 at 11:16 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink | Comments (2)
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?
Posted by Brian Leiter on November 05, 2018 at 08:01 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report, Philosophy in the News | Permalink | Comments (18)
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 |
Posted by Brian Leiter on October 29, 2018 at 06:02 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
Justice Department defends anti-trans discrimination by businesses.
Posted by Brian Leiter on October 25, 2018 at 08:26 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Texas Taliban Alerts (Intelligent Design, Religion in the Schools, etc.) | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on October 24, 2018 at 10:02 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.)
Continue reading "A reality check on the Oseroff scandal and the APA Blog (UPDATED)" »
Posted by Brian Leiter on October 19, 2018 at 06:13 AM in "The less they know, the less they know it", Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
...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.).
Posted by Brian Leiter on October 10, 2018 at 05:52 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on August 30, 2018 at 07:14 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News | Permalink
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on August 03, 2018 at 07:05 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Issues in the Profession, Philosophy in the News | Permalink | Comments (38)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on May 26, 2018 at 02:06 PM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Law School Updates, Legal Philosophy, Philosophical Gourmet Report, What is Philosophy? | Permalink | Comments (13)
Back in 2007. Opening comments here, in case readers think anything has changed in the interim.
Posted by Brian Leiter on May 08, 2018 at 08:02 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Deja Vu All Over Again (Repostings of Earlier Items of Interest) | Permalink | Comments (8)
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)
Continue reading "Where tenure-stream faculty at the U.S. top 20 (2017-18) got their PhDs" »
Posted by Brian Leiter on April 09, 2018 at 06:12 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophical Gourmet Report | Permalink
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)
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.
Posted by Brian Leiter on February 21, 2018 at 07:25 AM in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Philosophy in the News, What is Philosophy? | Permalink | Comments (4)
Recent Comments