philosophy meta-forum

Discussion of the distribution of AOSs in the market


126 day(s) ago

I found the evidence in this post really striking:

TOTAL jobs = 446

Value theory = 163 jobs (36.5%)

Open AOS: 112 jobs (25%)

Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 38 jobs (8.5%)

History = 38 jobs (8.5%)

Science (including cog. sci) = 38 jobs (8.5%)

TT jobs = 204

Value Theory = 68 jobs (33%)

Open: 36 jobs (17.6%)

History: 25 jobs (12.3%)

Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) = 22 jobs (10%)

Science (including cog. sci) = 15 jobs (7%)

Non-TT jobs = 242

Value theory = 95 jobs (39%)

Open = 76 jobs (31%)

Science (including cog. sci) = 23 jobs (10%)

Core (mind, language, metaphysics, epistemology, logic) =16 jobs (6.6%)

History = 15 jobs (5%)

What is going on with the discipline? Are most open jobs going to "core" people, or is "core" just becoming an increasingly marginalized part of the profession, despite its self-image?


126 day(s) ago

Another factoid to consider is that the philpapers survey found about 35% of primary AOS's are core. No idea what this means, but it is hard to believe that all of the Open jobs are breaking that way:


126 day(s) ago

It was nice of Marcus Arvan to put this together.

A noteworthy reaction from Alex Guerrero at DN: "What I think is surprising is that there were more jobs in the combination of Race, Feminism, and Non-Western than there were in all of Mind, Language, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Logic combined."

I guess that is surprising in a sense, and I don't mean to single out AG, who I think is a smart guy and a good philosopher. But that part of the data is thoroughly unsurprising to anyone who paid much attention to the job market this year, particularly with one's career on the line. I hope people will remember this data the next time someone makes a snide comment about mediocre white men who can't get jobs. The market is very different from what people who went out even 5 years ago remember.


126 day(s) ago

Guerrero worded his post too softy. It's DN after all. Basically these days a core philosopher who wants to get hired needs to also do some SJW work in the style of Stanley or Haslanger. SAD.


126 day(s) ago

What can we do to change this?


126 day(s) ago

We'd better do something quick, Christine. Reading Guererro's post, it's not hard to see that he wants to push even his first-rank department toward hiring a bunch of these SJWs. If a flagship department like Rutgers goes to the dogs, and it won't be the only one, then academic philosophy is doomed. Political posturing and shaming, coupled with merit-free 'scholarship', will take the place of rigor and objectivity. Where you stand will matter more than how you got there. It's already like that in these pseudophilosophical subdisciplines of philosophy.

This is what comes of decisions decades ago to let ideology masquerading as philosophical subdiscipline to be counted as legitimate. The nods and smiles didn't seem so bad then. Hardly anyone imagined that they would one day threaten to unseat the actual discipline itself.

We need to get very organized and very quickly.


126 day(s) ago

Dark days ahead.


125 day(s) ago

Uku is right. In fact, many of the top departments have already started the process of decline with their recent hiring practices. At some it's probably already irreversible. And when big names start retiring or dying at these places, it's not like the SJWs and worthless diversity hires who serve at their whim are going to suddenly turn to ideology blind, merit based hiring. No way. They'll just hire more of their friends and ideological allies.

At the moment, there is still an opportunity for mid-level schools to shoot up the ranks just by hiring based on merit, rather than based on politics and demographics. But soon, as more and more SJWs get into positions of power, the journal system itself will be completely corrupted. The enemies of philosophy will get appointed to editorial boards and work to eliminate triple blind review to better ensure authorial "diversity" at top journals. Then will come quotas for women and minorities in journals.

Things will get worse, but make no mistake: dark days are already here.


125 day(s) ago

Just to buttress Samantha's line of argument here, the push for quotas has already started:


125 day(s) ago

Just to buttress Samantha's line of argument here, the push for quotas has already started:


Christ. Even though we've seen from the data that editors favor women when they know the identity of authors? Do these people have no shame?

posts per page.