philosophy meta-forum

Discussion of the distribution of AOSs in the market

Olympe

188 day(s) ago

I found the evidence in this post really striking: http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2017/06/where-the-jobs-werent-in-2016-by-aos.html

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?

Georgi

188 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: https://philpapers.org/surveys/demographics.pl

Arda

188 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.

Mario

188 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.

Christine

188 day(s) ago

What can we do to change this?

Uku

188 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.

Aloysius

188 day(s) ago

Dark days ahead.

Samantha

188 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.

Paul

188 day(s) ago

Just to buttress Samantha's line of argument here, the push for quotas has already started: http://paq.press.illinois.edu/31/2/krishnamurthy.html

Anne

188 day(s) ago

Just to buttress Samantha's line of argument here, the push for quotas has already started: http://paq.press.illinois.edu/31/2/krishnamurthy.html

Paul

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?

Stephan

187 day(s) ago

Are we reaching the point where folks will just be open about their view that other sub-areas of philosophy are garbage? That's always been subtext, but collegiality has some benefits. What a joy it would be to have "Amanda" in your department.

Ted

187 day(s) ago

I recently had to review a lot of CVs of recent PhD candidates for a highly competitive "open" post-doc position. Nearly everyone who applied was doing something in metaphysics, logic or language for their PhD, at top schools. Also, nearly everyone claimed to have a side project on how their work related to more "practical" topics. Every single one of these "practical" projects was on race or gender. I found this a bit strange. I mean, there are all sorts of reasons to think it's good and important that people working in abstract, theoretical philosophy should contribute to more applied topics. But what seems to have happened is that there is a mini-industry on topics like the semantics of slurs, while other important topics, say philosophy of education or even bio-ethics, are completely ignored. I think it's great that young epistemologists have side-projects on, say, epistemic injustice in the penal system, but it's odd that other, equally interesting and relevant topics, say the epistemology of anti-vaxxers, are simply ignored.

Ann

187 day(s) ago

I recently had to review a lot of CVs of recent PhD candidates for a highly competitive "open" post-doc position. Nearly everyone who applied was doing something in metaphysics, logic or language for their PhD, at top schools. Also, nearly everyone claimed to have a side project on how their work related to more "practical" topics. Every single one of these "practical" projects was on race or gender. I found this a bit strange. I mean, there are all sorts of reasons to think it's good and important that people working in abstract, theoretical philosophy should contribute to more applied topics. But what seems to have happened is that there is a mini-industry on topics like the semantics of slurs, while other important topics, say philosophy of education or even bio-ethics, are completely ignored. I think it's great that young epistemologists have side-projects on, say, epistemic injustice in the penal system, but it's odd that other, equally interesting and relevant topics, say the epistemology of anti-vaxxers, are simply ignored.

Ted

How many candidates did apply?

Paul

187 day(s) ago

I recently had to review a lot of CVs of recent PhD candidates for a highly competitive "open" post-doc position. Nearly everyone who applied was doing something in metaphysics, logic or language for their PhD, at top schools. Also, nearly everyone claimed to have a side project on how their work related to more "practical" topics. Every single one of these "practical" projects was on race or gender. I found this a bit strange. I mean, there are all sorts of reasons to think it's good and important that people working in abstract, theoretical philosophy should contribute to more applied topics. But what seems to have happened is that there is a mini-industry on topics like the semantics of slurs, while other important topics, say philosophy of education or even bio-ethics, are completely ignored. I think it's great that young epistemologists have side-projects on, say, epistemic injustice in the penal system, but it's odd that other, equally interesting and relevant topics, say the epistemology of anti-vaxxers, are simply ignored.

Ted

It's not really "odd" -- candidates are clearly reacting to their best guess of what's in demand. How many people have you seen getting top jobs recently who work on the epistemology of anti-vaxxers vs those who work on race and gender?

Philip

186 day(s) ago

How do we get organized? Is it enough if we do everything in our power to stop SJW hires, bullshit area hires, and diversity hires in our departments?

Can we organize to take back the APA and other national organizations?

Philip

186 day(s) ago

This looks like a time when senior, respected members of the profession can do humanity one last service by delaying their retirements for a few years, while we fight the pseudo-philosophers and their enablers.

Raya

185 day(s) ago

Unfortunately many of those senior, respected members of the profession are among the enablers.

Anne

185 day(s) ago

Unfortunately many of those senior, respected members of the profession are among the enablers.

Raya

Indeed. It gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesn't cost them anything, and helps them assuage their guilt for their privilege. We need to identify a few senior figures who are ready to start the fightback. Then the rank an file can join in.

Helen

185 day(s) ago

Jobs, jobs, jobs. The career is this society's God.

Why, then, are we surprised that the careerist mentality is leading to the death of "professional" philosophy? It was only a matter of time...


Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.