Friday, February 20, 2009

Oh My God the JFP is a disaster

Oh my God, the JFP is a disaster. There are 34 jobs. Total. In the whole thing. Including web ads. Fuck.

Update: Among the highlights are Los Angeles Valley College's 5-5 plus committee work, promotion-by-seniority, AOC-everything piece of crap; Florida State's Atlantic's position as assistant director of the counseling center, AOS: must have a Ph.D. in clinical psychology (uh, wrong APA, Florida State Atlantic); Yale's fellowship at the University Art Gallery, affiliated with the department of coins and metals. We are doomed.

Late Update: I thought it was weird that FSU was in Boca Raton. Sorry, and/or my bad.

--Mr Zero

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

And what's up with the repeat ads for Auburn, Kenyon, and University of Cincinnati (life sciences)? All three of these schools held interviews at the Eastern APA, and, well, it is a buyer's market after all.

Anonymous said...

Philosophy would be the new astrology, but it's not as marketable. What a fucking joke.

Anonymous said...

This is horrible.

1: Why does the APA let these bullshit ads into the JFP?

2: This economy will show to administrators just how expendable philosophy departments are. They must think of the university as a business; what can they eliminate?

For instance, I can hear it now: "So, uh, just how is your research in mathematical platonism and time related to the goals of our university's "Inderdisciplinary and Inter-contextual Communities of International Enrichment and Global Sustainability"* program?"

*(or some other bullshit university promo)

Oh! or this:

"We're hiring for our new "Late 20th-century Polish Neo-Guattarian Queer-Theoretic Buddhism" Program. We have one position in our "Gadamer Studies" department. So, how does this "mo-dal logic" stuff you've listed here apply, now?"

Anonymous said...

Also, in case you were thinking there was at least one very interesting sounding job, the job in the international relations dept. at the New School has already been filled.

Anonymous said...

Let's give FSU a break. Perhaps they have an internal candidate, but there is a law in Florida that the job has to be published in a national publication. So, you pick the wrong APA to reduce the number of apps. Do you think the people that run the A-Phi-A told the FSU people that they have the wrong audience? I would bet not. They just wanted the money. Or it could be a cluserfuck on both ends. But given how the A-Phi-A has been running lately, my bet is that FSU is just fine.

Jajadav said...

hillarious!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Why is there a proliferation is niche Post-docs. If your AOS is social political philosophy or applied ethics, I'm guessing you've got your choice of post docs.

Anonymous said...

It's not FSU it's FAU. Nice job reading a basic ad, though.

Anonymous said...

The APA was so appalled at the low numbers that they couldn't bear to remove even the coin collecting Classics job. Classic.

Anonymous said...

Notice that on top of the other attractive features of the Los Angeles Valley College job, they specify that interviewers have to pay for their own campus visit. Priceless.

Anonymous said...

FAU, now that place is a dumpster fire!

Anonymous said...

Some of these ads should be honest and just put in the ad: "Men need not apply." I had two on campus interviews (one SLAC and low level research) and at *both* interviews I was told point blank (but unofficially) by a member of the search committee that "we will be hiring a woman this year". I was given an on campus interview as a backup (and to make the search legal). At one place I was even told bluntly at breakfast with one member of the SC that I am the more qualified "technically" (I have 4 good publications and 2 teaching awards), but that they will most likely be making an offer to an unpublished ABD female candidate in order to achieve diversity goals. (I was told this information by a older male member of the search committee who did not like the school's policy. Telling me this was an act of protest, I think.)

Now I DO believe in systematic sexism against woman and in principle am in favor of these policies and the goal of diversity. I think that it is good for female students to see successful female professors. But come on! Let's be reasonable! It shouldn't be the most important factor in an application. There is something wrong when ANY competent female applicant beats ALL male applicants hands down. There has to be a better way.

Anonymous said...

I can claim applied ethics as an AOS, and I spent last night crying. So, nah, we're all fucked.

Soon-to-be Jaded Dissertator said...

The zombie lies return!

Everyone congratulate Anon. 6:25 a.m. for being the first person in this job cycle to return to the good old 'Jeez, there's just no way a woman could beat out a man for a job and they only are going to get one because of Affirmative Action' meme!

I imagine, though, that some of his best friends are women (after all he does acknowledge the rampant sexism in philosophy) and he's just making an observation; no implications meant. Right?

Anonymous said...

Ethics and Social/Political philosophy are both AOS for me, and I'm in the same boat re: post-docs. The problem with them is that hardly any are on crap that reasonably good philosophy departments actually teach. I'm not sure who teaches some of this crap they're looking for, but the "Late 20th-century Polish Neo-Guattarian Queer-Theoretic Buddhism" comment is not far off--excluding the Polish bit, of course. The Polish are white, and we want nothing to do with white folk in modern academia. Pfft.

All joking aside, I blame the APA and not the job market. If you are in a department with a large concentration of students and schools in the area, your department administrator has likely received quite a few job posts from local schools looking for 1-year visiting positions. It appears as if many departments are deciding to bypass the APA entirely. Why pay $1/word for an ad when you can advertise for free to other local departments directly? Makes sense to me.

Anonymous said...

Soon-to-be Jaded Dissertator: To ignore the fact that departments (not just philosophy but across the humanities) are under pressure from their administrations to increase the diversity of the department is lunacy. It is a fact. Period. Now, this doesn't mean that all women or minority candidates who received jobs received them _because_ they were women or black. However, I know _from personal experience_ about this type of pressure. Fortunately, our dept. chair (who is a woman) wanted to hire the best possible candidate and so we brought the two best candidates to campus (which both happened to be men), much to the dismay of a number of administrators.

So, again, for those who act like this is not a legitimate issue--you are just wrong or naive. This is not to say that increasing female and/or minority representation in departments is not a worthy goal, but if this is the goal of the search why not just list that? Yes, I suppose it isn't legal... but if I were applying for jobs I would rather know that my penis disqualifies me before I go through the trouble of interviewing, visiting campus, and so forth.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a philosopher, I'm the wife of a philosopher. I've been with him from undergraduate school. We have some kids and a dream for us and them. I've watched him work hard for many many years and we finally get here and BAM! Shot to the crotch. My brilliant, brilliant philosopher is being cut down and my pain is staggering. This, THIS is his (our) reward? You have got to be joking. I told him to apply to the coin and metal job thinking that perhaps he would have a good shot since perhaps no one will apply as it's a ridiculous representation of a job. And I was serious.

Anonymous said...

Soon-to-be-Jaded-Dissertator:

Cheap reply. It is just too easy to dismiss any criticsm as "sexist." Are you serious, the only reason this could bother me is because I believe that women are inferior to men and so can't believe one could honestly beat me? No, that is stupid. Come on! I know many woman who are much smarter and more accomplished than I am (my wife is one!). So come on! Try to look at the complexity here and don't just rely on cheap political bumpersticker crap.

In THIS case it appears as though THESE schools are going to hire a woman no matter what (assuming the info I have is accurate). That is just not right. I understand their motives and am sympathetic with their goals, but this is unreasonable. And while I am sure that white men as a group (who make up a HUGE % of the market) will be fine, I am not sure that this particular white male will be. It seems as though some SC go too far. And as much as it bothers you for me to say it, I think it is just wrong that I will not get one of THESE jobs because I have a penis.--Anon. 6:25

filosofer said...

STBJD, your response to Anon 6:25 assumes that he's outright lying about what he was told. The search committee member explicitly said that he's not getting hired because of an affirmative action policy!

AA may or may not be justified--as a white male having a hard time finding a job, I no longer trust my ability to fairly and unbiasedly evaluate the arguments--but even those of us who are committed to it as a matter of principle don't need to maintain that it's never ever unfair in practice. And none of us ought to be engaging in the kind of straw man criticism you're guilty of here.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:25 a.m.

Have you considered gender reassignment?

Check out this success story that could have turned into a nightmare (on our sister blog for poli sci searchers):

http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=4018

See the second post from the bottom

Soon-to-be Jaded Dissertator said...

Apologies to all for the flippancy in my response to Anon. 6:25 a.m. (and especially to him). The blinders immediately go up when I see comments like that.

Admittedly I missed the part where he said that someone from the department told Anon. 6:25, which, I think is a legitimate issue to discuss. And I think places like these are the place to have a discussion.

In having such a discussion, I needed to frame it a little better and avoid certain things that my original comment went to. And as Filosfer says, I shouldn't resort to setting up straw men and then accusing them of sexism.

So, if we want a real discussion, I won't immediately retreat to implications of sexism and others shouldn't resort to saying things like their penis is the only thing that could realistically keep them from getting a job.

Anonymous said...

STBJD: No problem. Don't worry about it. I just don't quite know what to think about all of this. The political theory (which seems right) is clashing with the practice (which seems wrong.) I hope that these are isolated incidents and abnormal. Maybe I should go to law school and learn more about the theory ... --Anon. 6.25

Anonymous said...

Two stories from the side of the hiring committee:

We rejected an black applicant for a social/political and phil law job. He did not have a PhD, but he did have a law degree -- no philosophy training at all. The ad said must have PhD and that is necessary to get tenure in our philosophy department. The AA office went nuts. Three, 3, meetings explaining why we couldn't hire him and didn't want to interview him.

Our very next hire had to be a woman. 2 women and one man came to campus. One of the women was unacceptable and basically didn't want the job. The guy was way better than the female. The female was competent, but the guy was better. Lots of debate in the meeting, but she won out on the strength of her XX-ness.

Make what you want, but I would have rather had one more woman come to campus just so I could have had a choice between 3. Be honest about this shit. Oh, and I know that this happened to me at least twice on the job market too. One of the jobs was awesome too.

So, there are two stories for you to chew on.

Anonymous said...

RE FAU: I think the most plausible explanation is that there is someone careless and nearly illiterate in their HR office.

Anonymous said...

Not that I really want to get into the zombies, but FYI, sometimes "we have to hire a woman" is a consideration (often outside of the philosophy department's control), but also often considered to be a nicer way of letting the male candidate down, especially if the committee is split between candidates who are otherwise quite comparable. E.g., it's easier to say, "we really liked you, but we were under pressure to hire a woman this year" than to say "you weren't a clear winner because of $foo, which but-for would have made you our first choice."

(Where $foo is any number of those small intangible considerations that make or break a candidate who has made it to campus.)

So take the claim with a grain of salt. The profession is still a leaky pipeline for women, so it's probably not one's penis alone that is preventing one from getting a job.

Anonymous said...

I should add, in particular, take it with a grain of salt when your source is a faculty member who disagrees with the rest of the committee's decision.

Robert Skipper said...

To Anonymous, Feb. 20, 12:25 PM:

The Cincinnati phil of life sciences job ad is NOT a repeat, and we did NOT interview for it at the Eastern APA. We have two positions, the other being in ethical theory. There was no re-run of that ad and we did interview at the APA.

Anonymous said...

STBJD, I think you are apologizing too quickly.

The situation Anon 6:25 describes is not the norm. I don't know why he doesn't have a job (or struggled to get one), but I'm confident that in the general scheme of things, pressure from administrations to hire women is really low on the list of reasons at work.

Griping about losing a job to an allegedly less qualified female candidate is classless, terrible form and sour grapes. I'll wager it's more likely members of the faculty fed him that crap because it's just easier to tell a candidate that they were ruled out by some feature of the system than to say, We just didn't like you all that much. (I know, I've been on SCs. Oh, and I'm a white male.)

6:25, even if you in fact did not get the jobs at those two institutions for the reasons you think, it is just undignified to whine about it as you have. Pardon the expression, but, Man up.

Anonymous said...

I'm a woman on the job market this year I will also call some bullshit on the self-pitying attitude of anon 6:25 and his subsequent posts. All of the places where I had campus visits said that this year was by far their strongest pool of applicants to choose between. Any of their campus visitors would have been fantastic hires. So, given that he made it to the campus visit stage, I'd say that these places *were not* simply looking to hire a female, any female, over any male. It is much more probable that among a lot of otherwise equally qualified candidates, gender was used as a final deciding point. That's not the same as saying any female would beat any male.

And let's not forget that male professors on search committees can be sexist too. Just because this guy told you that does not mean it was actually the case. There could have been a fantastic female candidate that everyone was interested in, and he took it the wrong way, that they were interested in her because she was female, because he's a sexist prick. Birds of a feather, I guess.

Lastly, I will say that this has been a rough market year for everyone, but blaming your lack of offers on women getting "special treatment" is both pathetic and does genuine damage to females in the field. Without bragging, I will say that I kicked massive ass in my interviews and on my campus visits. I nailed everything. I did well offer-wise. But jackasses like you continue to spread the muttered rumors that females, which includes me, got their jobs because they were female, not because we are (and I am) really great philosophers. Some other jackass reading this thread will wonder in the future if I was one of the people whose offer was contingent on being female. So, thanks for that dickwad.

I hope you were one of the candidates I beat out, because I know it wasn't being female that got me the offers.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:02 writes: I'll wager it's more likely members of the faculty fed him that crap because it's just easier to tell a candidate that they were ruled out by some feature of the system than to say, We just didn't like you all that much. (I know, I've been on SCs. Oh, and I'm a white male.)


Fuck the SC members who are peddling this lie. My God, what cowards. Sure, it sucks to have to tell a qualified, desperate candidate that he didn't get the job. But, for Christ's sake, don't hide behind the issue of affirmative action just because you lack the cajones to tell someone he wasn't the most qualified for the job. The debate surrounding affirmative action is difficult enough as it is, and it's too important of an issue to be complicated by some SC member's failure of nerve.

Anonymous said...

Robert Skipper,

Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for the (inadvertent) mischaracterization.

Anonymous said...

February 21, 2009 10:26 AM
"but also often considered to be a nicer way of letting the male candidate down,"

"I should add, in particular, take it with a grain of salt when your source is a faculty member who disagrees with the rest of the committee's decision."
February 21, 2009 10:27 AM


"I'll wager it's more likely members of the faculty fed him that crap because it's just easier to tell a candidate that they were ruled out by some feature of the system than to say, We just didn't like you all that much. (I know, I've been on SCs. Oh, and I'm a white male.)"
February 21, 2009 11:02 AM


Agreed and agreed (although I am not a white male).

Let us remind ourselves that "anecdote is not the plural of datum."

Our program hoped to hire a female philosopher - as we have only one and most of our students are female - but we picked a male candidate. Our African-American Studies program committee hired a white male as Director.

Of course, there are heavy-handed HR people and heavy-handed administrators who do impose certain requirments on programs that are hiring. But, if one knows much about higher ed politics, one has to conclude that it is very rare for an academic program to be forced to hire a 'less qualified' candidate to satisfy some administrator's AA aims. This might happen at community colleges or lower ranked public universities more than at other higher ed institutions, but it is rare even among those.

Assuming that our unhappy colleague was not eagerly appyling to one of those places, I think it is most likely that either (a) the sc folks deceived him out of 'kindness,' or (b) a disgruntled sc member was expressing his own .... views.

Lying to a disappointed candidate stinks, to be sure. Furthering the myth that white men are disadvantaged in academic hires is worse. (Doing so because one does not have the guts to simply say, "We preferred another candidate" is the worst.)

docs

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:24, I don't think you understood 6:25's post. His point was not that the departments would hire _any_ woman over a qualified male, but that the departments would hire a "less qualified" woman over a "more qualified" male. Of course, by qualified he is talking strictly in terms of publications, competence in the relevant areas, and so forth. Perhaps it is incorrect to not recognize one's ability to contribute to the diversity of the department as a "qualification."

I am simply going to repeat my comment from before: anyone who does not believe that being a female or a member of an under-represented minority group puts that individual at a competitive advantage when it comes to the job market is either naive or downright stupid. We can debate how significant this advantage is (i.e., does it just better one's chances at securing an initial interview or does it do more?) and whether or not it is justified (i.e., is crayon box diversity more important to a philosophy department than intellectual diversity?).

It is true that some institutions just don't care about gender/ethnic/racial diversity. Some institutions, however, do care, and these institutions frequently will hire what anon 6:25 has defined as "less qualified" female or minority candidates. For these institutions, one of their goals is what I referred to as crayon box diversity. They want to say that X% of the faculty are women, Y% of the faculty are members of under-represented minority groups, and so forth. (Just take a look at the majority of liberal arts colleges in the North East.)

For those of you ranting about how this sort of stuff just doesn't happen--assume that it does. Would it be wrong?

Anonymous said...

I am a graduate student currently at a middle ranked Leiter program. I have been involved with two searches as a grad rep at two different programs.

In both cases, we were down to (more or less) evenly qualified male and female candidates (one had more pubs, the other had better letters etc, but more or less equal) as our final two.

In both cases, the gender of the candidates was brought up as a possible tie-breaker. In both cases, it was dismissed and the decision was made on other grounds (whether they could fulfill non-explicit teaching desiderata, for example).

So, my perception is that gender doesn't play much of a role in hiring decisions.

Anonymous said...

Without bragging, I will say that I kicked massive ass in my interviews and on my campus visits. I nailed everything. I did well offer-wise. But jackasses like you continue to spread the muttered rumors that females, which includes me, got their jobs because they were female, not because we are (and I am) really great philosophers. Some other jackass reading this thread will wonder in the future if I was one of the people whose offer was contingent on being female. So, thanks for that dickwad.

Yeah, maybe. But if what the complainer is saying is true, then even though it would have made things easier for you if he hadn't said anything about it, he's still entitled to post his complaint here. And you just don't have any evidence about whether his story is true, so you don't have anything convincing to say to him.

I'm sorry that perceptions of affirmative action hurt your reputation, but you can't blame this guy for it. It's a price of the practice, and most of us think that price is not too much to pay.

Anonymous said...

"And what's up with the repeat ads for Auburn, Kenyon, and University of Cincinnati (life sciences)? All three of these schools held interviews at the Eastern APA, and, well, it is a buyer's market after all."

U of C's explained, Kenyon's a mystery, but have you ever been to Auburn?? If so, you'll know why they're having trouble!

Mr. Zero said...

anyone who does not believe that being a female or a member of an under-represented minority group puts that individual at a competitive advantage when it comes to the job market is either naive or downright stupid.

Obviously, a lot of departments are trying to diversify and are on the lookout for competent members of under-represented groups, and so that would represent a competitive advantage. But just as obviously, there are plenty of competitive disadvantages associated with being a member of an under-represented group, or else the groups would not be under-represented. (I am not saying that the groups are under-represented for any good reason. On the contrary.)

So I don't think it's naive or stupid to think that being a member of an under-represented group might not represent a net gain in competitive advantage. It's possible that whatever advantages are more than made up for by the disadvantages that led to the group's being under-represented in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Speaking (or 'writing') of heavy teaching loads like L.A. Valley College, I saw an ad for Western Oregon University that reads, in part, ".80 FTE load (4 courses on a quarter system) in the Fall term of 2009 and Spring term of 2010;
.60 FTE (3 courses) in Winter 2010". So, at WOU, a full-time teaching load is 5-5-5 on a quarter system? That is an incredibly heavy teaching load. Is anyone familiar with other schools on quarter systems that require such a heavy load for full-time? I know of one local university where 3-3-3 is full-time for a beginning lecturer and 2-2-3 is full-time for a beginning professor.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Zero:

I agree with you 100% (you were replying to my comment in your post). The question is not whether such preferential treatment occurs, but to the extent that it occurs, and the extent to which it is justified.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:50 writes:

I have been involved with two searches as a grad rep at two different programs...In both cases, the gender of the candidates was brought up as a possible tie-breaker. In both cases, it was dismissed and the decision was made on other grounds (whether they could fulfill non-explicit teaching desiderata, for example)...So, my perception is that gender doesn't play much of a role in hiring decisions.

Are you really generalizing on the basis of a sample of two? And from the position of a "grad student rep," as opposed to that of a member of the faculty? Your observations are perhaps illuminating for the schools in question, but they aren't a sufficient basis for generalizing across the board, your "perception" or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

It's so hard to be a white straight male in philosophy!

Anonymous said...

So I don't think it's naive or stupid to think that being a member of an under-represented group might not represent a net gain in competitive advantage. It's possible that whatever advantages are more than made up for by the disadvantages that led to the group's being under-represented in the first place.

Well said, Mr Zero. A cursory review of the psychological studies on hiring and hiring bias shows that there is a very, very powerful tendency to want to self-replicate. A conscious desire to diversify one's program can partially offset this, oreven overide it for some folks, but the tendency is easily observed.

I can't count how many searches I've been involved with, but I always know which candidates will seem best to Colleague A, which to Colleague B - and which to me. And, we are all most comfortable with and responsive to the candidates who are most like us in one way or another.

I'm sorry for the anon poster who reported being told by an SC member that he was passed over 'just' for a female hire. But, I'm still inclined to think that (a) if true, this is a rare case and (b) it is most likely a case of a disgruntled SC member sticking it to colleagues or a coward trying to divert anger.

docs

Anonymous said...

At 12:03,

In each case, I was in on the faculty meeting where the decision to make an offer was made: I read all the relevant dossiers and talked to several faculty. I don't see why my perceptions are somehow illegitimate or unworthy.

I don't remember making a generalization. I was simply saying that my experience (my perception) was that gender didn't and doesn't play much of a role in hiring decisions. I said this because, you know, that's been my experience. But if it bothers you, I hereby and forthwith disavow any implication that I have perfect knowledge of all hiring done by all departments. I haven't officially documented my experiences in a peer-reviewed journal either. I'll work on that.

I simply find it interesting that, in two different cases, gender wasn't even a tie-breaking consideration. Furthermore, gender was explicitly brought up and rejected. And this was true despite the fact that each school was formally committed to "diversity."

Some have suggested that the issue is whether the explicit advantages of a commitment to diversity and affirmative action either do or do not outweigh the less obvious detriments that underrepresented groups suffer.

However, I just wanted to point out that, in the two cases I know of, the explicit advantages of pursuing "diversity" candidates were given very little weight. This wasn't necessarily due to bad faith or sexism (overt or otherwise). It was just that other priorities took precedence.

At the very least, this challenges the idea that a diversity candidate will have any kind of real advantage even when diversity is sincerely viewed as a desideratum.

zombie said...

The economy is terrible. The job market is terrible. There are literally hundreds of candidates for every position, including the postdocs. (I've gotten letters from those postdocs telling me there were multiple hundreds of applicants.) There is no single reason -- not sex, or race, or AOS -- that accounts for why or why not any one of us is unsuccessful this year. The bottom line is it is just a comprehensively terrible time for anyone to be looking for a job in philosophy. Go over to Leiter Report and see how few hires there are and consider how many hundreds were left in the cold.

Anonymous said...

Well, being a woman didn't pan out for me on this job market.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon 8:02am, Feb 22:
(wife of philosopher with kids and dreams)

Advice requested from you -- to a fellow partner-of-philosopher? How are you dealing with/taking care of your staggering pain at seeing him in misery?

Anonymous said...

If this is the best that the brightest of our profession can do in theorizing their own experiences of gender in their career field, then it is no wonder that our discipline is slowly but surely ceding its ground to those who have a better grip on current social realities. And, I would add, this loss of status is deserved. Too bad for us.

Even just a little self-consciousness should enable you to see that a host of other factors influence the majority of academic hiring processes and that some of these factors tend to systematically disadvantage women. Still. Even today. It really happens. Look at the numbers.

One resource: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doctoral_2004.html.

Another: http://76.12.57.18/documents/governance/committees/Women%20in%20the%20Profession%20CSW.pdf.

Trends seem to be warming but there is still a significant gap between PhDs by gender and T-T jobs by gender. You cannot refute statistical gaps such as this with your irrelevant anecdotes.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:08 am, your skepticism is admirable. However, it is difficult not to notice when the only job candidates hired ABD are women and minorities. ABDs tend to be weaker teachers/researchers compared to seasoned professors with 4-5 years of post-Ph.D. teaching/research experience, usually a string of VAP positions (commonly white males). Consequently, women and minorities get stigmatized as poor professors, when they just need more experience to be on the same level as their seasoned white male counterparts. By the time they get the experience, the damage has already been done. Without affirmative action, no ABDs would be hired. All new hires would have at least 2 years of experience outside the Ph.D. and the stigma would (hopefully) disappear.

Anonymous said...

Oh, for crying out loud.

Is there bias against members of underrepresented groups? Yes.

Is there pressure to hire people from underrepresented groups? Yes.

Are these forces evenly applied across all schools and contexts? No.

Is there any way to measure which one has more impact in the aggregate? Probably not.

In individual cases, will things be swayed in inappropriate ways because of one or the other of the above factors? Yes.

What can job candidates do about it? Very little. Perhaps use just first initials on CVs.

What can SCs do about it? Try their best to be fair and just.

Will they try? Some will.

Will they succeed? Maybe some will.

Is there anything really worth saying (year after year) on this topic? Doubtful.

Anonymous said...

So, I got the job! It seems as though the gender thing didn't matter as much as it seemed after all. Apparently, the information I got was exagerated. I just wanted to let you all know this! Good luck everyone! -- Anon 6:25

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:19 -- that isn't quite right. I am a white male who got a tt job abd (from an unranked program). I also know a number of other white men who did. So it isn't just woman and minority candidates.

Anonymous said...

However, it is difficult not to notice when the only job candidates hired ABD are women and minorities.

This just isn't true. E.g., nearly everyone out of my program gets their first t-t job while ABD, and they've all been white males. You might only notice whether someone is ABD when the hire is a woman, but that's just confirmation bias.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:11,

The most sensible thing I've read on this thread so far.

Anon 6:25,

I hope to god you are embarrassed by your earlier posts. Shame on you.

Anonymous said...

it is difficult not to notice when the only job candidates hired ABD are women and minorities.

If this were true it would be interesting and perhaps worrying. It's not true, though, so you shouldn't worry about it.

James said...

I believe Anon 6:25 should turn down the job offer and insist they hire a woman (or minority) just like they promised him they were going to do.

Why would a good, intelligent white male want to work with women-loving liars anyway?

Anonymous said...

Recommended reading:

"No tenure? no problem. How to make $100k a year as an adjunct English instructor," from THE CHRONICLE REVIEW (March 6, 2009).

Anonymous said...

wow. there's some real d-bags in our profession.