Thursday, November 5, 2009

The November JFP is Online

It is.

131 listings total. Last year's November issue had 188.

--Mr. Zero

Update: There are also some web ads up, which you can view by applying the secret algorithm to the October web ad page. This brings the total up to 203.

Late Update: This is pretty terrible.

43 comments:

Popkin said...

A significant number of these appear to be repeats from the last issue.

Anonymous said...

This is a joke.

I think there are like 5 new positions in this issue.

Anonymous said...

Almost everything in the 184 issue already appeared in the 183 "web only" ads. Almost everything in the 184 "web only" are repeats.

I'm maybe going to be able to apply to 4 or 5 new jobs.

Awesome.

Anonymous said...

Meh. There's about 5 new ones that I can apply to. That's about what the Nov JFP yielded for me last year, and all of those were canceled anyway. So if the 20-some-odd total jobs I apply for this year do not get canceled, it will be a better year (in some ways) than last year. I'm not depressed. Yet. But talk to me mid-December when I have yet to land an interview...

Anonymous said...

The worst November JFP. I'll be applying for three more jobs. Also, it is official: basically nobody is hiring in CA this year.
Eh...doom.

zombie said...

Maybe one more there for me.

Prolacrilex said...

What new job postings are there in the U.S.? At first glance, I saw the same old stuff from October and the web ads, unless there are some new "trolling for Wittgenstein" or "trolling for ascots" Open/Open ads that I immediately filter.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUq1auQ8fkA

Message In a Bottle said...

Well, with only one new job to apply for, at least I can get back to my dissertation. :)

Anonymous said...

Also, it is official: basically nobody is hiring in CA this year.

Well, technically, Occidental, USC, and Stanford are all hiring. Having said that, I think there are more jobs in Washington state than in all of California, and that's pretty striking.

Anonymous said...

Favorite bit: "Area of competence: 20th-21st Century Philosophy".

Someone over at philosophersanon counted 18 jobs that are not repeats from October. 2 of them (Hofstra and East Tennessee) were posted on the Chronicle back in late September / early October though.

Anonymous said...

Do people know something about other CA jobs (UCLA and Caltech) that I don't? Were they cancelled?

Anonymous said...

Any reason to think that USC doesn't already have a candidate in mind?

Anonymous said...

Woops, hit the return before I completed the thought.

I wonder if they have a senior candidate in mind already?

Anonymous said...

"Area of competence: 20th-21st Century Philosophy"

Not only am I competent in 21st century philosophy, I'm producing it!

Anonymous said...

This is apocalyptic.

I am just going to carpet bomb apply to every single ad listed.

Again.

And again.

Then I am going to show up to the position's APA interviews. Even if they don't invite me.

Polacrilex said...

The most annoying and vague requests in job ads:

"Evidence of teaching abilities"
"Evidence of a potential for teaching excellence"
"Evidence of teaching excellence"
"Evidence of excellence in teaching"
"Evidence of teaching experience and expertise." [This one actually does make some sense.]
"Some evidence of teaching excellence"

When I read these I start to think that I should have filmed all of the classes that I have ever taught, and then created an 80's-style montage to send to these places when applying for jobs. ...or... I should have invited archaeologists into the classrooms right after I finished teaching to see if they could find any 'evidence' of excellence. I mean, really, if you want teaching evaluations, just ask for them. If you want syllabi, just ask. These catch-all phrases, though, have got to be banished from job ads.

Anonymous said...

also, and not for nothing, under what conditions is it cool to change "postmarked" to "received"? i'm looking at you, 'sotans. is this treatment of time some aspect of Lutheran theology I wasn't previously privy to? or are the "editors" of the JFP merely fucking with us? is st. olaf the patron saint of fail? what?

Daniel said...

Granted it's as bad as you all say it is, I'd just like to SEE the new JFP, but can't get to it through apaonline. Something's messed up at the site. I could see the old JFP and Web-only two days ago before the new JFP was up. Any ideas?

Anonymous said...

Polacrilex--

That would be a *60*s-style montage--that many 80s various media actually made fun of. Pop culture references require truth criteria too.

Though I do actually also agree with your point: if you're interested in it, ask for teaching evals/statements/peer reviews. And even more--if you ask for that--mean it. Teaching is not something to be taken lightly, even if the Leiterifics just politically feel pressure to give a passing acknowledgement to the teaching role of a professor by such platitudes.

Anonymous said...

"Any reason to think that USC doesn't already have a candidate in mind?"

This time they didn't place their ad over the summer under a rock written in small font with a list of AOS's that only about a dozen people could possibly fit. That's something. (I'm not criticizing them, they had to run an ad and they were kind enough to put it somewhere where most of us wouldn't see it and at a time when most of us (not me) would know what the ad was about.

Applicantus said...

Anon 12:40 -- so true. I get really annoyed by these too. I simply send evaluations and a teaching letter, and sometimes indicate in my letter that syllabi are available, but only sometimes (e.g. if from the rest of the ad they seem particularly invested in teaching). But if they don't ask for syllabi, I don't send any, and if they don't specifically ask for a teaching statement I don't send one. This vague language is ridiculous. I just assume when they want a particular item they ask for it.

Anonymous said...

Excellent? What is this, Wayne's World? I think schools should settle for competence, considering how rare that is. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if being a competent teacher turned out to be a higher bar than excelling, which is relative to your peers.

Just kidding, profs aren't THAT bad.

Polacrilex said...

Perhaps some members of SC's could describe what materials they want when they ask for these mysterious pieces of evidence of teaching excellence. Whenever I am putting together some of my teaching evaluations (there would be no feasible way to send evals from multiple years of teaching), all I can think is: no one is ever going to read through these. So, members of SC's, what is it you honestly want us to send with regard to "evidence of teaching excellence"? [This is not a mean-spirited question, btw. I really would like to know.]

Anonymous said...

Have you ever noticed that every job candidate who is ABD or has a Ph.D. from an Ivy and has a so-so or poor publication record also has a teaching award? It is like the door prize when they leave...here's a teaching award and don't let the door hit you in the ass! Oh yes...and good luck getting a job!

Anonymous said...

Some anon over at Philosophers Anonymous writes: "There are a significant number of TT jobs that have not been advertised in the JFP (by significant, I mean at least 10 in my area). These have been advertised in other publications, by emailing placement directors at graduate schools, and so forth."

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=123811098516950918&postID=8315195000100657559

Is anyone able to comment on whether there are a bunch of non-JFP jobs?

Anonymous said...

Polacrilex: The bad news is that "evidence of teaching effectiveness" (excellence, etc.) is not going to go away with a TT. It might be wise to assume that even the vaguest request for evidence of teaching excellence and effectiveness mirrors what will be typically required for achieving tenure, but in miniature form. There are three things to presented in a typical dossier: student evals., class observations and syllabi. (Contract renewals and tenure dossiers also present things like assessments for the particular courses and samples of student work--unnecessary in this case.)

For application purposes, including *everything* is not feasible and might potentially be disorganized, so a select group of courses, especially if they are courses indicated in the ad (or very close) would be useful. For that select group, present each semester as a package--the student evals, an observation and syllabi. With student evaluations, position a copy of the departmental questionnaire behind the evaluation data so that the committee members can easily reference it.

Anonymous said...

Regarding confusion over what SC's want for "evidence of teaching excellence":

It has become standard at most programs for all job candidates to prepare a teaching "dossier" or "portfolio." The idea is that you assemble all of your evidence into this thing and send it to all the jobs, regardless of what they ask for.

Some things that might be included in the TP:

1. statement of teaching philosophy (1-2 pages)
2. sample syllabi for courses you have taught or are willing to teach (say, no more than 5, nicely formatted and with irrelevant information like due dates and course policies omitted)
3. summary of teaching evaluations (this might mean some nice tables with average scores, what questions were asked, the response rate, schoolwide averages, etc., and might also include transcribed written responses from students where appropriate, noting whether it's an edited sample or a complete sample)
4. reports from faculty visitations/evaluations
5. list of courses taught or TA'd for, what level, whether they were for majors or non-majors
6. list or statement describing what courses (at the undergrad and grad level) one is willing and qualified to teach
7. information about special training, awards, etc.

The trick is to put together this information in a way that is easy to read, not too long (definitely no more than 20 pages, but usually closer to 10), comprehensive but not arrogant.

Probably, many schools will not even look at it. That's fine. It shows that you care about teaching and that you have a lot of teaching experience.

Anonymous said...

@ Polacrilex PS: I forgot to mention something I hope is obvious--think of your applications as being enhanced by the perfume of tenurablity. If ads are vague, well, meet that with what you understand is at work behind the whole thing. So, as I suggested, don't send a mash-up of everything you have on your teaching, but an elegant selection of what appears as best you can tell of a set of the relevant courses, with the three things that indicate what these courses are like (evals, observation/s, syllabi). I am genuinely unsure if taking an attitude of "they didn't specifically ask for it, so I won't send it" is worthwhile under very competitive circumstances. A very well organized selection of your work as a teacher will place your best foot forward despite any vagueness.

Elizabeth said...

Sorry to post this here... (does anyone know a philosophy forum where one can ask such questions?) but I'm having a brain freeze: what's a word for the opposite of "hopelessly disjunctive"? "Coherent" doesn't seem right.

Anonymous said...

Check out the Chronicle of Higher Ed and HigherEdJobs.com. They had many of the job ads up LONG BEFORE they were in the JFP (and some ads that were never in the JFP). Also, cross reference the list of jobs on the philosophy job wiki with the JFP ads... more jobs not in the JFP (although I can't find the ads for some of them... so I don't know where they came from). For more fun, get the list of schools interviewing at the Eastern APA last year. Many schools on that list never advertised in the JFP. It's fucked up.

Polacrilex said...

Anons 11:4-:

Thanks so much for the advice. The page count (closer to ten rather than 20) is helpful, although this would mean creating summaries of teaching evals instead of sending copies of them. I have heard both positive and negative things about sending summaries instead of photocopies.

Strangely, this was the most helpful piece of advice: '5. list of courses taught or TA'd for, what level, whether they were for majors or non-majors.' I always include this on my CV, but within a teaching portfolio I can offer a lot more detail.

Mind you, I never put forth the attitude of "they didn't specifically ask for it, so I won't send it". My point was simply that I wish that they would be more specific.

Thanks again.

Noah said...

Elizabeth:

"Natural".

Elizabeth said...

Noah: Thank you!!

Seriously, it's quite nice that in the midst of this job market horror you can politely help a newbie like me. Sorry for interrupting your thread, and my sincere best wishes to everyone on the market.

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth--"simple"? "unified"?

Applicantus said...

Anon 11:49, thanks for the great advice! while I have all this info disjointed, I guess putting it all together would be a good way of putting one's best foot forward... I suppose you're right: if they don't want it they can just ignore it; I went with the attitude of not flooding the SCs with info they don't ask for. But heck, why not. Awesome, detailed advice!

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth:

"Projectable"? (from Goodman's FF&F)

Anonymous said...

Sorry – this is completely off topic, but I’m hoping it might be worth a new thread.

The Phylo job wiki is visually appealing, but in all other respects it is awful, and I think we need to take action. Here are some of the problems with the Phylo wiki:

1. There is no stored history. If someone reports information, and someone else removes the information, there is no record of the report. I’ve reported application acknowledgements that have been removed, for no good reason (as far as I can tell). Someone else I know reported an interview request that was also removed.

2. There is no way to report requests for further information. A lot of schools do a first cut, and then request further information from the survivors. I’m sure many of us would like to know which schools have done this. I’m aware of two such requests, but I’m unable to post either.

3. There is no way to guess how many interviews a school has scheduled, nor whether they are scheduling all of their interviews at once or not. On other wikis, it is sometimes possible to work this out on the basis of the number of interview requests reported, and the dates.

4. There is none of the extra information that helps to determine how reliable a report is. For example: multiple reports of the same piece of information from different ip addresses, reports by ip addresses that have provided reliable/unreliable information in the past, et cetera.

I would like to advocate a move to a more traditional wiki host, such as http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/PhilosophyPositions. Is anyone out there interested? Is anyone willing to start listing jobs?

Mysjkin said...

Hopefully conjunctive?

Anonymous said...

Agreed that the "new" wiki is poor, especially compared to the one used last year. The old one was up and running and then someone destroyed it. I don't know why. However, there's no way I can tell to revert to what was posted and so it would have to be rebuilt.

http://www.wikihost.org/w/academe/philosophy/

That's where it was. If someone wants to go and rebuild it... I would be happy to move. The "new" wiki is terrible.

Anonymous said...

Hi Elizabeth, this is not directly related to your question, but it seems to me the real bit of useful knowledge a newbie like you can get from this thread is this: take an LSAT and walk away while you still can!

Anonymous said...

Agreed, the new job wiki is significantly worse than the old one in just about every way that matters.

Revert, revert!

Anonymous said...

Friends, the wikis are just no good, period. The reliability is so bad, and the heightened anxiety they produce is so great, that we'll all live healthier lives without them. Seriously.