Thursday, February 18, 2010

February JFP is Online

Apply the secret formula. 33 ads.

--Mr. Zero

Update: As commenters have pointed out, web-only ads raise the total to 70. Does it seem like there's an above-average amount of tenure-track jobs here?

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is it gone?

Mr. Zero said...

No. I refreshed the page and it's still there.

Anonymous said...

https://member.apaonline.org/documents/JFP185.pdf

Anonymous said...

There are as many ads again in the web only ads. If you're logged in use:

https://member.apaonline.org/185additions.aspx

Anonymous said...

70 including the web ads, but of course there's the usual doubling effect, so the numbers will be less.

https://member.apaonline.org/185additions.aspx

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the web only ads just posted.

FemPhil said...

What's the deal with the statement about internal candidates on the Drexel U. Social-Political position? Is that a "we had to advertise this for legal reasons, but don't bother"?

A1/58 said...

From another thread:

My conclusion: The pace of postings is, so far, the same as last year's.

Add to the mix: according to Phylo, 22 positions have been filled, and 15 other offers have been made.

I haven't counted to find out how many of these are TT or otherwise desirable VAP's or Postdocs. I'm (supposed to be) grading midterms.

Anonymous said...

What's the deal with Florida running another ethics ad?

zombie said...

If you speak Dutch and want to move to Belgium, there are opportunities there.
I bet Belgium is nice. I love their chocolate. Scandinavians are happy people. Maybe some of their philosophers are even happy.

And there's always Beirut.

zombie said...

"We seek candidates who are trained broadly in theoretical or philosophical ethics..."

As opposed to what?

FemPhil said...

Zombie: I thought the same thing. As opposed to business ethics? Fly-fishing ethics? Men's figure-skating-judging ethics?

Anonymous said...

Philosophers are not the only folks who apply to jobs at ethics centers. Folks come out of religious studies, communications, business programs, political science among others. Despite the parochialism cultivated in philosophy departments (e.g. the comments), sometimes advertisements have to cast their net more broadly and not exclude other disciplinary backgrounds. And, you know, there are other ways of studying ethics than philosophical ones. . ..

Anonymous said...

I'd go even further and say that "ethics" in many institutions borders on a sort of cultivation of character that is decidely atheoretical. Google up some "leadership and ethics" programs and you'll get the idea.

Anonymous said...

What is "the philosophy of freedom"? (VAP at Arizona) It's listed disjunctively and conjunctively with "the intersection of philosophy and economics," but I'm not sure if the latter disjunct/conjunct says anything about the former.

Anonymous said...

I'd go even further and say that "ethics" in many institutions borders on a sort of cultivation of character that is decidely atheoretical.

Though, of course, one may have sophisticated philosophical reasons for emphasizing the cultivation of character as central to the practice of ethics.

Anonymous said...

What's the deal with the statement about internal candidates on the Drexel U. Social-Political position? Is that a "we had to advertise this for legal reasons, but don't bother"?

This is just speculation, but I wonder if that particular sentence in the ad is just a formality which Drexel normally includes in their ads. If there is an inside candidate, then the legal obligation is satisfied simply by running the ad. I don't see any advantage accruing from implying there's an inside candidate. To the contrary, it would undermine the appearance of legitimacy, and that's not obviously to anyone's benefit.

Dr. Killjoy said...

Here's a general word about the nature of Job Ads from your ol' pal/bete noire Dr. Killjoy.

Quite often search committees will have an interest in a very specific sort of candidate but due to various administrative offices meddling with and often substantially rewriting the job ad, that interest fails to be reflected in the final product. So, while you all see a published ad that seems to be saying "All Applications Welcomed", we on the search committee actually initially wrote an ad that at least implicitly stated that applications from candidates of sorts X, Y, or Z would be tossed straight into the bin. We don't like this anymore than you do as it wastes our time and yours. As much as you might like to rage against a department, disingenuous ads rarely are such at the initial department level.

Hell, if I had my druthers the ad would say "Must (i) have PhD in hand, (ii) authored a publication at B+ level journal or better, (iii) be recommended by philosophers that I respect (or with whom I have at least a passing familiarity), (iv) be able to demonstrate competency in philosophical or mathematical logic, (v) have for the most part used the word "hegemony" only in an ironic or jokey manner, (vi) come off as neither a mouthy asshole nor a shrinking violet, and (vii) be someone for which the description "white dude" is non-negligibly inapt.

One day, my druthers, have you I shall!

Anonymous said...

Killjoy's post is a truly valuable window into search committees and academic politics more broadly. I too wish that requirements like those were explicitly stated wherever they're at work.

But more seriously: You want to hire non-(white dudes), as long as they don't use a critical vocabulary that is totally appropriate and productive for analyzing the fact that there are so few non-(white dudes) in philosophy?

Love it. Keep up the good work. Thanks for the insight.

Anonymous said...

4:10 FTW!

Anonymous said...

@4:10 PM

I found your response to Dr. Killjoy orthogonal to his/her comment. You seem to object to a view which I'm not sure Killjoy expressed. Do you object to any of the stated criteria and, if so, to which?

(I think the topic in the vicinity of this exchange is important. And for that reason I think it's important to state it clearly.)

Anonymous said...

4:10 here. Thanks for the encouragement to clarify.

I find most of Dr. K's post informative, and I do wish that unstated criteria were stated more often. I object to none of the criteria per se, and I'm not sure what 'objecting to' would mean here, since they are, really, one person's druthers.

However, Dr. K’s post, which I'm not mistaking for a transparent window to its author, evinces a common tendency that I believe *is* problematic, in terms of one way that criteria (v) and (vii) may relate to one another. It seems to me that 'hegemony' is a perfectly philosophically valid term for talking about the predominance/preponderance of white, male, middle or upper class persons in US academic philosophy. You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to argue that "white dudes" have not exerted tremendous influence over not only academic philosophy, but also the norms, practices, and concepts that academic philosophers consider to be philosophically legitimate, as well as who is, right now, a professional philosopher. White dudes enjoy a hegemony over US academic philosophy, which is maintained in the journals, schools, and professional networks that, for better or worse, a lot of us (myself included) regard as B+ and admirable (see criteria (ii) and (iii)). And, most importantly, I think that this hegemony is a legitimate object of philosophical (i.e., not only sociological) inquiry.

So I am resistant to uncritically dismissing methods and vocabularies that are effective for talking about historical and present exclusions in philosophy as not 'properly' philosophical, by virtue of standards generated in philosophy. I don't like such tendencies politically, and, as far as I can separate the philosophy from the politics, they seem a little question-begging.

I applaud Dr. K for working to make academic philosophy less hostile to non-(white dudes). However, there are philosophers who would like to see more non-(white dudes) in philosophy, but who are extremely skeptical of areas of philosophy that directly question the present hegemony and the traditional philosophical concerns and norms connected to it (i.e. critical race theory and certain branches of feminist philosophy and epistemology). The skepticism frequently takes the form 'that's not (rigorous) philosophy', without consideration of the history that has generated prevalent standards of philosophical legitimacy.

I read Dr. K’s remarks as symptomatic of this common double-desire: a wish to invite underrepresented persons into philosophy and, simultaneously, a wish to preserve practices and standards and ways of speaking that gained predominance while those underrepresented persons were, for the most part, totally excluded. That may be an unfair reading of the post, but I don't think it's an unfair reading of very prevalent discourses in US philosophy right now.

I seriously doubt that those two wishes can be fulfilled simultaneously. I don't mean that every non-(white dude) philosopher is, or should be, engaged in work that self-consciously critiques what I've called hegemony. I do mean, though, that if my students (and teachers) are any indicator, philosophy in the US is beginning to include voices that, two or three generations ago, were almost entirely outside it. And it's beginning to be held accountable to questions raised by those voices, and acknowledge contributions made by them. With this in mind, I suspect that academic philosophy is going to look very different in two generations from now than it did two generations ago-- in terms of who is doing it, what it's good for, and what counts as philosophically interesting and valid. That’s exciting: I don't know what philosophy is if it doesn't mean questioning what counts philosophically legitimate.

Anonymous said...

"non-negligibly inapt"? Someone wanna break that down for me?

Anonymous said...

Anon@4:10, thanks for clarifying.

I'm sympathetic to much of what you wrote (in your clarification), but I also think you misunderstood Dr. Killjoy's comment. (Or perhaps I misunderstood Dr. K's comment).

Two things: 1) Dr. K didn't dismiss entirely philosophical use of the term 'hegemony'. (That's the point of the "for the most part" qualifier). Rather, I took Dr. K to object to uninsightful uses of that rather loaded term. If that's right, then I'm sympathetic to Dr. K's sentiment. I'm all for the cause; however, a significant amount of the work I've seen flying under the banner of (let's call it) 'hegemony critique' is sloppy and sophomoric. I wish that weren't the case because I think the underlying issues concerning sex, race, class, etc. are really important.

2) I took Dr. K's comment about "non-negligibly inapt" uses of 'white dude' simply to express a desire for, er, the whiteness of a dude not to play an adverse role in the evaluation of said dude's application for a job. That, by itself, doesn't seem objectionable.

Anonymous said...

I have a question (which perhaps might be the topic of a new thread):

In looking at the placement record for one top-30 program, I noticed that, of the eleven who graduated from the program during 2007-09, four had either post-docs or research positions at that university. I'm inclined to think this is a case where a department is taking measures to help some of its recent graduates during this horrible job market. If that's right, are other departments and/or universities taking similar measures? Relatedly, are there departments which have extended funding for ABD job market candidates who are coming up short? I ask, in part, because grad student labor is significantly cheaper than VAP labor.

zombie said...

Can I cut in with a question about campus visit etiquette?

I have a fly-out on Monday. I'll be picked up when I arrive, and shuttled around by the dept during my campus visit. On the return flight, they booked me a weird flight that requires me to not just change planes, but change AIRPORTS (in NYC). This will mean I have to take a cab from one airport to another. (I'm assuming this inconvenient weirdness was overlooked during the booking of the flight.)
So, should I ask during my visit about expensing them for the cab ride, or is it just assumed that I will be expensing them for something, such that I don't need to mention it? If I should ask about it, should I do it early on, or just before I leave, or...?

What kind of stuff normally gets expensed and reimbursed on a campus visit?

Anonymous said...

To Zombie: a well-organized campus visit will include a sit-down with the department administrative staff member who will handle your travel claims and go over everything with you.

If they don't schedule that for you during your visit, ask for it when you arrive. That will be the most graceful time to raise the question about reimbursement of the cab ride. And, although this is a long shot, it's possible they can rebook the odd flight to keep you at the same airport for changing planes. (That could happen if they have a contract, e.g., with airlines that allows such things.)

Anonymous said...

If, like on my campus visit last Wednesday, Zombie's flights were booked and paid for by the department, then there would be no such admin meeting, because they are assuming there is no need for Zombie to be paying anything - they presumably already did. And so if they just did not notice they are making him switch airports, his question is a tough one... i don't know what to say; just clarifying that it is a good question and there may not be a good time to ask during the visit. Maybe you could email the admin person who booked it, *now*?

Anonymous said...

Dr. K's comment may be something of a Rorschach blot. I agreed with it, too, but I thought the point about 'hegemony' was that using that word is highly correlated with bullshit, rather than that it constitutes bullshit. I also find it an inappropriate word to use for the situation of white males in philosophy because it suggests (to me) that non-(white males) in philosophy are oppressed. (But that's just my 'reader reaction', I freely admit.)

Zombie:
definitely talk to the department administrator. And if for some reason there's no convenient way to do this, I think you are entitled to assume they'll pay for the cab. (If my department inadvertently booked a visitor a trip that required an airport change we'd be very embarrassed and apologetic and would definitely pay for the cab.)

Anonymous said...

Do you view the number of new advertisements as a positive turn in the job market?

Anonymous said...

Do you view the number of new advertisements as a positive turn in the job market?

No; why would anyone think the Feb JFP is indicative of a positive turn in the job market?

Granted, I was looking for jobs for which I could apply. However, with that caveat, I found only two tt-jobs and a handful of 1-2 year positions.

zombie said...

I wouldn't view it as especially positive. It's pretty slim pickings. There's nothing in the new crop for me to apply for.

I've been visiting the other job listing sites weekly, and find them much more useful of late.

Xenophon said...

Anon 6:22, VAPs are actually a lot cheaper than grad students. Stipends per course might actually be higher for them, but even if that's not the case, health care costs are cheaper: they're pretty much the same for any employee, so the more courses that person can teach, the cheaper per course. Plus you don't need to give tuition to VAPs.

Of course, that's assuming the school isn't planning on supporting the grad student anyway for the year. If a university is going to give the grad student a fellowship year or teaching year regardless, then yeah, the grad student is cheaper. I'm assuming we're talking about advanced grad students who have run through their initial four or five years of guaranteed support.

Also, I suspect that in addition to padding placement stats, your own students are easier to hire because you know them. And a lot of R1 schools don't want to spend the time interviewing for a job that'll only last a year or two.

Anonymous said...

Killjoy should have said 'discourse'