Tuesday, February 21, 2012

M&M conference

By popular demand, an M&M conference. If you didn't get the job, what went wrong? If you did well this year, what went right? What can be done to improve your outcomes next year?

A number of people have posted a question along these lines:

How do you improve your chances for next year on the job market if you're stuck at your PhD granting institution?

This year, I was lucky enough to land a few first-round interviews and a couple on campus ones as well. However, I'm nearly certain I won't get a job.

Since my publication and presentation records, I think, are not at issue (I have around 7 or 8 papers in good journals) and I also have a decent amount of teaching experience, I'm not sure the best way to improve my portfolio for next year. Another pub won't hurt, I imagine, but I'm not sure it will help either.
In many cases, the questions came from people who had several first-round interviews. Getting several interviews is good. It's great. The job market, as you have heard ad nauseum, is incredibly competitive. I've heard from SC members (in multiple discliplines) that the calibre of candidates right now is extremely high. So if you got several interviews, you are in very good company. This is, of course, cold comfort if it did not result in you getting a job. But perhaps cold comfort is better than none at all.

I came from a so-so department (modestly ranked in my AOS). I was lucky enough in my first year to land a postdoc that required no fewer than 4 pubs a year, which means I went from next to none to having a half dozen by my third year on the market. During that postdoc, I developed a coherent and original research program. I think those factors made a huge difference in my getting significantly more first round interviews in my third year. It did not hurt that it was a decent year for jobs in my AOS. I ended up getting interviews for about 10% of the jobs I applied for. Out of that, 2 on-campus interviews.

What I think got me a TT job, however, was that unpredictable and difficult-to-quantify matter of "fit." In addition to my AOS, I had desirable AOCs, a research program and a relevant and unusual side career (developed over more than a decade) that were attractive across the university's disciplines and departments, plus interdisciplinary postdoc experience. Which is to say, I fit in several different slots for the university, which is something most philosophers would not have been able to do for this particular job. "Fit," unfortunately, is not necessarily something you can control. How you fit in a department or job may be something that is difficult to glean in advance, although knowing as much as you can about the school and department, and the research of its faculty (not just in your department, but across the unversity), can help. (If you know someone who knows someone at the dept in question, ask them for help and information.) Your idea of where you fit may be quite different from where others think you fit. I now work at a research unversity. I always saw myself (from the minute I entered college), teaching at a SLAC. I never got a single interview at a SLAC. Apparently SCs did not view me as SLAC material, and research schools viewed me as research material. How you fit is, to some extent, also a matter of luck, a felicitous combination of the right job in the right place at the right time. Getting a first-round interview means you at least look like you'll fit. Your interviews are where you have to demonstrate your fit -- that you'll be a decent, interesting colleague, a good teacher, a successful researcher, someone who can get tenure at the particular institution.

But your failure to get a job, after several interviews, may only mean that some other candidate was just a little better than you in one or more of several criteria. The differences can be small enough to be barely significant to the SC -- such that, if candidate #1 declines an offer, they'll be just as happy to offer the job to #2. (I can attest to this from discussions with SC members who are hiring this year. It is really interesting to be sitting on the other side of the hiring table.) Which is to say, there may be nothing much you can do to enhance your chances if you're already a desirable candidate. Short of killing the competition. Which would be wrong.

Generally, we think that if what you're doing is not meeting with success, there's something wrong with what you're doing, and you should change it. I don't think that advice necessarily holds for candidates who got several job interviews, unless there is some obvious shortcoming that sabotages in-person interviews, like horrendous hygiene or abysmal interpersonal skills. If you are not getting any interviews at all, you're probably in a better position to make some changes that could improve your prospects next year.

As a practical suggestion, seek out the most recently hired professor in your department, and ask them for help, now, when they have time and you're in a position to get ready for next fall. I got no useful advice from the placement director in my dept, and conflicting advice from other faculty, but I received a tremendous amount of help from a junior faculty member who came to the dept years after I finished classes, who did not know me personally at all, but was recently hired and keen to help. Find someone like that.

The floor is open.

~zombie

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually, this is very telling: "Which is to say, there may be nothing much you can do to enhance your chances if you're already a desirable candidate. Short of killing the competition. Which would be wrong."

The state of the academic job market requires reminders.

Anonymous said...

The importance of "fit" cannot be stressed enough. Take any given sub-field of philosophy - ethics, M/E, Ancient, Kant - and you will find that any given search committee will operate, explicitly or implicitly, with a certain sense of what counts as important, interesting, promising, complementing the department's strengths and needs, etc. Not to mention the fact that your work might make claims that SC members deem implausible because they conflict with their own agenda.

Anonymous said...

I think to most people here, you're jumping the gun a bit. I suspect the vast majority of people on the market did not even get APA interviews, and many people are now doing first-round interviews for jobs that are less desirable to most of us, like one-year and three-year jobs or 4/4 and 5/5 tenure-track jobs that put off their application deadlines into the new year. Some job deadlines haven't even come yet, and some people here might have all their hopes resting on those jobs. At any rate, the majority of those who didn't get jobs from APA interviews are probably hoping that it's not time yet for post-mortems.

On the fit question, I've had several interviews where I've wondered why they thought I was all that good a fit. One was for a very narrow AOS, and I was vaguely in the same direction but not a close fit at all. But they needed to interview some people, and they contacted me for an interview for a job they never intended I'd have a shot at. Another was for a job mainly about teaching one particular course, one I have no experience teaching. Another had four courses they wanted some of taught, and I could really only do one of them. They acted as if one was sufficient at the interview, but they told me they wanted someone who was a better fit, meaning someone who could do several of them. It made me think perceived fit wasn't the reason they were interviewing me.

Anonymous said...

I had an on-campus this year which, by every conceivable metric, went perfectly, yet I didn't end up getting the job. A member of the SC was nice enough to follow up with me and she made it clear that I hadn't done anything wrong. In the end, she exaplained, it was simply a matter of "fit" -- the chosen candidate was just a better overall match for the department than I and the other candidate.

Sure, sometimes folks screw up interviews and lose out for this reason, but I think many (if not most of us) receive or are passed over for jobs based on "fit." And because there is generally no way of knowing how to "fit" into a given department ahead of time, there is generally no way to knowingly and intentionally make oneself appear to be a good fit during on-campus interview. All you can do is be yourself and put your best foot forward.

"We must be indifferent toward indifferent things."

Ben said...

"A number of people have posted a question along these lines:

[...] Since my publication and presentation records, I think, are not at issue (I have around 7 or 8 papers in good journals) [...] Another pub won't hurt, I imagine, but I'm not sure it will help either."

Thinking back to when I was in a somewhat similar position, one of the best pieces of advice I got (from someone on the SC where I'd just had an unsuccessful interview) was to focus on quality, rather than quantity, of publications.

Now a lot here hangs on what one means by 'good' journals. I had several pieces in perfectly respectable journals, but lots of people have pieces in such respectable journals. If one wants to stand out from the crowd, one piece in somewhere like JPhil or Mind is far better than five in solid, respectable, but not outstanding journals.

Obviously publishing in Phil Review isn't easy, and it may seem that the 'solid' journal is a safer option, but the point is an extra publication in such a journal doesn't really transform your CV [resume]: so take some chances.

Also, of course, all SCs are different. Some may have greater confidence in themselves to identify a great writing sample, whatever journal it's published in. Also quality and quantity might weigh differently depending on institutional incentive structures. (In the UK, the government REF only looks at the top four outputs from each researcher over the given period: so it's better to have four really good publications than twelve merely good ones.)

YMMV, but that's advice that I think was helpful to me, even if I don't know whether it really was what led to me getting a job...

Anonymous said...

On fit:

This year, I had an interview for a job in area X where one committee member asked me, "would you say you don't really work in area X?"

I did not get the flyout.

Anonymous said...

One thing that several people (those who comment on posts and those I talk to in meatspace) seem to misunderstand about "fit" is that it takes a variety of forms. While it's true that "fit" includes how well your research works with (or productively against) that of others in the department, "fit" also includes general demeanor. This may be unfair, but SCs are hiring a person, and not an application file. For instance, my department just last week interviewed someone. He was relaxed, casual, and had a great sense of humor. Because we are a rather relaxed and casual department, we judged him a good fit.

But fit can also mean how well you fit into the region. Spending time talking about how much hiking you love to do and your competitive kayaking background plays much better in the mountains than it does in Manhattan. And if you talk about how excited you get doing things that, well, you can't do in the area...SCs may wonder how happy you're going to be, and nobody wants to hire someone they think will be miserable.

"Fit" is a broad umbrella for a host of concepts, any of which may apply at any one time. The best way I know of to gauge fit is to spend some time researching the campus and its environs (could you work with an interdisciplinary program on campus? can your soul be fed by what's available locally for your off-work hours?), as well as learning something about the work your potential colleagues are doing.

Anonymous said...

I went on the market a year earlier than I should have and didn't get an interview. I went on the market the next year, but was overly selective, since I had a VAP that had already been renewed and which had the chance to be renewed again in a location my wife and I liked. This is my third year on the market now, and I got my first interview this year.

I didn't get a fly out, but I can echo the 'good fit' point. But it needs to be stressed that making clear that you are a good fit is almost entirely the job of your cover letter. Something that is regularly missed is that cover letters are extremely important for most jobs on the market each year.

My first year on the market I was told to use a form letter that had information on my AOS, AOC, place I had seen the advertisement, and my contact information in case I got an interview. I was a grad student at a top 20 school and all my professors had been grad students or had academic appointments at top 10 schools at some point. They had no idea how to get a job at an undergrad only department. So let me stress to all you Leiter-rific candidates to be that cover letters matter a lot. There is no other way to signal that you are a good fit or a good potential colleague.

I know that it is true that it is not of much value even at that task. There is no way to make a judgment about collegiality in the first round of cuts that has a high probability of being correct. But schools do make cuts on the basis of such judgments. And the fact that cover letters do a poor job of showing collegiality or fit does not change the fact that they do a better job at that task than do CV's, research statements, or teaching statements.

I did slightly better this year (1 interview and 1 PFO telling me I was on a list of people to be interviewed if the preferred candidates declined) than before. The change was more teaching experience, going from ABD to having the PhD, but most importantly (I think) was the fact that I spent around 2-3 hours on each cover letter. My first year I spent around 2 minutes per cover letter.

zombie said...

Anon 11:47 -- I'm inclined to agree it's a little early to give up on this year, but various posters have requested advice on prepping for next year. Since some Smokers will be on the market again next year, I expect there will be recurring requests for help.

I live to serve.

Anonymous said...

"My first year on the market I was told to use a form letter that had information on my AOS, AOC, place I had seen the advertisement, and my contact information in case I got an interview. I was a grad student at a top 20 school and all my professors had been grad students or had academic appointments at top 10 schools at some point. They had no idea how to get a job at an undergrad only department. So let me stress to all you Leiter-rific candidates to be that cover letters matter a lot. There is no other way to signal that you are a good fit or a good potential colleague."

This is 100% true in my experience as well. I went to a top Leiter school and my placement officers only knew how to make things look attractive to top schools.

I was also told to write a minimal cover letter, that cover letters were useless, and that research was all that mattered.

Needless to say, my first year out I got zero interviews. My second year out (this year) I spent much more time applying, crafted more thoughtful cover letters, and had significantly no success.*

*Success is relative, I still don't have a job or even a VAP for next year but I at least had multiple interviews.

Anonymous said...

Oh how I long for the day when this market is a seller's market. I want to watch all you smug, aloof twits on the other side squirm and plead and cry.

Anonymous said...

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is the writing sample. I've been on the market twice with similar cvs but a different writing sample - the second time was very sucessful, the first not so much. One thing you can do is spend the year focussing on a single piece of positive philosophy whose import is obvious to those not from your AOS. Assuming the rest of your cv is good enough to get the thing read, that can make all the difference.

Anonymous said...

Feb JFP is a goddamn disaster.

Anonymous said...

11 total listings in the Feb JFP (v. 193 web-only). But hey, at least it's searchable!

Anonymous said...

Oh how I long for the day when this market is a seller's market. I want to watch all you smug, aloof twits on the other side squirm and plead and cry.

Pff. It'll never happen. It never has happened. (Not even in the glorious '60's when supposedly job placement was done over the phone.)

Moreover, you're neglecting the fact that no matter where things fall on the spectrum of buyer's- to seller's-market, there is always another, more relevant asymmetry: SC members do not care about who they hire in a way that is remotely comparable to how much job candidates care about whether they get hired.

There is no reason for tenured faculty, regardless of where they teach, to ever squirm and plead and cry.

There will be no comeuppance. Let it go.

Anonymous said...

On cover letters: I'd love to see samples of good, tailored cover letters.

Anonymous said...

"Oh how I long for the day when this market is a seller's market. I want to watch all you smug, aloof twits on the other side squirm and plead and cry." 10:37

"SC members do not care about who they hire in a way that is remotely comparable to how much job candidates care about whether they get hired." 9:23

10:37: Great attitude. I really want you as a colleague.

9:23: See my response to 10:37.

I just went through about 100 apps in an on-going TT search for a 4/4 position. I can't count the number of hours spent looking through them. And if you think I don't care--think again.

One reason I read this blog is to get a real sense of potential colleagues speaking their minds, and I must say it has made me a more careful reader of dossiers. Some of you I would cherish as colleagues--but many, not so much.

Anonymous said...

@4:33:

Perhaps you can be a little bit more understanding of 10:37. He probably didn't get a TT job this year and, therefore, his future employment prospects are probably looking grim. He might have a family to feed too. I'm not saying he's justified in his comment, but I am saying that you should be more understanding of the venting that gets done here on this blog.

I realize too that you and other people on SCs spent tons of time on applications. But believe me (and perhaps you are too far removed from being on the market yourself to realize this), the time and energy spent being a seller in this market is far more spirit crushing than the time and energy spent being a buyer. We're trying to give *you* every reason in the world to give us a secure, decent paying job. Doing that is debilitatingly exhausting. It is far more tiring than your attempts to be convinced by our reasons.

Finally, your last comment:

"One reason I read this blog is to get a real sense of potential colleagues speaking their minds, and I must say it has made me a more careful reader of dossiers."

I would really love to know how reading ANONYMOUS comments has made you a more careful reader of dossiers. I mean, do you look at a dossier and see something and think something like, "woah! this bears some similarity to something anon 3:14 said, who seemed like a real dick! chuck this dossier in the trash!" I sure fucking hope not.

zombie said...

A cover letter:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/639/02/

I didn't go to Purdue, but I found their placement website to be more helpful than most, and a damn site better than what my U offered.

Anonymous said...

Smokers, I'm a long time reader but infrequent commenter. This is my second year on the market and I actually won the lottery and landed a TT job that I'm really happy with. I also got more and better interviews this year than last. I thought I'd share what was different about my application this year in hopes that it's useful to you.

I'm from a Leiterrific school and last year had little teaching experience (read: no classes for which I was sole instructor). I had a few publications in good journals in my subfield. I had not finished my dissertation.

Over the summer I finished my diss and took my PhD in the fall. In the fall I taught four classes (with four preps) at a local SLAC. I managed to get a paper accepted at the best journal in my subfield just before applications were due. I applied to fewer jobs this year and carefully crafted each application (focusing especially on cover letters). Luckily, there were more jobs in my area this year. And the intangible: my experience interviewing last year and learning how it feels to be rejected gave me confidence and even calm as I trudged through this year's cycle. In short, I worked my ass off, tried to view last year's heartbreak as a learning experience, and got a lucky draw of job ads in my area.

Obviously this isn't a formula for success, and I don't mean to offer it as one. But I hope it's useful to at least some of you. Best wishes for the rest of the job cycle.

10:37 said...

4:33:

Come on. I did not say that SC members do not care about who they hire.

What I said (if you had taken the time to read my post a bit more carefully before dismissing me as an unworthy colleague) is that they do not care as much. And honestly how could they? For all the time you've spent poring over applications, how you could possibly have as much riding on that job as the candidates themselves? I have also pored over hundreds of applications and fretted mightily over these sorts of decisions. But for all my handwringing, it would be absurd to suggest that I experienced more than a small fraction of the candidates' anxiety.

My point to the poster above was that indifferent SC members will not get their comeuppance and that wishing for it is not the best use of anyone's energy.

I am tempted to suggest that your hasty and uncharitable reading would make you an undesirable colleague. But, honestly, that would be pretty silly. For all I know, you are a very decent sort and to suggest otherwise on the basis of an anonymous blog post would be ungenerous to say the least.

Anonymous said...

6:54:

That was a thoughtful and helpful post. Thank you.

Congratulations on your successful job candidacy.

Anonymous said...

Ben said:

"Thinking back to when I was in a somewhat similar position, one of the best pieces of advice I got (from someone on the SC where I'd just had an unsuccessful interview) was to focus on quality, rather than quantity, of publications."

As the poster who asked the original question, I agree that it is a better strategy to publish a few good articles rather than several average ones. But quantity and quality aren't mutually exclusive. I don't mean to sound confrontational or defensive, but I must ask, "Why did you infer from the number of papers that I have published that some must be of poor quality?"

A number of other anonymous posters have given me roughly the same advice. So you are not alone in your implicit assumption that the number of publications on a young philosopher's CV is inversely related to the quality of his or her work. I hope SC members actually *read* my published papers before judging their quality. If not, then I would actually be tempted to remove publications from my CV.

Here are two hypothetical questions.

1. Suppose all of my published papers are in top journals in particular subfields, but said journals are not read by all philosophers. Will you infer that I couldn't get my papers accepted at Phil Review?

2. Suppose I submit and have a paper accepted at a prestigious journal aimed at general philosophical audiences (like Phil Review, Phil Studies, etc.). Will you look more favorably on a candidate with *one* paper in that same journal if he or she has no publications in "lesser" journals?

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", then I have really misjudged how to apply for jobs.

Anonymous said...

Good ideas are hard to have. It's unlikely that someone a few years out of grad schools has 20 good ideas. However, if you *do* have 20 good ideas, I would imagine that that should be pretty obvious from the quality of your writing sample. If the writing sample is great, it's unlikely that anyone will look down on 20 publications, even if many of them are not in top journals. But 20 publications and an unimpressive writing sample...

But hey, what would I know?

I also wonder, on the other side, whether some schools might decide against people with so many publications, as they're afraid they may not get tenure. Don't some places not count publications you've done elsewhere (or, at least, their administrations are somewhat cagey about whether past publications count)? If so, then if you've got 20 articles published, might they be afraid that you've used up all your good ideas for the meantime? This may not be entirely fair, but good ideas are hard to have...

Ben said...

Re: the Anonymous original poster:

"I don't mean to sound confrontational or defensive, but I must ask, "Why did you infer from the number of papers that I have published that some must be of poor quality?""

I didn't. The description given was 7 or 8 good publications. I assumed that these were good: not average, but also not excellent. If you really have 7 or 8 excellent publications, then I find it hard to believe that you're struggling to find a job (or, if you are, it's presumably due to some other aspect of your application).

Regarding where you publish, I'm not sure I have much to say. Personally I've always favoured specialist venues, since (working in political/moral) I don't find so much of interest in 'general' journals and I also want my work to be visible to those in, say, Pol Sci departments. I can't say though whether this is optimal from a career standpoint.

My suspicion is that a lot depends on where one is applying for a job. In a larger department, that has others in your area, they may recognize that (say) Journal of Political Philosophy is a very good place to publish political philosophy. (I pick that example because our department library representative (who does M&E) recently asked whether we should cut our JPP subscription.) When applying to a small department, where you may be the only practical philosopher, then those on the search committee might not be able to distinguish between JPP and a lesser political philosophy journal - so there you're certainly better off to have published in a general philosophy journal.

It is also true, as I gestured at in my original comment, that this is all taking journal prestige as a proxy for quality of the article. Good journals publish less good articles and bad journals may publish brilliant pieces (if, for instance, you send a Phil Review quality article to a third-rate journal). Again, some departments will have the expertise to judge by reading the piece themselves, but others will rely more heavily on the journal name.

Anonymous said...

2:06 -- I teach at a highly ranked dept. I'd answer both your questions "yes". I think lots of people would, even those who teach at lesser-ranked schools.

If someone's first publication is not in a top journal (or none of several publications are) I assume either she couldn't get a paper published in a top journal after trying, OR she assumed she couldn't and didn't even try. Both make the person look less good than someone who has a publication in a top journal.

Anonymous said...

Maybe as a profession we care too much about publishing. That thought ever occur to anyone?

2:06 said...

Thanks for the info, Ben and 4:35. Had I known that philosophers in other departments think the way you do, I would have attempted to publish papers in different venues.

At my graduate program, I was taught that publishing in the top journal in one's area was more important than publishing in a journal for general audiences. For example, I was told that, when considering an article in philosophy of physics, search committees would judge an article in Philosophy of Science as being just as important as one in JPhil, even though the former general is not read by ethicists.

I followed this rule when publishing my own papers, which have been successfully received in my subfield (I have never had a paper rejected by a journal).

So I guess that I would ask you to do the following when you review applications in the future: understand that graduate students in different departments may have been taught different things about publishing than what you recommend.

In the mean time, I may tinker with my CV before next fall.

Anonymous said...

9:31am and others - perhaps you could mention in your cover letter that these are highly selective specialist journals in your subfield? I know in tenure review documents it's usual to note the selectiveness of journals (acceptance rates, ranking in the field) because many people reviewing your documents aren't philosophers and have no idea about journal rankings. Maybe don't go into the data of exact acceptance rates, but mentioning that it's a highly ranked journal might be a good thing.

Anonymous said...

@8:26 - These threads do a very good job of confirming Bourdieu's theory of academic capital. If it is true that academia substitutes the accumulation of prestige signifiers for profit, then no, philosophers don't publish too much. We're simply playing the game according to the rules. But one can reasonably ask whether the accumulation of prestige signifiers is itself a worthwhile practice. For my own part, I think it's ridiculous and has done much more harm than good to the practice as well as underlying mentality of academic philosophy. But it's unclear how this system would change. If academia were not a habitus constructed around the accumulation of various forms of academic capital, what would it look like? And even if a viable alternative existed, how would it be brought about?

Anonymous said...

These threads are VERY helpful! I'm a third year graduate student and I'm always wondering how to position myself to be an a better position when it comes time to find a job. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

2:06 wrote, "2. Suppose I submit and have a paper accepted at a prestigious journal aimed at general philosophical audiences (like Phil Review, Phil Studies, etc.). Will you look more favorably on a candidate with *one* paper in that same journal if he or she has no publications in 'lesser' journals?"

4:35 answered "yes" to this question. 4:35, would you please clarify? Are you claiming that a candidate who has an article in Phil. Review (say) and no other publications will be viewed more favorably than a candidate who has an article in Phil. Review PLUS a second article in the top specialty journal in her area?

Why hold it against someone for publishing in the top specialty journal in her area if she has also shown that she can publish in one of the top general journals? Perhaps you meant something else, or perhaps I am misinterpreting 6:02's question?

Anonymous said...

11:30:

The best thing you can do is publish a lot of articles in The Journal of Philosophy. In addition, working with famous people who think you are the greatest philosopher since Kant will greatly increase your chances of getting a job. In addition, teach a wide variety of courses and have stellar teaching evaluations. And make sure your dissertation topic as sexy and accessible as it is sophisticated and brilliant.

This is not an exact science, but it is pretty close. You do those things, and you'll get a job.

4:35 said...

12:48,
I was interpreting question 2's mention of "lesser" journals to mean non-excellent journals and so to exclude excellent specialty journals. Some people publish almost entirely in excellent journals. If you've already published in some non-excellent journals, you've shown you're not going to be one of those people.
(I'm describing the implicit thought process, not asserting it's ideal.)

BunnyHugger said...

2:08,

That's fairly good advice under normal circumstances, but I think the current job market demands more. I would suggest working with someone whose academic genealogy actually includes Kant. Being able to say in one's cover letter that "my dissertation chair's dissertation chair's ... dissertation chair was Kant" really helps one make the first cut.

Anonymous said...

If that's what it takes, then I'm not sure I want to be in academia anymore. All the advice I get takes the pleasure out of doing philosophy:
- don't co-write. If you're a woman, you won't get credit for it if your co-author is a man.
- don't publish in journals other than philosophical journals (I also have a PhD in a cognate field to philosophy, but apparently, if I occasionally publish in that field, it signals I'm not a real philosopher)
- don't publish in anything less than PhilStudies (and preferably aim higher).
- in making professional contacts, e.g., at conferences, talk only to people who are famous and try to get them to write letters of recommendation for you. Especially don't waste your time talking to graduate students or below.
- change your research focus to something sexy, topical, understandable. Your research topic now doesn't get you published in the top journals
- if you can't get your book published with anything other than OUP, CUP, MIT, and a handful of other publishers, don't bother
- If there is no teaching evaluation (only organized every few years at my institution, they also don't give teaching awards) don't invest much in teaching. It's time consuming and doesn't get you anything nice on paper

Anonymous said...

- don't publish in anything less than PhilStudies (and preferably aim higher).
- if you can't get your book published with anything other than OUP, CUP, MIT, and a handful of other publishers, don't bother


These are perfectly sensible. Why do they take the pleasure out of doing philosophy? Do you get some intrinsic philosophical pleasure from publishing in the Gambian Journal of Aesthetics?

Anonymous said...

It's too bad there's nothing in between Phil Studies and the Gambian Journal of Aesthetics.

What an asshole.

Anonymous said...

So telling people to not publish in GJA doesn't take away philosophical pleasure but telling people to not publish in Southern Journal of Philosophy does? Explain to me the existence of this magical threshold.

Anonymous said...

Explain to me the existence of this magical threshold.

There are about 100 journals better than Southern Journal. There are less than ten journals better than Phil Studies. You don't see the difference? You need magic to draw that distinction? God, what a dipshit.

Anonymous said...

What are the 100 journals better than Southern?

Anonymous said...

What are the 100 journals

Not a complete list, but it oughtta get you started.

Dipshit.