Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Shifting deadlines due to Sandy

I just noticed that the deadline for the Chicago Society of Fellows has moved from November 1st to November 15th due to "adverse weather conditions."

This seems like a very solid thing to do; good on the Chicago Society of Fellows. I wonder if any other schools will be more lenient on application deadlines for similar reasons.

If you see any other changes in deadlines that are worth sharing, consider this an open thread to note them.

Another important thing to note: Interfolio seems to be lagging behind because of the weather too. In sending a request today for them to upload letters to HR websites, the response was that they will be uploaded on Monday. Maybe it takes them that long anyway, but something to keep that in mind, folks.

Also, I hope all Smokers affected by Hurricane Sandy are now all safe and sound and warm.

Just remember, if you survived the FRANKENSTORM, you can survive the market.

- Jaded, Ph.D.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Emphases added

Yes. We're still talking about this. From another Chronicle post about women in philosophy:
Changes in the way philosophy is taught may be alienating some women, says Brian R. Leiter [...] 
"Philosophy, in the English-speaking world, has migrated closer to the sciences, and places a high premium on technical skills, logic, and dividing problems into lots of small pieces," Mr. Leiter says. 
And while many science and mathematics disciplines have been working to attract women, "philosophy hasn't been particularly self-conscious in developing measures to counteract the problem," he says. 
Sally Haslanger, a professor of philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says the factors that may hold women back include "implicit associations linking philosophy with masculinity, both in the minds of instructors and students," not enough good mentoring, and "cold and alienating environments" in many philosophy departments.
Given the way it was reported, the obvious inference to draw (but keep reading) from BL's quote is: "Women can't do these hard things that philosophy has migrated towards. So, there's a gender problem." Of course, this is the exact inference that SH tries to block by calling our attention to "implicit assumptions linking philosophy with masculinity," which in turn lead to lack of "good mentoring," and "cold and alienating environments."

After noting the somewhat shoddy reporting at the CHE, BL makes efforts to block this inference too. He notes that:
My point also wasn't that changes to how philosophy is taught have driven women away, but rather that as philosophy migrated closer to the sciences in the Anglophone world over the last fifty years, it acquired the same kinds of problems those disciplines have had with gender equity--but unlike many of the science fields, philosophy has not, until recently, been particularly self-conscious about this or pro-active in remedying it. (As Ms. Mangan and I discussed, why the sciences had these problems is a topic unto itself--no doubt sexual harassment, gender stereotyping and other explicit and implicit biases have all played a role. But philosophy would do well to emulate what many science fields have done to try to rectify the inequities.)
BL's parenthetical remark is right, of course, and his story holds just as well for philosophy as it does for the sciences. I just wish he had said it more explicitly.

So let me clear up any confusion for readers of the CHE article who might not read BL's addendum. I'm going to try to be as clear as possible here, hence the caps:
PHILOSOPHY'S GENDER (AND RACE AND SOCIOECONOMIC) PROBLEMS ARE NOT MERELY BECAUSE SOME PARTS OF IT ARE TECHNICAL OR ANALYTIC OR USE LOGIC OR THAT WE TRY TO RESEMBLE THE SCIENCES. PHILOSOPHY'S GENDER (AND RACE AND SOCIOECONOMIC) PROBLEMS ARE BECAUSE OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT BIASES AND GENDER STEREOTYPING.
Let's flesh out the story a bit more. I see a threefold problem the parts of which all sustain each other.

First, there has been a campaign or - less conspiratorially - a tendency to delegitimize sub-disciplines of philosophy that do not resemble or use the same tools/concepts as the so-called analytic "core." So, if you do something that's further away from - oh, why not just say it? - metaphysics and epistemology, (like, say, history of philosophy or care ethics or feminist philosophy or philosophy of race) you aren't doing REAL PHILOSOPHY. (To be fair, this isn't anything new. Do a little history and you'll quickly discover that if there's any characteristic definitive of philosophers it's a tendency to tell other people they aren't doing philosophy the right way.)

Second, these fields tend to draw a more diverse pool of philosophers than the "core." Because of this, those who do research at the peripherhy of REAL PHILOSOPHY (which looks like science) are assumed to not have the analytic chops to do REAL PHILOSOPHY. I mean, if they did have the chops, then obviously they'd do REAL PHILOSOPHY rather than whatever pseudo-philosophy they concern themselves with. (Hence comments like, "She does feminist epistemology (or history or ethics), but she's also a really good philosopher.")

Third, these two sociological facts feed our implicit and explicit associations between masculinity and the methods and problems of the so-called "core" of analytic philosophy. They feed the oft-unquestioned stereotype that there are girly (soft) ways of reasoning and girly (soft) problems that women love and men hate and manly (hard) ways of reasoning and manly (hard) problems that women hate and men love. And, it just so happens that the girly ways of reasoning are used in disciplines far away from the core of REAL PHILOSOPHY, which uses manly ways of reasoning.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

To reiterate: philosophy's gender problem is not due to the fact that it employs "technical skills, logic, and dividing problems into lots of pieces." Philosophy's gender problems has to do with "sexual harassment, gender stereotyping, and other explicit and implicit biases."

-- Jaded, Ph.D.

(Unrelated: A few of you have e-mailed me questions in the past week. I haven't forgot about them. I hope to post them soon.)

Monday, October 29, 2012

Going stale

An anonymous Smoker writes to ask:

I came from an SLAC and am currently in my last year of the MA program at well-respected graduate department (it's not ranked by Leiter, but given an honorable mention).  The program here requires you to start and finish your MA before you can apply into the PhD program.  I have been having great anxiety about my prospects of getting into a strong PhD program (because of the lack of financial aid here, I will not be staying on at my current school), and then if I do get in, there are of course the well-documented terrors of the job market.

After some long and intense conversations, I decided with my partner's support that it was in our best interests for me to stop (temporarily) at the MA and spend some time gaining experience and other marketable qualities (which is not to say that the skills gained from doing philosophy are not marketable, but are probably not immediately appealing to employers outside of academia) before hopefully one day returning to complete my PhD at another institution. In the meantime, I plan to continue to read, fill in my philosophical gaps, research and write when I can and I would like to make an attempt at publishing while I'm off the academic route.

This brings me to my questions for you and all the other Smokers. Is there a danger of going stale in the eyes of admissions departments if I have a large gap since my MA, especially if my grandiose plans of reading, writing and publishing don't come to fruition (as they often don't)?

My other question has to do with publishing.  Will I not be taken seriously by journals and conferences because I only have a MA and am not currently working toward a PhD, in other words that I have no institutional affiliation?  Blind review theoretically should prevent this, but I guess the editor could reject me on that basis alone, right?  Without the benefit of professors and peers commenting on my work and helping me improve it (although there is nothing preventing them from helping a former student, their efforts and time is and should be focused on their current students), it is unlikely that my work would be at the same caliber of the philosophers who get published in the top journals.  From reading your blog and others, it seems clear that not only does it matter that you publish, but also where you publish, and publishing in un-established or generally unknown journals could hurt your more than help you. Should I not even bother trying to publish in the top journals, is it acceptable to try to publish in lower-tier journals given the circumstances?  Would that be taken into account by institutions I apply to for my PhD and, later down the line, institutions where I try to get a job?  Or should I simply not attempt to publish at all?

My guess is that  a gap after the MA would matter to admissions committees about as much as a gap after the undergraduate degree which--which, as far as I know, is not at all.

That's not to say it won't cause problems. It will. Your writing sample might suffer if there's an extended period of time during which your head's not in philosophy. And if your letter-writers have to think back to the long-ago time when you were in their classes, it'll be harder for them to write helpful letters. But I know lots of people who spent substantial amounts of time away from philosophy after college, and who still managed to produce writing samples and secure helpful letters, and were subsequently admitted to good, Leiter-ranked Ph.D. programs.

Regarding the possibility of publishing while away from academia: it seems to me that it will be very difficult to produce work of publishable quality during this time. For one thing, the benefits of being immersed in philosophy in the manner of a philosophy grad student are enormous. Doing coursework; reading a lot; writing a lot; going to talks; participating in reading groups; talking philosophy with the faculty and the other grad students. It's all very beneficial, and you don't get the benefits if you're not there.

For another thing, and I know you know this, but the fact is that it's hard to write a publishable philosophy paper, and I'm not confident that the level of training you'd have by virtue of completing an MA would be enough. For example, I did a master's degree program and I don't regard anything I wrote during that period to be remotely publishable. And I don't think I'm alone--I don't think anything any of my master's-program classmates produced was publishable, either. I'm pretty certain that none of it was ever published, anyway.

Regarding the possibility that your unaffiliated status will get in the way: It might. Although most refereeing is blind, my understanding is that a good deal of editing is not. So it's possible that your unaffiliated status will hurt you, although it's hard to say what the total effect will be. Probably more in some journals than others.

But I don't think we've reached a point where publishing is necessary for admission to Ph.D. programs. Have we? That would be awful. I think that the upshot is, you'll be fine. Concentrate on keeping your mind on philosophy, producing a good writing sample without worrying about publishing it, and stay in touch with the faculty at your MA-granting department. Let them know what your plans are, and ask them for help.

--Mr. Zero

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Bad letters

This was posted by Anonymous on the previous thread, and warrants attention:


Wow. So I just read a letter of rec for a job candidate (I'm on a SC). Absolutely brutal. It wasn't just unenthusiastic; it outright insulted the candidate along numerous dimensions. Why would you agree to write a letter if you are going to go out of your way to say that the person is bad? I understand not going in for hyperbolic praise. I read tons of letters like those where it is clear that the letter writer isn't giving full support. But a letter this damning is a rare find.
Obviously, pretty scary.

I have questions:

  • Were the other letters equally bad? Was this just one rotten letter from someone who really did not like the student? (One must wonder, as well, why the student didn't know this person thought so poorly of him/her. Was s/he being set up? Was this a personal vendetta? Sexism/racism/bias?)
  • What moral/legal/professional duties do SC members have in such matters? Are they prohibited from writing to a candidate and saying, e.g. "One of your letters really stinks -- maybe you should ask someone to look into that." Or some such.
  • What moral/legal/professional duties do letter writers have to the persons for whom they write letters? If you are asked for a "letter of recommendation," that seems, to me, to imply that, at minimum, you are going to recommend the subject of the letter. Insulting, demeaning, trashing, and not recommending would seem to be excluded from the mission of the letter of recommendation. Which is not to say that you have to offer a complete and unqualified endorsement of the student, but you have to endorse them to some extent. It would seem that this letter writer engaged in deceit and intentionally undermined the student under the guise of "recommending" them, unless they actually told the student that they could not and would recommend him/her. But then why write the letter at all?

So, this also points to the value of having someone look at your letters before they're sent out. My school/dept did not do this (the placement help was pretty lousy). I was tempted, a few times, to use Interfolio to send my letters to myself or a friend. But I couldn't convince myself that it was ethical to break the confidentiality, so I never did it. I'm curious though, to know from those who have had their letters evaluated by a third party, whether there were bad letters among them, and what happened.

~zombie


Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Fall Job Market: Some Impressions

Because of the fact that the JFP doesn't come out in two discrete bunches anymore, it's hard to make a direct, precise comparison between this year's October JFP situation and those from years past. But as of right now, I have between five and ten jobs on my list than I had at this time last year. So, for me, at least, things seem a little better. Not that this means anything.

According to PhilJobs, the JFP had 203 listings, of which 167 are tenured or tenure-track, and 36 are not. (PhilJobs itself claims 351, of which 247 are tenured or tenure-track, and 104 are not.) Whereas last year's JFP day had 194 ads plus another 48 web-onlies (some of which were no-doubt duplicates from the print edition, and who-knows-how-many were non-tenure-track). So, without pretending to be very precise, my sense is that, all things considered, this year is about the same as last year, or maybe a little worse. I don't know. According to last year's October JFP post, which is where I got the information concerning last year's JFP from just now, there were 140 ads in the print edition from October of '09, 267 in '08--just after the econopocalypse but before the devastation had fully manifested itself--and 347 ads in October of '07, the most recent year with a decent economy going in. I did not double-check any of these numbers. Corrections and additional context are welcome.

Leiter has been optimistic the past couple of years, suggesting that rebounds in other disciplines are signs of a rebound in ours. Last year was political science; this year it was sociology. I'll believe it when I see it.

 --Mr. Zero

Friday, October 12, 2012

Through The CC On-Campus Interview Ringer


An anonymous Smoker sent the following story detailing an on-campus interview at a community college somewhere in the American West, which was too long to go as a comment in Zombie's recent CC-related post. Here it is:
I interviewed for a TT CC job on the West Coast in the spring of 2009. I was invited for and had a campus interview (at my own expense), and was one of three finalists, including the incumbent, drawn from a pool of roughly 110 applicants.

The school was heavily unionized, and the entire process was onerous, impersonal, and bureaucratic.

I found it strange, for instance, that from start to finish, all of my correspondence with the CC was with the school's HR department, not with either of the two TT philosophers at the school, or any other faculty.

At any rate, ten days before my campus visit, the HR department informed me by email that my visit would have three parts:

1. A writing exercise;
2. A teaching demonstration;
3. An interview with five people, all of whom were either faculty or administrators.

I was also told that if the president of the college had time, he would meet with me after my interview.

The topic of my teaching demonstration was emailed to me ten days before the interview; it asked me to construct a truth table illustrating DeMorgan's Law.

When the big day finally came, I arrived on campus with only instructions to report to HR at 9:15 am. No one from the CC met me at the airport, or arranged accommodation, or made any effort to ensure my comfort. I didn't even get a campus tour.

At any rate, the HR woman took me into a small office, asked me to leave my materials outside the door, gave me a sheet containing a question to which I was asked to write an answer, and instructed me either to type my answer on a computer, or write it on a legal pad. I chose to use the computer, and was given approximately 20 minutes to compose my answer.

The question asked me to compare and contrast Utilitarianism and Kantianism on the morality of lying.

I finished my answer just as time expired, and was then given fifteen minutes to study a list of three other questions which were to form the basis of my interview with the five people noted above. One of the questions dealt with Hume and induction, another with Plato's Theory of Forms, and a third with pedagogy and the relevance of philosophy to CC students.

When the fifteen minutes expired, the HR lady took me to a large conference room in another part of the building, in which were seated the five representatives (including two philosophers and one English professor) from the school. I should note that this was the first contact I'd had with any of the faculty, including the philosophers. (I suspect, however, that before I arrived in the conference room, the two philosophers had read my answer to the Utilitarianism/Kantianism question.)

I was asked to give my teaching demonstration first, and did so without much fuss.

Next came the interview, which consisted solely of having the interview questions noted above recited verbatim by three of the five interviewers.

I answered the questions in detail and fielded all of their follow-up questions; then the interview ended, and the HR lady led me outside the room while the five interviewers conferred with each other.

Ten minutes later, the HR lady went back into the conference room, and emerged shortly thereafter with word that the CC president would like to meet with me.

It was at this point that I realized that the earlier line about the president meeting with me if he had time was just a ruse; the meeting with him was contingent on my having had a successful interview.

The HR lady escorted me across campus to the president's office, where I met with him and the dean. The interview went well, and I remember being asked, What is the one thing you would change about community colleges?

I gave an answer that I thought they'd like to hear: I said that I'd make it the case that every applicant to a CC be accepted, since CCs' goal (or at least this CC) was to serve taxpayers of the state.

I completed the interview with these two and left feeling like I'd aced not only it, but also the interview with the committee, the teaching demonstration, and the writing test. I was on cloud nine!

Two days later, my hopes rose further when I received calls from two of my references, informing me that they had been contacted by the philosophers on the CC's hiring committee and told that I was an extremely strong candidate. According to my referees, I was one of three shortlisted candidates, and a decision was imminent.

Then, ten days passed with no word from anyone at the CC. I found the wait awkward, especially because I had never been formally given the email addresses or phone numbers of the two philosophers on the hiring committee; I had no one to answer my questions.

Finally, on approximately the twelfth day after my campus visit, I found in my spam mail folder an email from a different HR person than the one who had shepherded me through my visit. It was a rejection letter -- a PFO.

I was devastated.

I should add that I was at that time in my fourth year as a VAP at a SLAC in the Midwest and had previously published a paper in a peer-reviewed (and highly regarded) journal. I had also held an 18-month VAP at a different SLAC prior to the Midwest gig, and held a Ph.D. from a Leiter-ranked school.

In all, I found the whole CC application and interview process dehumanizing, rule-bound, and off-putting.

That said, I would have loved to have got the job, as it was within twenty miles of one of the largest cities on the West Coast, held the promise of good weather, excellent pay and benefits, and a manageable teaching load.

I hope my account of this experience will help some of my fellow smokers.

--Mr. Zero

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

[Untitled Post on Narrowing the Applicant Field]

In comments, anon 12:08 asks:
I have an off-topic question for people who have served on search/hiring committees. We hear a lot about how many applications hiring departments get--the numbers are in the hundreds. Of these, how many make it past the initial screening process, and on what basis? What percentage of applications are immediately binned, and why? No doubt the answers to these questions will vary greatly from one search to the next, but I'm just curious about whether the huge numbers we hear about are all (or mostly) coming from applicants who are qualified, or if many of them are on fishing expeditions, applying for every and any job, irrespective of fit.
Anon 5:25 responds:
On the first cut, I remove applications that don't have the relevant AOS/AOC, or no teaching experience or an incomplete file (for example writing sample or letters of recommendation missing or in one case last year, we received just letters of recommendation for one person but nothing else at all). Last year, one-third of the applications were tossed out in the first round for one or more of those reasons. Oh yes and if you have the wrong school in your cover letter or talk lovingly about our grad program when we don't have one, it is unlikely you will survive the first cut.
I'm pretty interested in hearing from more people. What say you, Smoking Search Committee Members?

--Mr. Zero

[Update: I guess I forgot to title this post. Whoops-a-daisy.]

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Jobs at Community Colleges

Questions about CC jobs come up periodically, and in the current job climate, some philosophers who previously would not have considered teaching at a CC are probably giving those jobs a good, hard, longing look. My experience with CCs is pretty limited. (I took an art class at a CC once, and I'm a big fan of Community.) I applied for a few CC jobs in my last go-round on the job market, and found the application process to be quite different, and in some ways, quite onerous. I was in contention (early on) for one job, and remember having to respond to a lot of very specific additional questions with fairly lengthy written answers. As I progressed through different levels of the process, it seemed the search committee demanded more and more from me. Still, the particular school was in a desirable city, and I was willing. But I can't say I was heartbroken when I was eventually eliminated. So maybe a CC job wasn't for me.

Here's what I've gleaned about CC jobs from fellow Smokers:

  • The teaching load is relatively high, with the usual expectations of service.You should really, really love to teach.
  • The students are far more diverse socially, economically, educationally, and in every other way, than the typical four year college student.
  • There is generally no research requirement for tenure.
  • The pay is equivalent to (or better than) four year college salaries.
  • Expect a multidisciplinary atmosphere.
  • It is not at all unusual for CC jobs to require a PhD these days.


Those in the know are invited to correct any inaccuracies. This is an open thread for those of you who have questions about CCs, and those who have experience and answers.

~zombie


Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The New JFP: Some Suggestions

I've had a chance to sit down and familiarize myself with the new JFP. My overall impression is that it's a decent first draft. If they get some kinks ironed out, there's a lot of potential for this to be good. But right now, there are some problems, most of which seem to me to be related to the fact (I think it's a fact, anyway) that this thing was put together very quickly.

And I don't mean that as a criticism, exactly. Since taking over as ED (just in August, right?), Amy Ferrer seems to have moved extremely quickly to get a new JFP system set up. I think that counts for a lot. After years of being ignored by Schrader, we have an ED who is paying attention to us and trying to help. I cannot begin to imagine David Schrader leaving a comment on this blog, or reading it, or even knowing about it. Let alone implementing a suggestion that was made here or on Philosophers Anonymous or something.

And this is important function of the APA. PhilJobs is great, and the Phylo jobs board and wiki are great. It's great that there are volunteers who do this, and who do a good job. But the profession needs to have an official job market service center. It would not be at all kosher to just leave the JFP exclusively in the hands of volunteers--however good at it they may be.

That said, there are a number of areas for improvement. I don't claim to be the first to have mentioned all of these, but I'm too lazy to go back through yesterday's comments and cite sources. For the same reason, I'm not going to make any attempt to compile a complete list of suggestions. These are just the main things that stood out to me as I was browsing around last night and this morning.

(I'd also like to point out that I strongly agree with Jaded's remarks yesterday regarding constructive criticism. I'm trying not to just complain and stuff. I'm trying to complain constructively.)


  • The AOS/AOC stuff should be displayed on the ad thumbnail. Ok. I see that this has been fixed. But it seems to me that the AOS and the AOC fields are not adequately distinguished.  
  • There should be a way to get all the ads to display on a single page.
  • The AOS/AOC tags don't work very well--I click on the tag for my AOS and I get a lot of stuff not in my AOS. Which makes me worry that I'm also not getting everything in my AOS. 
  • The "open" AOS/AOC tag returns ads that are not open.
  • The AOS/AOC tag thing doesn't seem to distinguish between AOS and AOC.
  • Does using the "filter" function with the checkboxes for "grant/fellowship" etc. negate the AOS/AOC tag filter? There doesn't seem to be any way to confirm or disconfirm this. The UI at PhilJobs is a good model here--you check some boxes in one area, and then you check some more in another area, and the boxes in the first area stay checked. This UI has no boxes for areas of specialization or competence. 
  • When you "star" an ad, it should be marked as starred on the thumbnail.

That's how it seems to me, anyways.

--Mr. Zero

Monday, October 1, 2012

First Impressions

A long time ago, in my first teaching assistant training session, I made the mistake of criticizing a teaching demonstration on some minor points. I did this without first noting the positive aspects of what was, by all standards, a pretty good demonstration. I was remonstrated by the group leader and also by the universe: I gave a terrible demonstration the next day on Frank Jackson's knowledge argument. My full-blown incompetence in the teaching arena - since turned into full-blown competence - was on display for all to see. The group leader asked, telling me to be honest, whether I had spent anytime thinking about the demonstration or had just slapped it together. I had, I told him, I just seized in the spotlight. Because it was a three-day training session I didn't have the opportunity to redeem myself. I adopted a conciliatory approach after these missteps and tried to be nice and encouraging to the other new teaching assistants, but my words rightfully fell on deaf ears.

A few points:
  • Constructive criticism should involve "construction:" building up before tearing down or pointing out strong structural features already there. 
  • If you have more than three days after making a terrible first impression to make a better one, then take that chance. 
In that spirit, I like the APA's response to the discontent that has grown over the past few years especially with regards to the job market. I like that the the APA now has a dedicated JFP website. I like that the APA is paying for me to use Interfolio this year and has encouraged search committees to do likewise. I find Interfolio's interface much easier to use and better put together than AcademicJobsOnline and the various generic HR websites universities are using these days; it's sleek, well-functioning, and the problems it encounters are few and far between. And, for some inexplicable reason (especially inexplicable given the success of Chalmers and Bourget at PhilJobs and PhilPapers), I like that the JFP is run by a professional organization with what appear to be dedicated moderators. I like that you can star jobs on the JFP for easier access and so on.

But, as many of you have pointed out in the comments, the APA's new JFP is wanting in certain important respects. First, AOS and AOC should be listed prominently in the title for the job ad rather than in the tags that accompany each post. Tags are notoriously unreliable since the poster may forget to include them after posting the other information; I certainly forget to tag my posts here all the time (or in the heydays of my posting). Second, the search function for AOS and AOC should not simply be the tag cloud on the right of the website, but should resemble something like the interface at PhilJobs. Third, on any given page, you'll only find ten jobs. Fourth, are we able to sort the jobs according to application deadline? I haven't looked closely enough to check, but that'd be useful too.

Admittedly, these might sound like small quibbles. But, these small quibbles with the APA's JFP pile up on top of all the other frustrations that come with being on the market. Sure, I can do what I did today to find the jobs I want to apply to at the new JFP: open up every job, quickly scan the ad for my AOS, then star it. Not too big a deal, but frustrating. And, I can also check Phylo and PhilJobs and the JFP and the Chronicle and InsideHigherEd for other jobs that might not be advertised in one or another venue. Not too big a deal, but frustrating. I can also submit my teaching and research materials to your HR website and then send, under separate cover, my letters of reference via Interfolio. Not too big a deal, but frustrating.

But, if I learned anything my three years on the market it is that success - "success" construed broadly to mean: keeping one's mental health, not yelling at the computer, not being a dick to one's friends, being able to submit more than one job application a day without wanting to tear your hair out while also teaching and doing research - requires a well-oiled machine. These tiny frustrations tend to pile up during job market season and by the end of it, I'm shook. If my file size is too large for an HR department's website, I want to start smoking again. If I missed a job because searching through the tag cloud on the JFP's website is unreliable or because it's hard to navigate their website, I want to immediately stop what I'm doing and get drunk. Etc. Etc.

Of course, I can manage all these frustrations with applying for jobs, because I've been doing this for three, going on four, years now and I also love doing philosophy. It's an amazing gig. Besides, I think I am a well-oiled machine now. But, I sometimes wish these gears didn't require so much lubrication; I'm bound to run out at some point.

-- Jaded, Ph.D.

The New JFP Is Up

I don't have time to dig into it right now, but I'll have a review later today. Immediate reaction: I don't like the way the institution's name is small, inconspicuous, desaturated, and occasionally abbreviated or written in code, while the location is displayed more prominently. The institution's location is somewhat less important to me than its identity.

--Mr. Zero