Wednesday, February 13, 2013

I might have chased a couple [philosophy jobs] around...


...but all it ever got me was down.



Sorry I haven't been around much lately. I've had some grading, then I had some family stuff, and I'm getting very close to the end of a project I've been working on for a very long time, and it has been getting almost all my spare attention.

How are you doing?

--Mr. Zero

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Went to wiki jobs and this came up:

"We notice you've been coming here a lot. Maybe you'd be better off if you block yourself from looking at the wiki for a while. Then you could go do something more productive, like browsing some recent articles on PhilPapers. (Not willing to admit that you have a problem? Click here and we'll stop suggesting that you block yourself.)"

So in short, I guess I'm not doing too well. Thanks for reminding me wiki.

Anonymous said...

I know that people who aren't doing well on the market this year don't like to hear those who are doing well complain, but I'm really, really busy!

For 4 weeks in a row, I'm spending 3-5 days each week in the US (I'm not in the US). 3 of those weeks are on-campus job interviews, the 4th is the Central APA.

Yeah, it's "a nice problem to have," but it's hard to balance teaching two courses (and being away a lot!) and one's other obligations with this sort of travel schedule. And the anxiety of not getting a position after all this is *still* there. And research? Ha! I had to shut down some really productive projects for all of this. I hate that.

So you may think that it's a nice problem to have, but if you have it, it's a big problem.

Anonymous said...

White people problems.

Anonymous said...

"I know that people who aren't doing well on the market this year don't like to hear those who are doing well complain, but I'm really, really busy!"

Seriously?

This is not the place for this. This is like posting about how hard it is for you to gain weight on an anorexia help forum.

Please get help on how to balance job interviews / teaching...somewhere more appropriate.

Anonymous said...

"This is not the place for this. This is like posting about how hard it is for you to gain weight on an anorexia help forum."

Only if you haven't actually looked at the description:

"What we're about

Professional philosophy issues for ABDs, recent Ph.Ds, and the non-tenured"

I understand that most of the discussions tend toward grad student/job market issues, but if 4:09 is junior faculty, then it's fair game.

Anonymous said...

4:09 is obnoxious.

Anonymous said...

4:09 that's quite a bother ...I suppose, since you're an adjunct this in fact is quite a rapid and stressful come up. Wait, you aren't an adjunct?! Oh, big problem indeed...

Anonymous said...

Speaking of anorexia, I've lost 10 lbs from stress while on the job market this year. Fortunately I had 10 lbs to lose. But it can't be a healthy way to lose weight.

zombie said...

4:09's problem -- even if it is a problem that some of you would pay good money to have -- is still related to the job market, as s/he clearly says the overscheduling is due to job interviews. So, this is the forum for it. Not everyone has the same problems here, yo.

Anonymous said...

I agree that not everyone has the same problems here. I'm 80 years old and work at a top 5 institution and refuse to retire, but I have a problem that I can't do philosophy any more. It has probably been 20 years since I have carefully gone through an argument from beginning to end, but my salary and benefits are so great that I can't give up the money. I do have grad students who I get to do essentially all my work, though. Still, life is tough.

Anonymous said...

I would love to have three on-campuses. But to be fair, it is stressful to have three back-to-back, being 'on' the whole time, and not in your home country with a chance to go home and recuperate in between. So I think 4:09's worries are understandable, even if they are the worries of the advantaged, as far as the job market goes. And it's true, even with on-campuses, you can't guarantee they'll turn into jobs. But you have three chances, that's good!

I hope the vitriol against far-along candidates like that won't stop people from posting about problems/stresses/questions later in the process, like deciding between offers, negotiating schools working in different hiring time-frames, questions about relocation, fighting with spouses over the whole thing, etc. -- it may be helpful for those in similar situations to commiserate, and helpful for those not in such situations to hear about how things can go in certain cases ... although probably also very easy to 'out' oneself, so, maybe we won't be hearing too many details like that!

Anonymous said...

4:09's problems are just as legit as anyone else's. Everyone loses at the Oppression Olympics.

Anonymous said...

2:03, could you explain how the blog's description makes 4:09's comment appropriate? Whether or not 4:09 is junior faculty (what makes you think they might be?) seems irrelevant to the complaints others have raised about their comment.

Anonymous said...

1224 here.

I want to clarify what I said since I realize that it sounds like I was saying that 409 should go to another blog. I didn't mean to imply that an dI apologize.

What I *did* mean, however, is that this blog has plenty of posts specifically about interviews (some not too old) that could have been revived specifically to air out the problem and ask for guidance.

Posting about how hard it is to have so many flyouts while also being gainfully employed, full time, is a serious problem (for those lucky enough to have it) but posting it at random in a thread that isn't about that purpose seemed in bad taste (again especially since this very forum has discussion dedicated exactly to interview and flyout-related worries).

I didn't mean to be exclusionary, only to suggest that 409 was less tactful than s/he should have been.

Anonymous said...

C'mon folks--4:09 knew that this was exactly the reaction they would get. It's the same thing in other threads. Just let it go unremarked if you really want to get 4:09's goat.

Anonymous said...

OK, so if people have a problem with 4:09's comment here, how about a separate post addressing balancing one's workload with one's interviewing schedule?

Those who are too sensitive to read about someone else's success can then ignore the post entirely.

Anonymous said...

Some of you people seriously suck. I know 4:09, she's awesome and feels bad about missing a lot of her teaching (and she's on a term-to-term contract, and hardly full time).

This thread began with "I've chased a couple [philosophy jobs] around." 4:09 posted something *about* that chase, and (some, many of) you people jumped on her for her success. Being anonymous sure made you feel safe in being an asshole, huh?

And "White people problems"? Really? Why assume that she's white?

Anonymous said...

4:38: You're saying that 4:09 was ASKING FOR IT?! Asking for people to be assholes? Really? Yeah, it's really *her* fault people couldn't stop themselves from being jerks.

Do you feel that way about rape, too?

Anonymous said...

You're saying that 4:09 was ASKING FOR IT?! Asking for people to be assholes? Really? Yeah, it's really *her* fault people couldn't stop themselves from being jerks.

Do you feel that way about rape, too?"

Nope, I don't feel that way about rape. Thanks for asking. But I do feel that way about trolls. I'm not saying that 4:09 was trolling, but if she had checked any of the other threads on which someone came on carping about how hard it is to find the time to make arrangements for all the interviews one has, she would have known that this is exactly the reaction she would get. Either she hasn't seen any of the other threads--in which case I apologize, since she was coming in unaware that this is how people would react--or she did this intentionally to get a reaction. My advice was not to react. It seems to me this strategy addresses either possibility.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty obvious that 4:09's remarks were inconsiderate and in poor taste. Now, she has the right to make such remarks here, but people also have a right to take exception to them. Why 2:38 is calling such people "assholes" is unclear, to say the least.

Anonymous said...

2:38: "And "White people problems"? Really? Why assume that she's white?"

Seriously? I mean...seriously!!!???!?!?!

It's idiom. Would you say the same to "Rich people problems"? or "First-world problems"? The point of these phrases is that they're the sorts of problems that many would be happy to have. The use of 'White people' is not meant to be taken seriously, just as an indicator of a privileged class---here, those with fly-outs.

I'm not condoning the attack on 4:09. It was in poor taste to post it, but they didn't deserve to be attacked for it.