Saturday, December 28, 2013

As you wish...

Anonymous has requested a new thread. Sure, why not?

Play along, if it please you.

Zombie, can we start a new thread? 
Smokers, give us your vitals ... 
Number of APA/Skype interviews**:
Universities (n):
SLAC (n):
Other (n):
PhD in hand (Y/N):
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked):
AOS:
Publications (n):
Comments:
**Zombie thinks it might also be useful to know how many applications you've filed this year.

And two Anon replies have been registered:

2
2
0
0
Y
50
Political Phil/Ethics
40 (inc. 3 books)
No job market for old men

and

1
0
1
0
N
Unranked
1
Indeed, this is no job market for old men.

~zombie

p.s. Now that APA is over, how about some reports? Did the unemployed philosophers swarm seem smaller? Was the Smoker less crowded/desperate? Was the beer still lousy and overpriced?

111 comments:

Anonymous said...

1(university)
Y
Below
Ethics
8 (6 peer-reviewed)

Anonymous said...

2 (applied to 15)
2 universities
0 SLAC or other
PhD in hand
PhD program top 5
Metaphysics
10+ articles
In TT at R1 already

Anonymous said...

Filled out 30 apps.

Universities: 2
SLAC: 1
Other: 0
PhD in hand: Y
PhD Program: 25-50
AOS: Mind
Publications: 1 (peer-reviewed, not top 20), 2 book chapters (co-authored)

Given my less than stellar Leiter and pub stats, I am really pleased. Although I still doubt I'll get anything!

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews**:
2/0/42**
Universities (n):1
SLAC (n):1
Other (n):1/1 (See comments)
PhD in hand (Y/N):Y
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked):Unranked
AOS:Epistemology
Publications (n):2
Comments: I've had one phone interview prior to the APA and am shortlisted for a straight to on campus interview. One is a university, one is a SLAC.

PS-It's no job market for women from unranked programs, either.

Anonymous said...

0 (applied to 35)
0
0
ABD
Unranked Program
Ethics, Metaphysics
2 (1 elite journal)
Graduate Student

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews**: 1 (50)
Universities (n): 1
SLAC (n): 0
Other (n): 0
PhD in hand (Y/N): Y
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked): 50
AOS: Ethics
Publications (n): 1 (top 10 journal)

Anonymous said...

16 applications
0 interviews
PhD in hand
top 20 program
Mind
1 publication

Anonymous said...

Apps submitted: 44
Interviews: 0
PhD in hand: Successfully defended, but degree not yet "in hand"
Program: top 25
AOS: Mind/Cog sci
Pubs: 3 (All peer-reviewed, 2 specialist journals, 1 book chapter w/elite press)

Eek! said...

Total apps: 55
Interviews: 1 (SLAC), 0 (University), 0 (other)
Status: ABD
PhD Program: Top 25
AOS: Phil Science
0 Pubs

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews**: 3 Skype/24 applications
Universities (n): 3
SLAC (n): 0
Other (n): 0
PhD in hand (Y/N): Y
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked): unranked
AOS: Ethics
Publications (n): 9 PR, 2 book chapters
Comments: Applied selectively; already in a TT position.

Anonymous said...


2 (applied for 33 jobs)
Universities: 0
SLAC: 2
Other: 0
PhD in hand: Yes
PhD Program: bottom of Leiter list
AOS: 19th-Century Philosophy
Publications: 5 (1 in top-tier journal, 2 chapters in books)

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews: 1 conference interview
Universities (n): 0
SLAC (n): 1
Other (n): 0
PhD in hand (Y/N): Y
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked): Top 50
AOS: Ethics/Metaphysics
Publications (n): Books: 1 forthcoming, 1 under review, 1 in progress. Articles: 7 (1 in a top journal, 1 has been reprinted). Book chapters: 3.
Comments: Recently tenured; selective applications.

Anonymous said...

60(ish) applications

Interviews: 3 (2 Skype, 1 APA)
Universities (n): 3
SLAC (n): 0
PhD in hand (Y/N):Y
PhD program: top 50
AOS: Ethics
Publications (n): 2 (1 in top tier journal, one invited chapter)

Anonymous said...

Applied: 58
2 University interviews
ABD
Top 50
Modern
1 publication

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews**:3 (23)
Universities:3
PhD in hand:y
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked):25-50
AOS:epistemology
Publications:11 (all in journals that reject >85% of submissions)
Comments:

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews: 1
Universities (n): 1
SLAC (n): 0
Other (n): 0
PhD in hand (Y/N): Y
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked): Top 25
AOS: M&E
Publications (n): 2 top 10
Gender: Male

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews**: 1 APA, 2 Skype (Approx. 65 applications)

Universities: 2
SLAC: 1
Other: 0

PhD in hand: No
Top 10 PhD program
AOS: Politics and Ethics
1 Peer Reviewed Publication, Tier 1 Journal

Anonymous said...

So just as a matter of clarity here what are we counting as a top journal? Anything in Leiter's top 25 journals w/out regard to area? Or only the top 10 in that list? Or high up on some other list? Anyway might be helpful if people were clearer in what they meant here.

Anonymous said...

40-ish applications
0 interviews
ABD
PhD program: top 25
AOS: ethics
Publications: 0

Anonymous said...

1 interview (~15 applications)
1 University (R2 or R3)
0 SLAC
PhD in Hand
PhD Program is not Leiter-ranked
AOS in social philosophy
1 article; book contract signed
Comments: I had 4 interviews last year, but I applied more widely.

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews: 3 skype (nearly 70 apps)
Universities (n): 2
SLAC (n): 1
Other (n):
PhD in hand (Y/N): ABD
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked): Top 10
AOS: Ethics and stuff
Publications (n): 2 (1 peer-reviewed)
Comments: All I ever wanted to do in my life was be a hustler. Some don't get it, but feel me when I spit it, it's all about the dollar.

Anonymous said...

Applications: ~60
First Round Interviews: 5 (2 SLAC / 3 Universities)
Ph.D. in Hand
Program unranked
AOS: Ethics
Publications: 5 articles in specialty (but technically 'unranked') journals, 1 book under contract with top press

Anonymous said...

Search committee for the job I most want didn't mention the smoker during my interview, and I forgot to ask whether they'd be there. I couldn't have made it anyway, as I had to leave. Is there a way to find out if a particular institution had a table? If anyone has a sheet that lists the schools with tables, could you send it to me, or let me know how to get hold of one?
-Frankie

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews**: 1 APA/39 applications
Universities (n): 1
SLAC (n): 0
Other (n): 0
PhD in hand (Y/N): Y
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked): unranked
AOS: modern
Publications (n): 5 PR (two in top history journals), 2 book chapters

Comment: I was invited on-campus with the department that interviewed me at APA.

Anonymous said...

3 interviews (out of 30 applications)
3 University
0 SLAC
Yes PhD in Hand
Yes PhD Program top 25
AOS mind/epistemology
5 top tier pubs, a few other non-top tier things

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews**: 1
Universities (n):
SLAC (1):
Other (n):
PhD in hand (Y):
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked):
AOS:
Publications (1): Top five.
Comments:

Anonymous said...

targeted search (w/ < 25 apps.)
0
0
0
0
Y
top 25
metaphysics, philosophy of science
5
# of searches (I learned from friends on the faculty after the fact) in which male applicants were effectively excluded: 3

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Frankie - it won't matter. The Smoker will not determine whether you get a campus visit or not. Your interview and application will do that. Relax and wait.

Anonymous said...

Two questions: 1) If a department said they'd contact people about on-campus interviews in two weeks, and it has been three, I'm guessing one should assume (if one hears nothing) that it's over? 2) If a job is not listed on the wiki as having offered interviews, is it possible they really haven't offered interviews? Or has every TT place pretty much offered them?

Anonymous said...

2:40 and 2:41 (it was so nice you said it twice), I am a bit skeptical. I have no doubt that some faculties decided if all was pretty much equal between two candidates, they'd go with a female. Especially after front page coverage in the NY Times about how drastically unequal philosophy is gender-wise. But I sincerely doubt that a) three separate philosophy departments would make it a matter of explicit policy that they would interview ONLY women, b) three separate philosophy philosophy departments are willing to forego interviewing an excellently qualified male for a significantly less-qualified female, and c) three separate philosophy departments have search committee members willing to spill the beans about this policy to applicants.

Rumors like this are a part of what contributes to the idea that females who achieve something in philosophy are less-qualified token achievers.

Anonymous said...

65 applications
0 interviews
0
0
PhD in hand
PhD program top 10
Lemming
9 articles, incl. 5 elite and 2 near-elite
white male (but still pro affirmative action)

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews: 0 (applied to <20)
PhD in hand: Y
PhD program: top 5
AOS: Epistemology
Publications: 6 (4 in top-10 journals)
Comments: currently in research postdoc at R1

Anonymous said...

Re: Anon 8:20 ("The Smoker will not determine whether you get a campus visit or not. Your interview and application will do that.")

That's awfully overconfident. I applied to one job two years in a row, got only an APA interview the first year, but a campus visit the next. At dinner a member of the SC confessed that he and his colleagues had assumed that I wasn't really interested in the job since I didn't seek them out at the smoker after my interview the first year. That I applied a second time suggested to them that maybe I really did want the job, after all.

I was mad about this, but then a couple years later I found myself behaving almost as badly. I e-mailed an interviewee with a citation he'd asked about at dinner during a campus visit, and he didn't bother replying--not even to say thanks. My first thought was that that he had probably discovered from the campus visit that he wasn't really interested in the job. Later, though, I learned that this fellow just doesn't answer e-mails regularly or promptly, and that he did in fact want the job very much (and accepted it when it was offered).

So: I really don't want to stress you out, Frankie, but I think it's a good idea to send thank you notes to the departments you want to thank for interviewing you, and there might be a polite way to fit into a thank you note some remark about your regrets about not being available to continue your conversation at, say, the smoker.

Anonymous said...

6:08,
Why assume they are rumors? Some departments are very open about their plans to hire female candidates. Most (all?) state schools must make their planning documents public, and you can see on these documents things like, 'the department commits to hire, at least, N female philosophers in the next whatever years.' If such a department does infrequent searches, they are going to try seriously to hire a female candidate whenever they do search. I think this is all as it should be, and I don't think we help our cause by claiming gender is only used to decide between equally qualified final candidates. There are great reasons for increasing the number of female members in a department, e.g. to cater to those students who would prefer/benefit from female mentorship. And I don't see why it's a slight on any successful female candidate, or on their hiring department, if these considerations come into play very early in the hiring process.

zombie said...

5:58: It's likely that some search committees are still in post-APA, post-first round, post-holiday decompression mode, and have not yet made their fly-out choices. There has been practically nothing new on the wiki since before the holidays.

So, to answer your questions (in reverse order): no, it is is not the case that every place has offered fly-outs already; yes, it is possible that nothing posted on the wiki means there is nothing to post; no, three weeks rather than two is not a reason to lose hope of a fly-out (although there are always other reasons).

Things should start moving in the next few weeks, as semesters start up and committees get back to work. There are still late-deadline positions that haven't even done their first-rounds yet.

Anonymous said...

That still doesn't mean one needs to go to the Smoker.

Fuck the Smoker.

All you need to do is to be a decent human being who sends a little thank you note to the people who just interviewed you. That note should also express your continuing interest in the position.

This is not rocket science, people.

And, don't assume ANYTHING about any position (even ones that you have been 'wikijected' from) until you actually hear something FROM that position. There are just too many variables and the wiki can be quite unreliable.

Again, just send your applications off and calm down. Do something productive.

Anonymous said...

I know this has been discussed before, but I can't remember what the consensus on the topic was. So, here goes. Do search committees generally expect a thank you note after an APA interview? What about a phone/Skype interview? A thank you note seems right after an on-campus interview, but what about these others?

Anonymous said...

Nicely said, 6:08!

Jamie Dreier said...

1:44,

When I've been on search committees, no 'thank you' note was expected.

Because the protocols are so nebulous, it would be a bad mistake for a search committee to infer much of anything from a candidate's decision to send or not to send a note.

Anonymous said...

If thank you notes are expected after APA interviews (are they?) does it seem too late to send them now?

Anonymous said...

"There are great reasons for increasing the number of female members in a department, e.g. to cater to those students who would prefer/benefit from female mentorship."

There would also seem to be some "great reasons" for not increasing numbers of women (or not in this way, at least). For example, one might think that hiring the very best philosophers or teachers regardless of their sex would also have major benefits for students, the profession, intellectual life generally... But I guess all those little issues have already been thoroughly and rationally worked out by right-thinking people, and found to be insignificant. Found not matter much, anyway, when compared with the importance of catering to whatever dubious or unknown percentage of students would "prefer/benefit from female mentorship".

"And I don't see why it's a slight on any successful female candidate, or on their hiring department, if these considerations come into play very early in the hiring process." Um, isn't this blindingly obvious? If the mere fact of being female gave them advantage in the competition from the very beginning, it stands to reason that they are _not_ the best qualified candidates even when compared with others who applied for that particular position. Students and other people will draw the obvious conclusions. Not that this matters much, though, compared with the more significant "slight" dealt to those whose applications were tossed out at the beginning on account of being men. But I guess this too is already long settled amongst us critical thinkers, right? That stuff doesn't matter at all. What matter is just that we increase the numbers of women and make sure none of their feelings are ever hurt by the knowledge that better qualified men had to have to pushed aside...

Anonymous said...

Regarding the brou-ha-ha with 6:08 and 2:40, I think this is a reasonable starting place that addresses both sets of concerns:

2:40 is not necessarily wrong that some search committees mandate that a hire must be female (or has a strong preference for such). But what 2:40 ignores is the fact that the number of such searches is small, and they're outweighed by the number of departments full of implicitly biased searches that result in statistically fewer women being hired overall.

So, to 2:40 - yeah, maybe you were disadvantaged with respect to a particular job or two. But that doesn't outweigh your male privilege in other areas (graduate admissions, getting toward the interview list at other positions, etc.). So, yeah. Women are not the reason why you didn't get a job. They just aren't.

Anonymous said...

"one might think that hiring the very best philosophers or teachers regardless of their sex would also have major benefits for students, the profession, intellectual life generally"

Oh, if only we could all agree on what it means to hire "the best," then all would be right with the profession.

But we go down that rabbit hole every year around this time, when everyone puts in their 2 cents on how SCs are doing it wrong, and how to make sure "the best" is properly identified.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, 5:10. No one's feelings will be hurt by your obnoxious post. Rather, we (kick-ass female candidates) will take particular glee in recalling idiotic comments like yours as we sign contracts for the jobs you wanted this year. Anyone who thinks under-qualified candidates are getting jobs solely because of their gender in this market is clearly lacking the basic intellectual and social skills to be a contender for any of said jobs in the first place.

Anonymous said...

@5:10

Sweet merciful crap, how can you have made it to this stage and still believe that there's some univocal measure of 'merit' that is fine grained enough to discretely rank each of the 200-400 applicants per job?

Seriously anyone who is seriously considered for any of these jobs has to have top notch qualifications. The process of narrowing that field down to 2-4 finalists - and eventually 1 hire - will, of necessity, be arbitrary from the standpoint of philosophical excellence. There are too many dimensions of excellence, and the ability of search committees to measure them is too imprecise.

Given that, having a preference for women and members of other underrepresented groups within the profession is no more objectionable than any other measure of 'fit' for the department.

Anonymous said...

Wait--we were supposed to send thank-you notes? Why the fuck didn't anybody tell me this?

2:40 AM said...

2:40 AM here. Some replies to 6:08 PM, 6:07 PM, 9:10 PM, and 9:35 PM:

I sincerely doubt that a) three separate philosophy departments would make it a matter of explicit policy that they would interview ONLY women [...]

You're drawing an unwarranted inference. Who said anything about interviewing only women? In the case I know the most about, e.g., 25% of the initial interviewees were male, but it was a foregone conclusion that only women would be offered on-campus interviews, barring something completely unexpected. Which is precisely what happened.

[...] b) three separate philosophy philosophy departments are willing to forego interviewing an excellently qualified male for a significantly less-qualified female [...]

You're drawing another unwarranted inference. Who said the women they interviewed were less-qualified? Indeed, regarding the search I know the most about, I'm friends with those they interviewed (it's a small world), and know them to be well-deserving, excellent philosophers. Which is fully compatible with also believing that it's patently unfair to effectively exclude the applications of well-deserving, excellent philosophers who (through no fault of their own!) happen to be male.

[...] and c) three separate philosophy departments have search committee members willing to spill the beans about this policy to applicants.

Yet another unwarranted inference. Whoever said that my contacts were search committee members? In all three cases, my contacts were faculty members not on the search committee yet very well-informed about how the searches were being conducted.

But what 2:40 ignores is the fact that the number of such searches is small,

I didn't "ignore" any such fact (if it is a fact -- I doubt either of us as adequate information to determined this). I didn't make a comment about the prevalence of this practice at all. I was merely listing a statistic that I hope others would find useful.

[...] and they're outweighed by the number of departments full of implicitly biased searches that result in statistically fewer women being hired overall.

If by "outweighed" you mean "occurs less frequently than", then I'm willing to agree, but nothing of much normative consequence follows. But if by "outweighed" you mean "morally justifiable on the basis of", then I'll just remind you that two wrongs do not necessarily make a right.

Rumors like this are a part of what contributes to the idea that females who achieve something in philosophy are less-qualified token achievers.

I doubt it. Rather, what contributes to this idea is the actual practice of excluding male applicants (which is but one reason why this practice is counterproductive). You can call this a "rumor" if that makes you feel better, but anyone who has been following hiring practices recently (as well as several other commentators on this thread) will tell you otherwise.

Women are not the reason why you didn't get a job.

And I never said that they were. I never even said that the practice itself was the reason I didn't get a job. (In fact, I have an excellent job already. Again: unwarranted inference.) But having my application effectively excluded from consideration at 13% of the jobs, simply because I'm male, didn't exactly help me either.

[...] having a preference for women and members of other underrepresented groups within the profession is no more objectionable than any other measure of 'fit' for the department.

You know what? I completely agree. But note the key word here: preference. It's one thing to weigh whether a candidate is female in along with other dimensions of fit, with merit, and so on. It's quite another to effectively exclude male applicants from consideration altogether.

Anonymous said...

6:07

i'm not 2:40, and I'm skeptical that there are *any* SCs that have decided ahead of time to hire a woman. But I'm also skeptical about your claim here:


So, to 2:40 - yeah, maybe you were disadvantaged with respect to a particular job or two. But that doesn't outweigh your male privilege in other areas (graduate admissions, getting toward the interview list at other positions, etc.).


How do you know it's outweighed? If there are any jobs earmarked in advance for women, then it would take a lot of bias in other searches to outweigh the earmarks. What's the evidence for this?

Anonymous said...

Sweet merciful crap, how can you have made it to this stage and still believe that there's some univocal measure of 'merit' that is fine grained enough to discretely rank each of the 200-400 applicants per job?

There isn't, I agree.

The process of narrowing that field down to 2-4 finalists - and eventually 1 hire - will, of necessity, be arbitrary from the standpoint of philosophical excellence.

No it won’t. It will be imperfect from that standpoint, but not arbitrary.

I don't see why this means it should be made even worse from the standpoint of philosophical excellence.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who thinks under-qualified candidates are getting jobs solely because of their gender in this market is clearly lacking the basic intellectual and social skills to be a contender for any of said jobs in the first place."

I know of at least one woman who has no publications, no teaching experience, and no PhD, and has a flyout at a good school. It happens. She's damn good, but no male is getting that interview, or flyout.

zombie said...

@5:10: "If the mere fact of being female gave them advantage in the competition from the very beginning, it stands to reason that they are _not_ the best qualified candidates even when compared with others who applied for that particular position."

But of course, the same is NOT true of male applicants hired as a result of implicit or explicit bias in favor of males. Also NOT true of white applicants. It goes without saying that they are all top notch and got there on their own merits, not because of anti-male, anti-white, unfair advantages given to women and and minorities. It just stands to reason.

Anonymous said...

"I know of at least one woman who has no publications, no teaching experience, and no PhD, and has a flyout at a good school. It happens."

I know plenty of men for whom this has also been true, every year.

Anonymous said...

A-a-nd yet another useful thread about to go to hell! Time to start a new thread!

Anonymous said...

When I hopped from institution to institution as a VAP, I sadly witnessed female-only hiring pools and under qualified female faculty on the TT. Deans will give hefty accommodations to these faculty in order to ensure their "success". For instance, a woman who could not publish was told she could serve as adviser for the undergrad philosophy club instead. A woman who had a problem with binge drinking during lunch was given a first floor office so she would not hurt herself on the stairs (no elevator). These are anecdotes. Perhaps men receive these accomodations too, but I've never observed it. Usually they fail to earn tenure or get fired instead.

zombie said...

7:50 -- this does seem to keep happening, doesn't it?

Like so many other discussions involving philosophers.

Dr. Killjoy said...

Anon 2:40, you claim that your application was effectively excluded from consideration at 13% of the jobs simply because you are male.

False.

You were effectively excluded because the number of talented high quality female applicants was sufficiently high to warrant the effective exclusion of consideration of all male applicants.

To suggest you were excluded simply because you were male is to suggest either that 1) the search committees were at least in principle open to hiring untalented, low quality female applicants over any male applicant (which is some hardcore sexist fantasy bullshit) or that 2) the hiring lines themselves were contingent on the dept. selecting a woman (in which case, you were never eligible for the job and so no more "excluded" from the search than those who never applied).

So, given that your simply being male isn't what effectively excluded you from that precious 13%, it seems you're left with either a delusional and virulently sexist belief in a institutional-wide cabal to hire women regardless of qualifications or the false sense of entitlement of a spoiled, privileged little shit.

120 said...

(1 of 2)

Two disclaimers:
1) I don't do poli phil (rather, language), so I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this.
2) I'm a white, male philosophy grad student who finds the prospect of consistently losing ties with equally qualified female candidates unappealing, however just.

Preemptive response:
Below, I describe a scenario where female candidates are favoured in the job market. Some think that such a scenario will, more or less, never happen, so entertaining such a scenario is silly and clouds the real issues. My response is that Trolley Problems are interesting in the absence of runaway trolleys, and it's interesting to think of what would be true if Godel killed Schmidt, even though Godel didn't.

TL;DR:
Can anyone recommend some good poli phil literature on affirmative action/positive discrimination that might help clarify some questions surrounding bias in hiring practices? (I'm looking for broadly ranging literature on these issues, not on sexism and hiring in philosophy in particular).

(cont'd)

120 said...

(2 of 2, cont'd)

Let M and F be "roughly equal" be male and female candidates, respectively, in all qualities not pertaining to the sex or gender, who are each applying for some job, call it J.

Let's stipulate that implicit bias exists in favour of male candidate, but leave vague the degree and extent of that bias, as well as its concrete effects on hiring.

The search committee for J, recognizing that the gender/sex breakdown of their department roughly reflects the unequal breakdown in the profession as a whole, decides that female applicants to J win ties and hire F. The justification to hire F over M is two-fold: (a) it helps achieve gender/sex parity in the department, and (b) it helps achieve that parity in the profession. (Perhaps it will also achieves a diversity of perspectives in the department or facilitate female mentorship -- I will remain neutral on the truth and value of these issues).

Suppose that this explicitly female-favouring practice continues through time to some future time t, with similarly equal male and female candidates, and similar jobs at other institutions.

Indeed, suppose that this explicitly female-favouring practice is reproduced to such an extent as to balance implicit bias in favour of men in terms of hiring. At t, men and women are hired in the exact proportion that they graduate from their PhDs. That is, the number of male-biased searches is even to the number of female-biased one.

Should one continue fighting implicit bias in hiring practices (maintaining, of course, that such bias should continue to be fought elsewhere)?

Either one should or it's not true that one should.

If one should, then women will likely be hired in greater proportion than their male counterparts. Either this is a good state of affairs or it isn't. If it isn't, then we should, perversely, preserve implicit bias. It if it, then it would be useful to be clear on why.

Here's one reason: disproportionately hiring female graduates would help achieve gender/sex parity in the profession as a whole. This would divide the history of academic philosophy into two periods: the early period where men were advantaged in the hiring process, and the later period where the advantage is reversed. The justification for reversing the advantage is that it achieves balance. That is, reversing the advantage balances an early period of male bias against a later period of female advantage to achieve fairness across both periods. Female advantage in the late period would be justified by male advantage in the early period.

Does that mean that there's no injustice across the period (ie. that male advantage was not unjust, on the whole) or that there's double injustice across the period (ie. that female advantage would be unjust, just like male advantage was)?

What would be the reason for thinking that only the male advantage was just, or that the only female advantage would be just? One might think that female advantage restores some balance in bias. But this assumes that the values achieved by each advantage are comparable. That is, it assumes that bias against a woman in the early period can be weighed against bias against a man in the later period. This is a philosophically heavyweight axiological assumption.

However, if it's not true that one should continuing fighting implicit bias, it seems that we will have achieved parity of inequality, not equality -- distinct states. We should aim for the latter, not the former.

Anonymous said...

6:08 here again, flogging a dead horse (with apologies to those who are done with the topic):

First of all, it seems that women do not get hired significantly out of proportion to their population among recently-granted PhDs: http://philosophysmoker.blogspot.com/2012/04/to-get-job-in-philosophy.html

So it does not seem to be a huge, or even significant, advantage to be a female on the market.

Women do, however, seem to need fewer pubs to get hired at ranked schools. This may be because SCs are willing to take lower-quality females (I somehow feel like the manager of an abattoir saying that). Or it could be because pubs are one of many factors considered by SCs, and females tend to do better in other areas. Unclear.

The artist formerly known as 2:40 says: "...what contributes to this idea is the actual practice of excluding male applicants (which is but one reason why this practice is counterproductive). You can call this a 'rumor' if that makes you feel better, but anyone who has been following hiring practices recently (as well as several other commentators on this thread) will tell you otherwise."

Maybe it is not a rumor. I could be wrong. However, since I hear it almost exclusively from males who feel unjustly excluded, and not from SC members, I tend to take it with a grain of salt.

Again, it just seems silly to think that *any* SC would overlook, say, a Leiter-riffic highly-published male superteacher that will boost the department in desired ways in order to pick (judging from some comments) an unpublished alcoholic with no teaching experience. To what end would ANY department do this? I exaggerate the case, of course, but seriously. Why would a department do this even on a smaller scale?

"You're drawing another unwarranted inference. Who said the women they interviewed were less-qualified? Indeed, regarding the search I know the most about, I'm friends with those they interviewed (it's a small world), and know them to be well-deserving, excellent philosophers. Which is fully compatible with also believing that it's patently unfair to effectively exclude the applications of well-deserving, excellent philosophers who (through no fault of their own!) happen to be male."

Anonymous said...

6:08 continued:

Note that several others on this thread have disagreed with you. They have said flat out that the women are indeed less deserving. E.g., "What matter is just that we increase the numbers of women and make sure none of their feelings are ever hurt by the knowledge that better qualified men had to have to pushed aside..." and "I know of at least one woman who has no publications, no teaching experience, and no PhD, and has a flyout at a good school. It happens. She's damn good, but no male is getting that interview, or flyout."

And so women start with a minority of people in the field *explicitly* calling into doubt their achievements. This is in addition to the well-documented issues of implicit bias in terms of women's applications. There have been studies showing differences in women's student evaluations, recommendation letters, and in SC evaluations of their CVs.

So let's say female A and male B are in fact roughly equal (I agree with those who call into question whether one's job marketability can be reduced to one scale). According to the data on implicit bias, A's application will actually appear somewhat worse than B's. Taking that data seriously, a department would do well to prefer the apparently equally-qualified female over the male, even assuming that there is no reason (philosophical or pedagogical) for us to desire more gender-equity in the field. (I think there is.)

Let's say the other wound-lickers are incorrect and you, 2:40, are right; that the women are of equal quality. In which case, I suspect you are right; that many departments will prefer a female of roughly equal quality to a male (many other departments, I suspect, will pay lip service to this and choose otherwise, but let's set that aside). Let us assume that you are also right that we have no way of knowing if this preference more than compensates for all the implicit bias issues, etc.

Okay, then. If the women are just as deserving, what's the problem? Because the choice between some candidates and other candidates is made on some measure that isn't relevant to philosophical or teaching ability? Doesn't that ALWAYS happen? I mean, those who did not pursue an AOC in, say, bioethics are at a relative disadvantage. That surely isn't a reflection of candidates' philosophical or teaching ability, but simply reflects the needs of many departments. One doesn't always have the opportunity or foreknowledge necessary to hone marketable AOCs.

I have not been on an SC, so correct me if I'm wrong. But if there's one hirable quality I hear SC members cite over and over again, it is "fit." Which seems to be a statement on the part of SCs that the choice between equally excellent philosophers comes down to arbitrary properties of the candidate.

Choosing on arbitrary measures is, then, unavoidable. Arbitrary selection becomes a problem to correct and bemoan when a person is selected against again and again throughout their career for the same arbitrary reason. The implicit bias data and citation data indicate that there are such repeated selections against females and minorities. I have seen no similar data for males.

Anonymous said...

10:19, you might be interested in this:

Fair Measures: A Behavioral Realist Revision of 'Affirmative Action'

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=873907

Anonymous said...

RIP useful thread collecting information on candidates job market vitals.

(Zombie, can we start a new thread?)

Anonymous said...

@ 10:49

Cool thanks!

-10:19

Anonymous said...

As the "Anonymous" who originally called for this thread, I second 11:07's call. Can we hear more about individuals' APA experiences and less pointless sniping about, well, about all the stuff that folks have been blathering about?

Anonymous said...

Applied: 70
Interviews: 0
ABD
Below Leiter 50
2 Peer Reviewed Articles (one top 10, one specialty)+ Conference proceedings and book reviews
Phil Mind/Science/Metaphysics

Wait, am I posting in the right thread?

Anonymous said...

6:08 here. Apologies for pointless threadjacking. Agreed, on with the show! I would post my stats in penance, but already have above.

Anonymous said...

Answering Zombie's "P.S." question:

Because of the hotel renovations, the meetings had a different feel. There were fewer obvious gathering places -- no place to sit down with a coffee or beer right in the hotel and be gawked at by or gawk at other philosophers, for instance.

The Smokers were pretty typical, though. Fewer people than there were three years ago, presumably because there are fewer APA interviews now.
There was some good free beer! I didn't get anything to drink at the second one, but I assume it was overpriced.

Oh, and somehow our new regime has solved the registration line problem. Go figure.

zombie said...

2:35, thanks for the report. I found gawking, shoe inspecting, and silent judging to be excellent time killers at APAs past.

Anonymous said...

The Kripke session was hysterical. Even aside from his it's-not-easy-being-green voice, the fact that he turned up 20 min late to a session dedicated to his work, surrounded by his all-female cast of handlers ... Dude's a diva. Cool that we still have one or two left in analytic philosophy.
-Frankie

Anonymous said...

Applied: 42
Interviews: 2 (1 Skype, 1 APA)
Universities: 2
SLAC: 0
PhD in hand
Leiter: Top 25
AOS: History
Publications: 0

I'm hoping someone might answer an unrelated question for me. If I do get a flyout, should I circulate the paper to the department in advance? For instance, can you send a longish paper, expect people to read it, and then talk about only parts of it? Might it be better to give the talk without sending the paper in advance? Is there a normal practice? Thank you!!!

Anonymous said...

@9:20am:

I don't know how helpful this is, but in my department the papers for candidates' job talks have on occasion been sent out to the whole department in advance. I, for one have never actually read one all the way through in advance of a talk. My guess (depending on the department) is that it would be fine to circulate a paper, but bad to give the talk assuming that all or most people have read it.

Anonymous said...

Total applications: 20-25
Number of APA/Skype interviews: 0
Universities (n):0
SLAC (n):0
Other (n):0
PhD in hand (Y/N): Y
PhD program : top 50
AOS: Ethics
Publications (n): 4 (1 in top 10 generalist journal, 2 in specialty ethics journals a tier below Ethics and PPA, 1 in known but non-elite generalist journal.

Anonymous said...

Number of APA/Skype interviews**:1 APA/0 Skype
Universities (n):1
SLAC (n):R1
Other (n):
PhD in hand (Y/N):N
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked):50
AOS:Pragmatism/History of Philosophy
Publications (n):0
Comments:

Newman said...

Be honest. Which job (for which you've interviewed) has you checking your messages most frequently in the hope you'll get a campus visit?

Anonymous said...

Applied to 1 job
Number of APA/Skype interviews**:1 APA/0 Skype
Universities (n):1
SLAC (n):R1
Other (n):
PhD in hand (Y/N):N
PhD program (top 10/25/50/below or unranked):50
AOS:Pragmatism/History of Philosophy
Publications (n):0
Comments:

Anonymous said...

Anyone heard anything from Wabash College?

Anonymous said...

Anyone heard from Bowdoin?

Anonymous said...

Haven't heard from either Bowdoin or Wabash, but I didn't apply to them either. I'd kill to hear from Lehigh or Simon Fraser, but I suspect they've already moved forward without me. Anyone hear from ANU?

Anonymous said...

I don't know about Simon Fraser. I haven't heard anything from any of the Canadian schools to which I applied. (UBC, Waterloo, U of Toronto (cog sci lecturer), Simon Fraser, and U of Western Ontario Postdoc).

Canadians start school again today. So maybe we will hear soon.

Anonymous said...

I didn't see Tufts, Urbana-Champaign, Simon Fraser, or UBC-Okanagan updated on the wiki. Given that we're now well into January, should I assume that they've all gone to interviews without me? Has anyone heard anything official/unofficial?

Anonymous said...

LeHigh interviewed candidates at the Eastern APA, and will contact interviewees for on-campus visits in the next week or two.

Anonymous said...

Interviews: 3
Universities: 3
PhD NOT in hand
PhD program: Top 20
AOS: Ethics
Publications: 0
Comments: One on-campus, waiting to hear from other two

Anonymous said...

Bowdoin interviewed at the APA

Anonymous said...

1/4 7:15am - Kreepke

1/4 9:20am - Thanks for asking that question.

1/4 10:36am - Thanks for answering 9:20's question. What you say sounds truthy.

Newman - OK, I wasn't going to disclose any personally identifying details, but since you so coquettishly implore me to be honest, here goes: The University of Your Mom. I yearn to visit her campus, and I can't stop checking to see if she's called.

Anonymous said...

ANU has an offer out.

Anonymous said...

"But of course, the same is NOT true of male applicants hired as a result of implicit or explicit bias in favor of males. Also NOT true of white applicants. It goes without saying that they are all top notch and got there on their own merits, not because of anti-male, anti-white, unfair advantages given to women and and minorities. It just stands to reason."

If there are indeed men hired because of "implicit bias in favour of males", then, naturally, it does stand to reason that they too are probably not as good as some of the people passed over. (That doesn't justify hiring women over men who _are_ better qualified. Two wrongs and all that.) Is this bizarre imputation to me of stuff I never said or implied meant to address the substantive point I made?

Anonymous said...

Bowdoin has scheduled campus visits.

Newman said...

Unfortunately, the University of My Mom's search was canceled due to declining enrollment and administrative ambivalence toward philosophy. Also my dad found out. Anyway, you wouldn't want that job. The service requirements for tenure are a bitch!

Anonymous said...

In response to 9:20 am's question about circulating papers in advance: At least some state universities have very strict policies that all candidates must be evaluated on exactly the same set of criteria, and seeing an additional writing sample (even if it is your job talk) could perhaps reasonably be seen as allowing you an extra chance to impress the department. I'd contact the chair of the search committee and ask before sending the paper.

Anonymous said...

Newman, thanks for the informative update! You're right that I wouldn't want that job. I don't want *any* job! What I want is money and to be left alone most of the time. Don't tell anyone!

Anonymous said...

Anyone know what's going on at UC Santa Cruz?

Anonymous said...

Anyone heard from El Paso, TX?

Anonymous said...

Any news on Ryerson?

Anonymous said...

I saw on the Wiki page that Lehigh has scheduled on-campus interviews. I had a first round interview with them, but i didn't hear back. So I am assuming that I didn't make it. Still, they did say during the interview that they will inform candidates either way. If someone has heard from Lehigh, could they share some info?

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Anyone heard from LaSalle?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard any updates from UC Santa Barbara or Penn (moral philosophy)?

Anonymous said...

8:08: I haven't heard from Lehigh. But just on a general note: assuming the Wiki is correct, the only thing to infer is that you aren't the first or perhaps second candidate invited for a fly-out. They might well keep you as a back-up candidate and inform all candidates only after they are confident they don't need the 'back-ups'. So I would think it's premature to say you definitely didn't make it. Just that your chances have decreased (which in practice may feel just as bad).

Anonymous said...

"So I am assuming that I didn't make it. Still, they did say during the interview that they will inform candidates either way."

Let's assume they brought 3 people to campus. You might be 4th on their list. They haven't rejected you yet, because the search is still open and they may not land (or, based on the campus interview, may not want) any of their top 3. They might be keeping you in the hole, just in case.

It sucks, and it means you likely won't hear anything until you are either rejected (because an offer has been accepted, which won't be for some time yet) or they fly you out (which won't happen for at least 2 weeks, because they have to hold interviews and deliberate).

It sucks, but that's how it works.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to those who responded to my question about Lehigh.

Anonymous said...

Anyone heard from Ryerson?

Anonymous said...

LaSalle showed up on the wiki a couple of times as having scheduled their first-round interviews, but someone keeps moving them back to the 'Applications Acknowledged' section. The same thing, I noticed, happened with the SUNY New Paltz job and with Duquesne. I don't know if there's someone deliberately tampering with the AOS Continental jobs, or if this is happening to lots of jobs, but I'm only noticing the Continental ones because those are the ones I applied to.

In any event, chances are that LaSalle scheduled their interviews a week or so ago (which is when they first showed up as such on the wiki).

Anonymous said...

12:56--I noticed that happening with some non-continental jobs. I thought maybe it was some kind of glitch, like the page wasn't updating properly or something.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard from Missouri State? Sonoma State? Morgan State?

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard from North Central college post-APA?

Anonymous said...

Can anyone comment on the state of the UCSC philosophy department? The chair is some guy from linguistics, or something. Did the wheels come off the bus or is the surf just that good at Pleasure Point?

Anonymous said...

Anyone heard from Notre Dame (Maryland)? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard anything (in terms of a decision) from Melbourne? That's more or less tops on my list.

Anonymous said...

Anyone heard from Groningen?

@10:11, I know that UCSB had interviews at the APA, but I don't know if they've notified on the flyout front yet.

Anonymous said...

0 (applied to 10)
N
unranked
metaphysics
3 (1 elite journal, 1 book chapter w/elite press)

Anonymous said...

3 (out of 11; all TT)
0 universities (applied to 1)
3 SLAC
No PhD in hand
PhD program top 25
Medieval/Early Modern
0 (but 1 forthcoming and 2 under review)