Thursday, January 9, 2014

Don't make me turn this car around


As has been noted elsewhere and repeatedly (and yearly), updates to the Phylo wiki seem to be both erratic and inconsistent, with listings sometimes moving back and forth between categories. This may just be SOP for wikis, what with trolls and mischief-makers being about. But, if you're fucking around with the wiki, please stop ruining it for everyone. If you're legitimately and honestly updating the wiki, please continue because you're awesome. If you're not updating the wiki (and you are legit and honest and have legit and honest updates), please do so.

That said, anyone else feel like they don't want to be the first one to post an update?

Does it seem like the PFOs are going out early this year, or is it just me?

~zombie



142 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree, Zombie. The PFOs are going out early this year, and I like it. I might be rejected, but at least I'm not hanging on to false hope.

Anonymous said...

Is there a way to add a 'PFO received' category to the wiki?

Anonymous said...

I wish I had an update to post...

There're a bunch of schools I'm waiting to hear about that haven't posted on the wiki and that didn't interview at the APA, or as far as I know via skype or whatever. Several others have already been interviewing. But I've gotten only one official PFO.

Anonymous said...

It's been between a week and a half and two weeks since APA interviews. Although the wiki hasn't been updated much, I'm assuming it's now pretty safe to conclude that just about any APA-interviewing school has contacted people for fly-outs, yes? (I've not been on the other end of the process, but I can't imagine it would take 2+ weeks to begin scheduling campus visits.)

Anonymous said...

Ignore the wiki. You will thank me later.

Anonymous said...

@11:45 am

Imagine it. At some places the bureaucracy involved in hiring is tremendous. And remember interviewers get breaks, too. Schools are starting up next week and beyond, so by my count we've got at least one more week until assumptions are warranted. Hang in there.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:45: I know of at least one school that interviewed at the APA but won't be scheduling fly-outs until next week.

zombie said...

11:45: I can personally and reliably confirm only one APA-interviewing school that has scheduled fly-outs. But presumably, others have.

Anonymous said...

If it makes anyone feel better, last year I heard from my last fly-out on January 15th. So the clock's still potentially ticking.

Anonymous said...

Do not assume an APA school, or for that matter, any school has scheduled flyouts until you hear from a reliable source they've done so.

Searches are crazy, all sorts of shit happens. Just do some work and wait for requests or PFOs to come in.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:45,

No don't assume all fly-out picks have been contacted. Many schools want to wait until the whole department can meet and that is often during the first week of classes...which as many schools is next week.

Anonymous said...

I know of a fly-out pick from a previous year who wasn't contacted until March. Presumably the person wasn't a first choice, and it isn't the most common situation, but it happens. I know of another who wasn't contacted until *June* (yes, for tenure track). Again probably not the first choice, but hey, some of us are willing to swallow our pride and take a job even if we're not one of the first round picks. Both interviews led to job offers.

Anonymous said...

No particular reason for this question. (Just bored.)

I know that at least one school (Princeton) hires 'blind,' based only on submission materials and written work. At the other end of the spectrum, some schools make potential hires do extensive teaching demonstrations, in addition to the standard job talk and interview, before making a decision.

So, my question: are there any schools that do interviews, but do *not* do campus visits (and so hire only on the basis of interviews)?

Anonymous said...

No. At least I have NEVER heard of one.

Anonymous said...

3:10.

I doubt it. University administrators won't be attending the conferences, and will not want to hire someone to the tenure track without a meeting.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time, because unless that administrator has a background in the field, that person has no business influencing a department's search in any way. It's one of those aspects of administration that goes back to their inherent sense of busy work: they need to feel important by insisting that they weigh in decisions they are ill-prepared to make.

Once upon a time, it might have served a purpose. Perhaps back when administrators were still part of the teaching faculty, whose administrative duties were their contributions to university service. Now, however, professional administration is a fixture, completely separate from the faculty ranks.

Anonymous said...

I've never heard of any school that hired only on the basis of interviews, but I would not be surprised if someone told me that there was a community college that did it that way, given that at least some CCs have hiring done by administrators, rather than professors.

Anonymous said...

"University administrators won't be attending the conferences, and will not want to hire someone to the tenure track without a meeting."

Often true, but not always. Princeton philosophy does hire new faculty without any interview at all.

Also: my university really does have administrators about half of whom are still teaching at the university. Not teaching full time, but keeping their hands in.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard anything from Avila in Kansas City?

Anonymous said...

About departments hiring just on the basis of interviews: I was hired for a TT job oversees just on the basis of an interview. Part of the reasoning behind this policy was that it would be too expensive to fly folks out for job talks given the great distance involved.

Anonymous said...

When one is asked to come to campus for a visit, what's the standard amount of time between the invitation and the visit? (Is there a standard time, or a standard range of time?) Two weeks? Three? A month?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard from Fordham?

zombie said...

9:28: all of those are within the typical range. The "normal" schedule is for campus visits to be completed by mid to late February, although not everyone follows that schedule. And typically, you'll get a few weeks to a month notice, more or less.

I've never had a campus visit where I was not offered a choice among several dates.

Anonymous said...

Also, departments *want* you to come to campus (because they might want to hire you!) so they'll often accommodate you. I've had departments schedule me on a week's notice (6 days, actually) because I already had an offer in hand, and another department pushed up my visit by a few weeks, to the day before another candidate's visit, just so they could squeeze me in asap (because of that offer in hand).

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard from LSE?

Anonymous said...

http://www.colinmcginn.net/rutgers/#.UtRP6fYWllA

Looks like someone is interested in a job at Rutgers again.

I sure hope they hire him.

zombie said...

"...how much I valued the intellectual (and ethical) environment there..."

I would be so insulted right now if I was Rutgers!

Anonymous said...


Awfully quiet around here for all the job hunting going on. What gives?

zombie said...

The waiting. They say it's the hardest part. But it's quiet.

Anonymous said...

Marquette?

Anonymous said...

Anyone who discovers that on-campus job talks have been posted to a department's events page, please post the links here.

Anonymous said...

are people who are being invited to campus normally informed all at the same time? is it ever done over a number of days?

Anonymous said...

Gotta love the Baruch admin.

Anonymous said...

Can you guys give this its own thread? It is a worthwhile project, and few philosophers know about it at this point!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0An-UdyZNOVCQdGVJN3hWU0EtbjRwR2t1R1JLR19Hd0E&usp=sharing#gid=0

Thanks in advance!

Anonymous said...

10:45 AM,
Yes. Yes.

zombie said...

10:45 - for first-round interviews, I have seen a lag of a day or more between when things show up on the wiki, and when I have been invited. But there are generally a dozen or so first-round interviews. For fly-outs, there are usually fewer candidates, but it is still possible that the invitations might be staggered. There is also the possibility that some candidates will turn down a fly-out, and the committee will go back to their list to find another candidate to invite.

Anonymous said...

11:58,
Why, what's up with the Baruch administration?

Anonymous said...

The wiki is definitely funky. I have posted jobs that have been deleted and others that have not shown up at all. I have been trying for three days to update University College London, but it hasn't appeared. Also my account has been deleted twice.

Anonymous said...

What's the news on UCL?

Anonymous said...

I got a request for letters from UCL yesterday - should I take that as a good sign? Have they sent PFOs or requested interviews for some folks?

Anonymous said...

11:58, is the Baruch job search canceled or something? Or delayed? I had a first round interview there, but haven't heard anything. Should I cross it off my list?

Anonymous said...

Baruch sent out an affirmative action email to all the applicants, with all the applicants' names and emails visible.

Anonymous said...

I got the same request from UCL the other day. Odd though, since I had already sent them. I think they are asking for letters from everyone, as I am at an unranked PhD program and ABD. No way UCL would take me!

Anonymous said...

Was so tempted to hit reply all when I got the Baruch email and say "Thanks so much! I'll do this right away!!!"

Anonymous said...

Apparently some names were not on the list, but that is pretty classy.

Anonymous said...

Any word from Tufts, UBC-Okanagan, Simon Fraser, or the Jackman Humanities Institute post doc (at Toronto)?

Anonymous said...

There were 242 names in the Baruch email. Seems low for an Open AOS.

Anonymous said...

I applied to Baruch and didn't get the email. 6:31, that would have been awesome.

Anonymous said...

Any news from Ryerson?

Anonymous said...

I got the same request from UCL the other day, but originally I had only sent the names of my refs, not their letters. I was hoping the email was a good sign, like that I had made a long list or something. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

Any word on Leeds, Oxford, Carleton U, Wash U, or Santa Cruz?

Anonymous said...

BOTH @10:10 and 11:21: Exactly the same here.
Just glad to have this blog, at least!

Anonymous said...

Any news on Midwestern State?

zombie said...

It's a good sign to be asked for letters, if it is also the case that not everyone was asked for letters. It's a good sign to be asked for anything "extra," but not a sign that you will definitely, certainly, and without doubt be asked to interview. (<<< zombie knows from bitter experience)

Anonymous said...

The UCL ad that is on their website asks for candidates to send the letters up front (see here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/vacancies). So being asked for letters now is likely not good evidence you are near a long list or short list. I suppose it is slightly encouraging, though. Presumably they aren't required to get your letters.

By the way, someone asked about Simon Fraser here and someone asked about Groningen on another thread. Both have drawn up long lists; SFU has also drawn up a short list, but it is unclear if the winners know who they are yet.

Anonymous said...

I haven't heard anything from Santa Cruz. I wonder if they will go straight to on-campus visits.

Has anyone received an invitation for an on-campus interview from Stony Brook?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard from Illinois State? Have they moved to on-campus interviews yet? Or Ball State?

Anonymous said...

Did SFU already do skype interviews?

Anonymous said...

To the person who posted about the Simon Fraser short list: what does 'short list' mean in this context? Does it mean a list of people who will be interviewed on Skype?

Anonymous said...

1:43 here: First SFU question: No, they are going straight to fly outs (I found out I was on the long list because they asked for more materials; however, given how long it's been since the meeting, I doubt I am a winner).

Second SFU question: No, by 'short list' I meant the list of people who are invited to campus.

(Also, fwiw, I was told by a faculty member that they received 472 applications.)

Anonymous said...

Ball State has done phone interviews.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard from Dominican University (IL)?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 15, 2014 at 5:27 AM) said...

"Anyone who discovers that on-campus job talks have been posted to a department's events page, please post the links here."

NYU:

http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/philo.newsevents.colloquia

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 15, 2014 at 5:27 AM) said...

"Anyone who discovers that on-campus job talks have been posted to a department's events page, please post the links here."

Wash U.

http://philosophy.artsci.wustl.edu/events/481

Position filled.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard anything from or about Sonoma State?

http://philjobs.org/job/show/2735

Perhaps they were kidding.

Anonymous said...

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/events/events_new.html

Anonymous said...

Methinks Simon Fraser is going to come up empty handed with that list. That is as good of a sample of people who are destroying the market as one will get this year.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, 1:06, agreed ...

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, it's somewhat dumb not to fly people out just because you think they're too good for you. I'm sure that's what most schools thought about me...

Anonymous said...

1:06, what do you mean by "destroying the market?"

Anonymous said...

Looks like Notre Dame's got its finalists scheduled for February:

http://philosophy.nd.edu/news-and-events/department-administrative-calendar/

Anonymous said...

methinks you underestimate quality of life benefits simon fraser can provide.

Anonymous said...

1:06 here: By 'destroying the market' I mean 'doing very well.'

Don't get me wrong, I think SFU is great. And I'm sure it'd be tough to choose between that and a top 20 PGR program, but I bet the top 20 PGR program is going to win most days.

Anonymous said...

Looks like utah is bringing in a bunch of folks in jan and feb:

http://philosophy.utah.edu/calendar.php

Anonymous said...

7:21

I'm not the previous poster extolling the "life benefits" of SFU. Nor do I work or study at SFU.

I do hope you realize that your life goals are not the same as others. Would I prefer a job at SFU to a Leiterrific school if I were in those candidates' positions? In some cases, absolutely. I just don't care where a school is ranked on Leiter's rankings. It makes absolutely no difference to me.

Would I prefer to live in Vancouver or Tempe? What about Vancouver vs. Ithaca?

Would I rather face the tenure process at SFU or at Harvard? I'm not saying it's easy-going at SFU, but one of these institutions has a reputation for making the process extremely difficult.

Would I prefer to teach students at SFU or engineers at MIT who have been told that they are wasting their time in philosophy courses? (SFU is a well-known school for engineering as well, but I understand the atmosphere is just a bit different).

There are, of course, many great things about teaching at the universities that are ranked highly in Leiter's rankings. You would have extremely bright colleagues and students. Many of the schools are well-endowed and in culturally rich cities or beautiful smaller towns (e.g. Ithaca, which I think is quite nice, but many others don't). But you act as if it's obvious that, to the "top" candidates on the job market, working at one of the schools in Leiter's top 20 is obviously better than working at SFU, regardless of one's values.

I hope you're right and that all of those candidates do think they way you do. It would be a sad comment on our profession, but if they all turn down the offer, perhaps I will get a last-minute interview and end up working at SFU, which is one of my dream jobs.

Anonymous said...

- By 'destroying the market' I mean 'doing very well.'

So...success on the market is bad for the market? I don't understand. Could you explain this please?

Anonymous said...

"- By 'destroying the market' I mean 'doing very well.'

So...success on the market is bad for the market? I don't understand. Could you explain this please?"

In an effort to stave off another post derailing, let's make this as simple as possible: 'Destroying' has positive connotations in certain contexts, and the original comment clearly carried those connotations. For instance, in sports, 'destroying' means something like 'dominating' or 'optimally excelling'. So, by 'destroying the market', what is meant is 'doing extremely well on the market'. And, indeed, the list of SFU finalists are doing just that (they have interviews at a lot of really nice places).

I'm not the poster of the original comment. But I am a poster who is more interested in self-reported success/troubles on this year's market and information on departments' selections for on-campus visits (and I'm sure I'm not alone).

Anonymous said...

To 4:53am,

The verb "to destroy" is slang for "do very well". For example, the sentence "the band destroyed that set" can mean that they performed their set quite well.

Anonymous said...

1:06/7:21 here:

11:34: It sounds like you think my view is that they'll choose a Leiteriffic school *because* it is Leiteriffic. I don't think that; that would be a stupid reason for them to choose one place over another. And it would be a sad fact about our profession if that were true. But it's not. Likely they'll choose Leiteriffic departments because those departments probably can offer them more than SFU can by way of salary, leave time/teaching reductions, and quality of philosophical life. Those are *really* good reasons to choose one place over another (at least if you are really serious about research). And while it's true that tenure will be difficult to get at some places (although not all Leiteriffic places given reasonable expectations about the output of those particular philosophers and philosophers like them), even if one doesn't get tenure at, say, Harvard, one is very likely to receive a tenured offer from some other good department right away.

Fair enough about preferences about individual locations. I didn't claim it was irrational to prefer SFU over some Leiteriffic department, nor did I say there isn't any reason to. I just said it's more likely they'll go for the Leiteriffic schools. It was implicit in my comment, and I am now asserting this, that there are good reasons for this (the fact that the place is Leiteriffic is *not* among those reasons).

4:53: I picked up this usage from playing sports. One is not destroying the market qua abstract object; one is destroying the *competition* on the market. As in: Richard Sherman destroyed Crabtree on that last play! I guess this usage is not very common. Apologies for being confusing.

Anonymous said...

6:13,

Thanks. For a minute, I thought this post was devolving into another complaint about how certain groups of scholars are ruining the job market for others.

Anonymous said...

UC Davis appears to have job talks lined up for its two positions:

http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/events-1/colloquium-schedule

Anonymous said...

At least one of the UCL jobs looks to be at the long-list stage.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard from Univ Wisconsin Oshkosh re: campus visits?

Anonymous said...

7:24 AM, what makes you say that, exactly? (Could you give a bit more detail.)

Anonymous said...

Santa Cruz? Anyone have any news?

Anonymous said...

Santa Cruz has asked people for more letters.

zombie said...

File under "Can't hurt to ask":

"Open, but preference given to applicants who demonstrate an ability to teach in at least one of the following areas: aesthetics, philosophy of law, philosophy of education, metaphysics, epistemology, one or more areas of applied ethics, and/or Native American, African/Afro-Caribbean, Aboriginal, or another non-Western, non-Asian tradition."

Anonymous said...

I'm not the previous poster about UCL. At least the Lectureship in the UCL Department of Philosophy (Specialisation in Ancient, Early Modern or Post-Kantian Philosophy) is at the long-list stage because they sent out at least one request for writing samples.

Anonymous said...

@9:44 AM:

I'm not sure if this is what 7:24 AM had in mind, but the UCL open search has solicited two pieces of writing from some (and I think not all) candidates. Suggests maybe they've narrowed the pool.

Anonymous said...

9:44,

I was asked for writing samples. The full job description described this request as the stage immediately prior to on-campus interviews.

Anonymous said...

On the SFU thread:
I know more than one of those candidates, and I can tell you that all the ones I know think an offer from Simon Fraser is well above their current expected value. My bet is that Simon Fraser lands one of those candidates. (And I agree that it's a pretty dreamy job.)

Anonymous said...

Did anyone here apply at Nazarbayev University? In Kazakhstan.

Anonymous said...

The SFU candidates are truly terrific. Good luck to them and the school with the hiring.

I don't think it's appropriate to speculate in a public forum about which jobs specific named individuals are likely or unlikely to accept. I imagine it would be distressing for the individuals involved, and potentially also unpleasant for the hiring school(s).

Anonymous said...

Anyone hear from Ave Maria? I got an email saying that they would be meeting to decide on long list by the end of this week, and doing skype next week.

Anonymous said...

The market is rough indeed if one of those SFU candidates takes the job. Not that SFU isn't a great place -- heck, I'd have loved to get a flyout. But I'm at a 10-20 dept. The fact that candidates from top-5 depts are thinking of it as better than they expected means that the rest of us are getting bumped down pretty far.

zombie said...

I can't speak for the candidates at SFU, but they can presumably not apply to a job they would consider unacceptable. Personally, I'd love to be at SFU, but my love is unrequited.

People have many reasons for finding some jobs more desirable than others, and they don't all have to do with the ranking of the school.

PaperAuthor said...

I have a question, my friends:

Say you've written a paper that is in large part a criticism of the views of famous philosopher X. Now you want to get it published.

Ought you to avoid sending it to a journal that is edited by famous philosopher X? Or if that's the best place for it, should you have good faith that this won't junk up the process?

Thank you my friends.

Anonymous said...

Only two of those people are from top-5 programs. (There are some visiting speakers from leiteriffic programs who are just colloquium speakers, not job candidates.)

But yeah, you are presumably aware that several top-five programs have at least a dozen students on the market. There's no way for all of them to pick the very sweetest plums. Simon Fraser is pretty damn sweet (as I think we all agree).

zombie said...

Paper Author: I would not send said paper to said journal edited by said philosopher criticized in said paper.

Unless one is a glutton for punishment. I don't see it ending well, unless said philosopher is exceptionally magnanimous. And maybe s/he is.

Anonymous said...

Say you've written a paper that is in large part a criticism of the views of famous philosopher X. Now you want to get it published.

Ought you to avoid sending it to a journal that is edited by famous philosopher X?


Your case is crucially under-described. In what tone is your criticism made? There is a wide range, approximately from "X is the dominant view for good reason, since it seems so intuitively compelling and has attracted such eminent proponents as philosopher A, but X proves incapable of handling cases like these" to "It is a mystery why anyone should believe X, but here's famous philosopher A who apparently does, so it's worth taking seriously enough to destroy it as follows."

The closer your paper is to the first sort of criticism, the more clear it is that you should first send it to the journal that A edits.

Something many people seem to miss, including many contributors to this blog, is that being criticized -- in at least a civil and preferably a respectful tone -- even trenchantly, is far preferable to being ignored. Are there famous philosophers who don't realize this and have yet to meet a criticism they like, either substantively or strategically? Sure. But more are canny enough to realize that what matters most is that people are talking about you, and almost all philosophical talk is to some degree critical.

Nobody hurts Ted Sider by criticizing Ted Sider, not even if the criticism is powerful.

There's also something to be learned here about how to write philosophy papers, which one would do well to internalize.

Anonymous said...

Has SUNY New Paltz made its invitations for on-campus interviews?

zombie said...

All good points, 7:04

Anonymous said...

Cruising their faculty pages, a good number of the SFU hires in the last decade have been top 5 program people. It's not like the market has improved compared to that time period.

Anonymous said...

I'm also wondering about the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh job. It's been an awfully long time since the APA, and I'm assuming they've contacted their top picks and are leaving the rest of us in limbo. If anyone can confirm this, please spill the beans and put the rest of us out of our misery!

Anonymous said...

"Are there famous philosophers who don't realize this and have yet to meet a criticism they like, either substantively or strategically? Sure."

Clearly, you are not keeping up with Colin McGinn's blog, are you?

Anonymous said...

SFU is in an amazing location in all sorts of ways, the workload is decent, and the new hire would get to know WestCoast Feminist personally (which has got to be interesting). What's not to like?

Anonymous said...

http://philosophy.ucsc.edu/news-events/news/assistant%20professor.html

Anonymous said...

Any word on Eastern Michigan?

Anonymous said...

11:52 -- yeah, but that UCSC post was from a year ago!

8:06 -- you're right about WestCoast Feminist. Just reread her posts in the epic thread she shared with Rodolfo a couple of years ago.

For those newbie smokers who don't want to wade through it but are lucky enough to be interviewing at SFU: be very careful which fork you use at dinner, particularly in front of snarky transplants from the east coast. Your prospects can be scuttled if you grab the wrong utensil and she happens to notice.

The rule, for those not in the know, is always to use the utensils farthest away from your dish, moving in in order course by course. The servers will set them up so that that works automatically. Your dessert fork and/or spoon will be above your plate -- that's the only exception.

Anonymous said...

I'm a newbie in that regard. I went and read the thread and then the person's ratemyprofessor reviews. Fun stuff.

Anonymous said...

@6:32 - That was an update to a post from August announcing the positions. These appear to be the two finalists for the two positions that they advertised...

Anonymous said...

Anyone know if Ball State or Baruch have gone to on-campus?

Anonymous said...

I thought the key to success at SFU (or any BC institution for that matter) was wearing enough spandex -- yoga pants or bike shorts, running tights in a pinch -- not using the right fork.

Anonymous said...

Baruch finished up their on-campus interviews last week I believe.

Anonymous said...

10:12, thanks for letting me know.

Anonymous said...

Moderators, why are the comments effectively outing someone's identity being published?

Anonymous said...

If WCF is the person to whom these thinly veiled allusions refer, then I'm mighty disappointed. I respected this person's scholarship :(. I hope that things are otherwise.

Mr. Zero said...

Moderators, why are the comments effectively outing someone's identity being published?

My first reaction was to presume that the apparent "identification" was just a guess, and not worth taking seriously. But on second though, I have reconsidered, and I can see that my initial reaction was a mistake. Sorry. Fucked that one up.

DH said...

I work in the SFU Philosophy Dept. I'd have used my full name if I was okay with this creepy discussion appearing in the Google results for a search of my name.

Here's a fact: WestCoast Feminist does not work in my department. I'm not speculating; I'm not making an inference to the best explanation. But I won't tell you how I know this because I'm sure it would induce another round of borderline slanderous speculation.

This kind of speculation about the identities of anonymous posters is probably inevitable in a forum like this one. But those of you who have engaged in it in this case are wrong and you should stop.

On the earlier conversation: let me confirm that SFU is a fantastic place to work, and the quality of life in this part of the world is very, very high.

Anonymous said...

On to, hopefully, a completely different subject:

I have an on-campus interview at a SLAC coming up. The way that the SC chair and I scheduled the interview led me to believe that it is likely that the SC does not plan to fly out any finalists other than me, unless, I suppose, I completely botch the on-campus. I won't go into the details. Also, the job hasn't been updated to on-campus visit status on the job wiki, which, I guess, also moderately confirms my suspicions.

Here's my question: how common is it that a SC would fly out their top candidate in the hopes that he or she will work out without scheduling fly-outs with other finalists?

Anonymous said...

8:00 - Congrats on the fly-out. Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why you haven't updated the wiki yourself? I ask simply because there seems to be a serious lack of updating going on. I, for one, have no delusions of being contacted at this point by any of the schools that interviewed me, but it would have been nice to have had some confirmation of this via the wiki a while back.

William James said...

"Here's my question: how common is it that a SC would fly out their top candidate in the hopes that he or she will work out without scheduling fly-outs with other finalists?"

It is not common, but it can happen with a low-budget SLAC. Of course, it could be that your competition is local and therefore driving to the on-campus, or else an inside candidate and so walking to the on-campus.

Anonymous said...

8:00pm:

As an SLAC chair and frequent search committee member, I'd say it is common for us nowadays to do such a thing, given costs. The first fly out is the best candidate. If it works, we stop the process. If not, we go to #2.

Whether this is common in other places, I can't say, but I do think more places have turned to it in the face of budget issues.

Anonymous said...

Looks like UCLA has its candidates:

http://www.philosophy.ucla.edu/events.html

I see two.

Anonymous said...

CMC has its candidates for its (tenured) hire:

http://www.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/AKind/flyerspring2014.pdf

Anonymous said...

CMC: w/ one candidate's name misspelled.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have information on the status of the UCLA Law and Philosophy postdoc? Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Pitt and Harvard are both conducting on campus visits right now and into next month.

Anonymous said...

so is Stanford

Anonymous said...

So is Columbia

Anonymous said...

SFU is amazing. I'm currently at a top 20 department. I would leave it in a second to go to SFU.

RJ Leland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Has UC London or the open position at Oxford advanced? The wiki has been rather quiet about those two, but it's difficult to believe neither has identified a first round batch at this point.

Anonymous said...

Anybody heard about the Hopkins postdoc?

Anonymous said...

UCL's first-round of interviews is the on-campus. They are at the writing sample stage. The application said they would inform in early Feb.

Anonymous said...

Yep. Thanks 5:22, just got the PFO. My list is getting depressingly short... I think it's time to starting looking forward to the VAP positions.

Anonymous said...

Got my PFO too. I really have to stop getting my hopes up.

Anonymous said...

In reply to Anon 1/28 4:30 am:

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why you haven't updated the wiki yourself? I ask simply because there seems to be a serious lack of updating going on. I, for one, have no delusions of being contacted at this point by any of the schools that interviewed me, but it would have been nice to have had some confirmation of this via the wiki a while back.

I have an offer for a postdoc and am so happy and relieved that I would love to shout it from the rooftops, post it on wikis, etc., but the institution in question asked me not to post it on wikis or otherwise publicize it. So I didn't. Perhaps other institutions are asking this, too, and that might explain the wiki silence.

Anonymous said...

Anybody here anything about the UC Berkeley phil/psych postdoc? This is about all I've got left.

Anonymous said...

the institution in question asked me not to post it on wikis or otherwise publicize it

Is this common? Do many institutions request this?

Anonymous said...

Shame on the institution that specifically prohibited updating the wiki. That is some seriously unrighteous shit.
Anyone heard from Providence College post-"respond to our mission statement" essay?

Anonymous said...

12:09: What's so wrong with not wanting your business posted on wikis and asking people not to do so?

And while we're shaming, how about Providence College? I'm amazed to learn that they asked applicants to write essays in response to their precious mission statement. I'm not amazed that people did it, but [gratuitous and protracted outpouring of profanity]!!!

Anonymous said...

7:13, I must have filled out half a dozen applications asking to address the school's mission statement. It seems pretty common among schools with a serious religious affiliation (though not all of them).