Tuesday, April 1, 2014

PhilJobs News

PhilJobs' new Appointments feature has gone live, and it is good. You can see all appointments at once, or click separate tabs for Senior hires, Junior TT, Fellowships, and "other" (VAPs, adjuncts, etc.). A nice convenience is that the listings are in descending order (most recent postings at the top), unlike Leiter's ascending scroll. There's also a search field, so you can search for a position, or one of your friends.

PhilJobs is doing this in conjunction with the APA, as part of the initiative to track hiring data. Appointments data from Leiter's thread and Carolyn Dicey Jennings' database have been incorporated for one-stop shopping.

~zombie

94 comments:

Anonymous said...

definitely good. This might provide a nice way to keep departments honest about placement data. My dept, for example, never places people (immediately) into TT gigs, but has done pretty good and getting people into VAPs. But it has been hard to keep track of this, and no one in the dept is interested in keeping the website very current. Should be possible for the APA to index all their hiring data to each dept each year.

Anonymous said...

Fellowships are nearly all awarded to men but junior TT appointments approaches parity -- strange asymmetry. Explanations?

Anonymous said...

Brownian motion.

Anonymous said...

Chance.

Anonymous said...

So should those of us who struck out be posting our crappy adjunct jobs? On the one hand it seems important for keeping the profession (and various departments) honest. On the other hand, it probably makes us look bad as individual candidates who are still on the VAP market and will be back on the TT market next year.

Anonymous said...

10:03 - if it's on your CV I don't see what difference posting it at the APA could make. It's not like a hiring department is going to hold it against you in one case but not the other. Either it will matter or it won't.

Also, as you note, you can help bring about the good consequence of the discipline being public about how many adjunct jobs there are in a given year.

Anonymous said...

Not too many TT hires right out of grad school.

zombie said...

10:03 -- how will it make you look bad on the market? You put those jobs on your CV, right?

I say post 'em -- one purpose of this is to get a better sense of the job market as a whole -- not just the TT jobs or postdocs, but ALL the jobs.

zombie said...

What I noticed about the fellowships is how prestige/pedigree seems to play an even more obvious role in those than in TT hiring.

It would be useful to know when TT hires got their PhDs. Or maybe I'm just being nosy.

Anonymous said...

Don't post the jobs. The field is not interested in sharing information about the true state of the field. Don't rock the boat. Know your place in the pecking order.

Anonymous said...

One (depressing) theory: departments hire for postdocs without much administrative oversight, and so are freer to give their sexist and elitist instincts expression.

But when they hire for TT, they have to keep the deans happy.

Anonymous said...

"One (depressing) theory: departments hire for postdocs without much administrative oversight, and so are freer to give their sexist and elitist instincts expression.

But when they hire for TT, they have to keep the deans happy."

The supposition here is that deans are pushing for less sexism/elitism (ie. more women, fewer leiteriffic grads)?

zombie said...

I doubt deans are striving for less elitism, but in my experience, they are concerned about the sexism and lack of diversity.

Anonymous said...

People really need to know that a number of the TT hires from postdoc positions are people who deferred their TT start to take the postdoc year. So don't infer that it's becoming increasingly common to do a postdoc *then* get hired for a TT job. Many people are getting both at the same time, negotiating for a year off from the TT job, and taking up a year of postdoc.

Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of spin in these numbers over the tears at some places. This should help

Anonymous said...

You really think the Deans are not elitist?

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:52

False dilemma: deans are interested in elite status of hires and hiring in more diversity. Whatever the balance in individual deans, it plays out in more parity hiring for female candidates.

...one could argue.

Anonymous said...

Suppose that there are 100 TT jobs and 200 candidates in a year -- I'll let you swoon at that idyllic proportion a moment.

Now suppose that the gender breakdown of the 200 roughly reflects the present one: 140 men, 60 women.

Let the jobs reflect parity hiring, splitting them equally between men and women.

So there are 60 women for 50 jobs and 140 men for 50 jobs.

- 50/140=~34.7%
- 50/60 =~83.3%

In the above scenario, a given woman is roughly 50% more likely to be hired than her male counterpart.

Anonymous said...

"In the above scenario, a given woman is roughly 50% more likely to be hired than her male counterpart."

I just flipped a coin 100 times. It came up heads 70 times. Therefore, there is a 70% chance that flipping a coin results in heads.

zombie said...

7:42 -- if what you say is true (and I'm not making any claims about its veracity), it strikes me those hires ought not be counted as new hires this year. They should have been counted the year the hires were made, even if the candidate deferred for a year.
Here again, an opportunity for more informative data at Philjobs -- the dates of postdocs, the deferments, etc. (Something Leiter's thread does note)

Anonymous said...

"I just flipped a coin 100 times. It came up heads 70 times. Therefore, there is a 70% chance that flipping a coin results in heads."

Isn't that just evidence that the coin isn't fair or heads-biased?

Anonymous said...

2:51

No, it specifically does NOT mean that.

zombie said...

I'm pretty sure that nothing at all can be inferred about the chances of anyone (or any group) being hired based on data from a single year. There are, obviously, a LOT of variables.

Anonymous said...

That doesn't seem right, Zombie. You're not prepared to take the disproportionate number of male postdocs as evidence of residual sexism?

Tom B said...

2:51, yes.

5:07, of course it's evidence that the coin is biased. Would you count anything as evidence that the coin is biased? Any sequence of flips at all?

Zombie: agreed. Small sample size.

zombie said...

If I was in the business of making inferences, I'd say that the overwhelming representation of men among new postdocs, and the overhwelming representation of men from pretigious schools among new postdocs, plus historical bias in favor of men and prestigious schools, *could* be explained by bias. Yep. It could, presumably, also be explained by something else, but bias is surely one possible and plausible explanation. Possibly, the elitism of postdoc hiring explains it all, if men are far more likely (for other reasons, including sexism) to graduate from elite programs. (I have no data about that, so I can't make an evidence-based claim there.)

One could say that, in light of historical bias against women in TT hiring, the fact that the representation of women improved somewhat this year (IF it did) indicates that the pendulum has swung in favor of women. But I rather doubt it's that simple because there are a lot of variables in TT hiring. Look at the numbers over time -- several years -- and a trend might emerge. But is it a picture of bias in favor of women, or just less bias against women in philosophy? (They are not, I hope it's clear, the same thing.) I'd suspect the latter rather than the former, if only because it would be counterproductive to replace one set of biases with other biases. I just don't see an anti-male, anti-elite bias emerging in the academy, any more than it has emerged anywhere else. There is still a glass ceiling, women still make less money than men do, across disciplines and occupations. So, no. This year's numbers do not suppor the inference that a woman is 50% more likely to be hired than a man for any particular position.

Tom B said...

I just don't see an anti-male, anti-elite bias emerging in the academy, any more than it has emerged anywhere else.

There’s some affirmative action. Not at all the same thing as implicit bias, but it could explain the greater chance that women have of getting TT jobs this year. (But my official view is that that doesn’t need an explanation because the sample is too small to be much evidence of anything.)

This year's numbers do not support the inference that a woman is 50% more likely to be hired than a man for any particular position.

They certainly support the inference that a woman was 50% more likely to be hired to a tenure track job than a man *this year*. In fact, if the earlier commenter’s numbers are right (I haven’t investigated independently), they support it conclusively.

zombie said...

Assuming the numbers are correct, and given the pool of candidates this year, and the pool of available jobs this year, and the makeup of people on SCs and in administrative positions of decisional authority this year, and all their preferences and biases, the likelihood of a woman getting a TT job this year was X, and the likelihood of a man getting a TT job was Y (and the likelihood of a minority candidate was Z), and so on, as we carve the pool up according to the various attributes of the individuals.

What use is that information?

Anonymous said...

Not much, Zombie. But if the results of that analysis had been that women were getting the worst of it, we would never hear the end of it. It's only when the results point in the direction we don't want people thinking that they become officially irrelevant.

Carolyn Dicey Jennings said...

In past years, the percentage of women earning PhDs in the United States has been just under 30%. The percentage of women who have been placed in tenure-track jobs so far this year, according to this appointments page, is just over 40% (which includes women and men with PhDs from other countries, for which it would be difficult to know the proportion of women graduates). In any case, it is probably best to wait until the end of the job season to see how these numbers work out. Even then, it would probably be best to look at several years at once, since any given year may have a different proportion of women and men on the job market. In past years, the difference between the proportion of women and men placed in tenure-track jobs has been negligible.

Carolyn Dicey Jennings said...

"In past years, the difference between the proportion of women and men placed in tenure-track jobs has been negligible."

This is not quite right. I meant that in past years the difference between the proportion of women and men placed in tenure-track jobs (according to the ProPhi list) and the proportion of women and men who graduate with PhDs (according to NRC data) has been negligible.

Anonymous said...

Why does every thread on this blog eventually turn into a discussion of women's advantage in getting jobs?

Anonymous said...

"Why does every thread on this blog eventually turn into a discussion of women's advantage in getting jobs?"

I suppose that's because this blog is the only place for such a discussion. This is a Philosophy jobs blog. This appears to be an issue that many people care about concerning philosophy jobs, which hasn't yet received a dedicated post in which to hash it out.

- Leiter hasn't posted an appropriate open thread.

- Given that women are not at a disadvantage (the controversy is whether they have an advantage), the topic is ill-suited for discussion at NewApps or FemPhils.

- Given that PhilsAnon is functioning as intended as a magnet for kooks and cranks, it's no place for a discussion, let alone a discussion about hiring advantage.

- The other sites lack a significant audience, to my mind.

Anonymous said...

"Why does every thread on this blog eventually turn into a discussion of women's advantage in getting jobs?"

Because women getting jobs is the biggest crisis in philosophy, and everyone here is worried about the coming collapse of the field.

Anonymous said...

"Why does every thread on this blog eventually turn into a discussion of women's advantage in getting jobs?"

This is a good question, but I think in fact what happens is that many topics occur in long threads, and for some reason once the topic of women's recent advantage in getting jobs comes up, the thread just peters out. I don't know exactly why *that* happens, though.

Anonymous said...

As soon as I see the usual pseudo-philosophical discussion of women's hiring and sampling biases etc more than once or twice in a thread (not that there aren't real discussions of it -- but the ones here are awful), I simply ignore the thread and stop commenting. The thread is a lost cause.

I suspect I'm not the only one who does this, so the proportion of stats-wankers increases.

zombie said...

Not every thread turns into a discussion of women's advantage in philosophy, but a lot of them do. The conversation goes that way because the interlocutors on this blog point it that way. On this thread, for example, 10:34 tried to prove that women have a 50% advantage, given certain very hypothetical numbers.

Anonymous said...

Can we talk about deans opposed to elitism? That sounds intriguing/hilarious. Do we even have anecdotes here?

Anonymous said...

5:16, there is a new blog for discussing gender and the profession from alternative standpoints: 'Disorderly Conjuncts'.

Perhaps some of these discussions could be held there instead of derailing so many threads here?

http://disorderlyconjuncts.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Actually, the person who started up 'Disorderly Conjuncts' had a change of heart and put it on the shelf.

But there does seem to be a need for some sort of forum devoted to critical, alternative discussions of these political developments, and the lack of one is probably a big part of the reason why people end up discussing it here. So, someone should start one!

Anonymous said...

"Can we talk about deans opposed to elitism? That sounds intriguing/hilarious. Do we even have anecdotes here?"

Most deans, from what I can tell, are opposed to elitism. They are in favor of cutting costs, and will do so even at the expense of landing elite faculty. (For proof of this claim, look at the ever-increasing numbers of adjuncts being hired instead of TT faculty; sure, many adjuncts are well-qualified, but they are not supported the way TT faculty are, and no university has ever become more prestigious because of its adjunct pool).

Now, in some cases, deans will spend money for TT hires. Often, this is to replace a line. Other situations include starting a new program, or the ability to use outside funding (grants, etc.) to fund such hires. But from what I can tell, those deans that are willing to spend money for the sole purpose of prestige are those who work at prestigious universities. That is, they are looking to move from #6 into the top 5, as opposed from unranked into the top 100.

But really, chasing after "prestige" is something only done by those departments that are already "prestigious." I can't think of a single example in the past, say, 25 years (roughly the period associated with the rise in permanent adjunct labor) where a school has hired its way out of irrelevance and into prestige.

And because when I post, I often mention sports, let's look at college basketball. While some people are shocked that the championship game is being played by a #8 and a #7 seed (the lowest-seeded teams in NCAA history to play for the championship), those people are ignoring the fact that UK is one of the most storied programs in NCAA history, and UConn is one of the most dominant programs of the past decade. (That is to say, this year is the closest the NCAA has come to a "least-prestigious programs" championship game, and those teams have 11 national titles between them.)

Anonymous said...

I'd start a blog, but I can't think of a snappy enough name. Suggestions welcome!

Anonymous said...

Interesting looking at the role of pedigree in getting a position

Anonymous said...

Suggested blog name: 'Philosophical Troubles'

zombie said...

I think that when you look at who got hired for TT jobs, what programs they came from, and who did the hiring, you see a evidence that many deans/departments care about prestige. In the current market, candidates from the top schools are competing for the same jobs that us plebes used to fill. Top prospects are probably not considered to be the flight risk they might have been in years past.

Anonymous said...

"Top prospects are probably not considered to be the flight risk they might have been in years past."

I cannot wait to see whether this turns out to be true. I kind of hope it doesn't.

Anonymous said...

"I think that when you look at who got hired for TT jobs, what programs they came from, and who did the hiring, you see a evidence that many deans/departments care about prestige."

Or something correlated with prestige.

zombie said...

2:32: yes. It could be evidence for all kinds of preferences. Or one. As always, the problem of underdtermination.

Anonymous said...

Totally off topic, but then so is just about everything else above:

"One stop shopping" brought back bad memories of life at a small state U and a struggling SLAC, where administrators cared much more about creating a convenient "shopping" experience for new first-years and new transfers than about actually hiring the faculty that would make the place worth studying at. The idea in both cases was supposed to be that a snazzy new building for advising, registering, book-renting, career counseling, and basketball-playing would attract new customers (students) and retain the ones who would otherwise transfer away. (Because registering for classes is, you know, "shopping.")

The result in each case: a snazzy new building, with snazzy new digs for the administrators who announced the need for "one stop shopping," and no new hires (not even replacement hires!) except for an increase in the number of adjuncts. In the case of the state U, the state legislature was thrilled, and we couldn't even get any politicians or media outlets to see it as scandalous that enrollment and retention #s continued to spiral downward whilst administrators lived it up in their new digs completely safe from criticism.

To be fair, the students didn't want new faculty. What they wanted was fewer liberal arts requirements. (So really it was the faculty's fault, anyway, since we were insisting that students get a liberal arts education.)

End of rant.

Anonymous said...

Jobs are so scarce it's now very hard to move unless you are a star.

Anonymous said...

Looking at how your program has done over the last five years or so (I think Leiter's placement lists go back this far) is probably the best predictor of how ell you'll do

Anonymous said...

Looking back through the data it looks like there are a number of grad programs where you have about zero chance of a tt-track job. Why do people stay in them?

Anonymous said...

@ 10:18

A few reasons. The sunk costs fallacy is probably near the top. Also confirmation bias. People look at the 10-20% of grads who got jobs and ignore the 80-90% that don't (or, even worse, blame that 80-90% for their 'failure').

Not to mention that, in the programs I'm familiar with, there's denial is the norm for the faculty members. If your supervisor likes you, he or she will be convinced that you'll get a job, and treat you as such.

And honestly, let's not forget that graduate enrollment is essential for a lot of these departments to maintain their current size. Department members work hard to make it seem like being there is a good decision.

I say all of this as one of the lucky few who graduated from a dept with relatively crappy placement but got a TT job right away.

Anonymous said...

"Looking back through the data it looks like there are a number of grad programs where you have about zero chance of a tt-track job. Why do people stay in them?"

Because as long as there is one example, somewhere, of someone getting a job from that program, people will delude themselves into believing it can happen for them.

Anonymous said...

Don't disagree with anything you say. But especially puzzled when no one is getting a job. What can the faculty say? If 10% are, well hope springs eternal. But none? Probably a matter of degree from 0 to 10 to 20%

Anonymous said...

"Don't disagree with anything you say. But especially puzzled when no one is getting a job. What can the faculty say? If 10% are, well hope springs eternal. But none? Probably a matter of degree from 0 to 10 to 20%"

They will say, "Someone has to be the first, and we believe it will be you."

Anonymous said...

They also extol the virtues of any recent departmental changes, and I've seen departmental admins tell new recruits about how the department has recently changed the way it supports job candidates, etc.

I also suspect the ego of the professors plays a significant role. They don't take responsibility for not being able to place people, but rather blame the students, or luck, or something. I have also heard professors bemoan the fact that their department can't attract top students, which just perpetuates the opinion that their students are not especially good. I haven't heard anyone say this explicitly as a reason for poor placement, but I can imagine how some faculty members could reason this way ("As long as we can get a few good students, we'll be able to place them and then start to improve our reputation!")

Anonymous said...

"I also suspect the ego of the professors plays a significant role. They don't take responsibility for not being able to place people, but rather blame the students, or luck, or something."

For the rest of the NBA season, Phil Jackson will be praised for any success the Knicks have, while Mike Woodson will be blamed for all their failures.

So, at least it's not just academics?

Anonymous said...

If we are going to talk about those programs that don't consistently (or ever?) place people into TT jobs (and maybe this could be a new post/thread?), I'd like to hear from those people who attended such program, or are currently in such programs.

Given the realities of the job market, why did you apply to those programs? Why did you choose to attend them? Why are you finishing the program, given the bleakness of the market? (I would not at all be surprised to learn that many people are walking away ABD because, having learned the materials and gained the skills, I'm not convinced that finishing the PhD makes one more marketable for alt-ac jobs. In fact, many people claim that a PhD will be held against you on the non-academic market.)

Anonymous said...

Some low to unranked programs do remarkably better than others in terms of their placement. The sort of condescending blanket statements about low-ranked programs and 'why anyone would choose to go there' often fail to appreciate that point. I can think of several non-Leiter ranked programs (if that is now the only way we can evaluate the worth of the program--sad in its own right) that have better overall placement records that the middle to upper middle ranked programs that do most of the whining and complaining on this blog.

Anonymous said...

These programs seem to get plenty of students.

This might be a useful thread. If a program places 45% of their students hope makes some sense. But 1% or worse?

zombie said...

Why I graduated from a dept with a poor record of hiring success:
It was close enough for me to commute from my home
It was cheap and I didn't have to go into debt
I didn't know ANYTHING about the philosophy job market when I started, so I wasn't even thinking about that
I wanted a PhD and I wanted to study philosophy

I got lucky and got a TT job. So have a few of my cohorts. After graduating, I worked really hard to build my CV by getting a fellowship, getting published, teaching, giving talks, going to conferences, organizing events, etc. All stuff I still do.

I'm dismayed to see the fellowship opportunities going so predominantly to people who already have a leg up b/c of a prestigious PhD. I really think having a fellowship helped me compensate for a lack of prestige/pedigree. If nothing else, it gave me two solid years to develop a research program and get published.

Anonymous said...

Good for you. Still poor placement can be better than zero placement. That's the one that puzzles me.

Anonymous said...

Who's got zero or close to zero placement, though? Seems like an elusive class of programs to me...

Anonymous said...

12:09,

You are the first person on this thread to refer to "low-ranked programs." The people who began this discussion spoke of programs that don't have a successful track record placing candidates. None of them made any claims about the rankings of those programs, or even suggested that ranking was a relevant factor in this discussion.

Anonymous said...

Look at Leiter's placement lists for the past few years.

Anonymous said...

" Anonymous said...
If we are going to talk about those programs that don't consistently (or ever?) place people into TT jobs (and maybe this could be a new post/thread?), I'd like to hear from those people who attended such program, or are currently in such programs.

Given the realities of the job market, why did you apply to those programs? Why did you choose to attend them? Why are you finishing the program, given the bleakness of the market? (I would not at all be surprised to learn that many people are walking away ABD because, having learned the materials and gained the skills, I'm not convinced that finishing the PhD makes one more marketable for alt-ac jobs. In fact, many people claim that a PhD will be held against you on the non-academic market.)

April 8, 2014 at 11:30 AM"

I went to just such an unranked program (I have a TT job). I wasn't thinking about the job market when I chose the school. Simple.

I worked my tail off, finished my PhD in <4years, published, networked like crazy…and did very well on the market the year with my degree in hand.

I do worry that people will see my success and think they can do it, when I'm an outlier.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, are there any departments that have never placed anyone in a TT job? If so, can you point us to this data?

I attended a pretty low-ranked school with a spotty placement record. I applied to that school mostly because it was close to home (a stupid reason I suppose), and it was one of the better institutions in the region. I also applied before the market crashed, so its placement was better at that time.

Since the market crash they had a placement of maybe 20-25%. I stuck with it because I loved philosophy, and I thought that if I worked hard enough I might get lucky. I worked hard, finished in four years, published, won scholarships, networked, and was lucky enough to get a TT job pretty quickly.

Lots of my colleagues told me that my success inspired or reassured them.

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't assume that the Leiter job threads are complete. I know of people who have finalized tenure-track offers this year that haven't been posted (yet?), and I know of post-docs from last year that were never posted.

And then there are the VAPs and full-time but non-tenure-track positions that are not even eligible for those threads.

Anonymous said...

VAPs and the like don't count at ft-track jobs, which is what people are after. If they turn into one, you count it then. You also don't count someone who gets into Law School or settles for a job a Western Auto.

If you don't like Leiter's list, try: ahttp://philjobs.org/appointments/

It's the nature of the case that no list is guaranteed complete.
But are you seriously saying that schools ranked lower in Leiter have placed a bunch of people but don't report it? Many of them would die to be able to report a tt-track hire in Leiter. It's great publicity.

I actually started wondering about this when a grad student commented on a thread in Leiter in the last month of so saying her/his own program hadn't placed anyone in years. Even if this is just a figure of speech, if the placement rate is really low, there is an interesting question here.

If no one out there knows of any such programs maybe it was just an exaggeration. But I'm skeptical.

Anonymous said...

There are certainly schools that do not usually make a very good showing, and may go several years without placing anyone in a TT job, but my impression was that someone who commented above had found schools that reported a 0% placement rate overall. This was suggested in comments like these:

"Don't disagree with anything you say. But especially puzzled when no one is getting a job. What can the faculty say? If 10% are, well hope springs eternal. But none? Probably a matter of degree from 0 to 10 to 20%"

Anonymous said...

The actual number is from the quote in Leiter. I'm sure no school reports such a rate. And I assume the person meant something like no one in the past four or five or six years. I would think that could reasonably be described as a zero percent rate. You can only take credit so far into the.past. I'm genuinely interested in finding how common situations close to this are (if they exist).

Anonymous said...

I'm less interested in the number of PhDs from any given program that get jobs, and more interested in the ratio of graduates to TT jobs. A program that only places one person in three years may look awful, but if they produce a very low number of graduates, they are actually doing pretty well. We all know some programs with legions of graduate students, and those large programs producing double-digit PhDs every year would need to place a great many of them to justify their existence, in my opinion.

The numbers of people who get jobs, in other words, is less helpful than the numbers of people who do not get jobs.

Anonymous said...

One thing I've noticed from the hiring data is that there are several people who have left tenure-track positions after only one year, i.e., these people sent out applications within a couple months of starting their jobs. It used to be the case that people looked down on those who went back out on the market so soon. Has this norm changed? (I don't mean to imply any criticism of particular philosophers; I'm just curious about whether I'm behind the times when it comes to how this is perceived).

Anonymous said...

"One thing I've noticed from the hiring data is that there are several people who have left tenure-track positions after only one year, i.e., these people sent out applications within a couple months of starting their jobs. It used to be the case that people looked down on those who went back out on the market so soon. Has this norm changed? (I don't mean to imply any criticism of particular philosophers; I'm just curious about whether I'm behind the times when it comes to how this is perceived)."

I wonder if the phenomenon mentioned is a corollary of what happened at Nazareth, where a college was emboldened to PFO a candidate they might not have PFO'd in a less competitive market.

The corollary is that there is now a greater mismatch between where candidates want to be and where they're placed than there has been in the past. Candidates have a greater inclination to apply out of TT positions towards jobs they perceive to be more desirable given this unprecedented mismatch. Insofar as a solution is desirable, either the jobs need to increase or the expectations need to lower. I genuinely wonder which will change first.

Anonymous said...

I can only speculate, 5:47 - the market is not only grim, but as a result of the oversupply of PhDs, the attractiveness of TT positions have gone down substantially, compared to some years ago. Of course, they are still much more attractive than temp positions and as long as that's the case, those on the hiring end are fine. Offers under 50k for a TT position are not uncommon, and if you have no competing offer, it's quasi impossible to negotiate upwards. Spousal hires are also more difficult to obtain, unless the place lies in the middle of nowhere (then they are usually accommodating).
Relocation packages? Perhaps in a nice SLAC or a research-intensive university.
All this means that a junior TT can be in a less than ideal situation (obviously better than unemployed or adjuncting), and try sooner rather than later to get a better position, for instance, closer to one's spouse, or with better benefits.
The decline in support for new faculty members does have, as a result, that new faculty members feel less loyalty. Indeed, if during your negotiations you got nothing you asked at all (not uncommon - better than what happened to w), it's not unsurprising one feels little loyalty to the new employer.

Anonymous said...

I'm a little unclear about the idea of 'loyalty' at issue here. Why would it be a matter of disloyalty if one applied for a new position elsewhere after (say) one, two or three years in a TT-position? One has never made a promise that one will stay at one's first institution - just as the institution never promised tenure.

I would understand the charge of disloyalty better if it were assumed that the person applying elsewhere slacks off in the prospect of a new job (i.e. neglects teaching/advising/administrative duties, stops going to events, etc.). But assuming that that's not the case, I really cannot see why it would be disloyal to work towards what one perceives as an improvement of one's situation (because the new place has a better department, is in a better location, for spousal reasons, or whatever).

Anonymous said...

Just more evidence that the current system is good for almost no one. Why do we continue to perpetuate it at great costs to ourselves and to one another?

Anonymous said...

On applying to a new job after a year---
I can speak from my experience. My first year on the market, I got one tenure track offer in a location that was undesirable for me. Of course, I took the job. Better a job in an undesirable location than no job at all. I would have been okay staying at the first job, but it wasn't ideal. I sent out applications my first year and ended up getting an offer from a university that I found much more desirable.

Was there a norm against this? I don't know. I didn't get that sense from anyone involved in the process. No one at my current institution was surprised that I might want to move. One member of the faculty at my former school was visibly angry and standoffish after I revealed that I was leaving. The other faculty, though, were all supportive and understanding.

Maybe I'm biased because I did this, but I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone who did the same. Jobs are incredibly scarce, and you have to take what you can get. Nothing wrong with using your current job as a means of security while you apply for others.

Anonymous said...

"I'm a little unclear about the idea of 'loyalty' at issue here."

It's actually quite simple. Universities demand not just your work, but your life. They expect that you will prioritize the job over all else (including your personal life), and will never miss an opportunity to remind you that you could be doing more. They also expect that you will serve them, not the other way around. You owe them loyalty for employing you; they, however, owe you no such loyalty.

It's simple power dynamics. They hold all the cards, all the chips, and get to deal every hand.

Anonymous said...

"The numbers of people who get jobs, in other words, is less helpful than the numbers of people who do not get jobs"

Yes. One would like both. But the number who didn't get jobs is likely to be much more difficult to obtain from a lot of place. Clean, meaningful data on these things is still not nearly as easy to come by as it should be. (If a department isn't doing to well, in either number, it's not in their interest to make that easy to find.)

Anonymous said...

Also speaking from experience, some people get invited to apply for positions in their first year at a place. These same people may have never intended to go on the market (perhaps out of a sense of loyalty or a belief that they should give a department a year or two before doing so). But when faced with an invitation to apply to an attractive job, which might better their professional or personal situation, I think it's too much to expect them to not pursue a promising lead.

Anonymous said...

Should faculty and grad students at Cornell be pissed at Leiter for making vague references to senior faculty leaving?

It seems like he should either publish what he knows or keep it to himself.

Anonymous said...

10:27,

What did you have in mind, naming the faculty, the schools recruiting them, and the details of the offers? That seems a bit crass, no?

Anonymous said...

4:29, it seems to me that what 10:27 had in mind is for Leiter to keep his (questionably reliable) gossip to himself, and (perhaps, even) stop acting in his self-appointed capacity as spokesperson for the profession.

Anonymous said...

I guess if I were considering going to Cornell I'd be glad to get the info.

Chairephon said...

Speaking of Cornell, are they still one of the schools that never sends rejection letters? (They were back when I applied to grad school, and again when I applied for jobs.)

Anonymous said...

Is it easier to get interviews with UK programs which advertise year-round? I feel like the applicant pool for April/May ads is both smaller and, on average, less qualified than the pool of applicants for the fall ads. Many of the best applicants have already been grabbed, after all. Thoughts?

zombie said...

"Many of the best applicants have already been grabbed, after all. Thoughts?"

A) I think that's rather insulting
B) I think it's highly unlikely given the large number of unemployed philosophers
3) I doubt the UK programs are hurtin' from a lack of qualified applicants

Anonymous said...

I didn't mean to offend. I should have used more careful language. Let me try again: is it plausible to say that there's a greater chance for an April/May interview because the number of qualified applicants, though still a surplus, is smaller than the number in the fall?

Anonymous said...

Some people don't finish their PhD in time to apply for jobs in the fall. This is especially the case outside the U.S., including Britain, where as you note jobs are advertised year round. So a lot of excellent British, Australian and other applicants only enter the market for the first time in the spring. The fact that the UK has some highly rated department casts further doubt on the thought that getting a UK job is necessarily easier.

Anonymous said...

"Many of the best applicants have already been grabbed, after all. Thoughts?"

ALL of the best applicants have been grabbed, right? I mean, getting a job means you are the best, and not getting a job means you are not. Isn't that how it works?

zombie said...

A) There are FAR fewer programs/jobs in the UK than in the US
B) The applicant pool in the UK includes many more UK applicants, probably (assuming many don't apply for jobs in the US) + US applicants and (as noted above) from elsewhere in the English speaking world
C) I doubt the competition is easier, and I doubt it is easier to get an interview
D) If you want to work there, no reason not to apply. The odds are steep no matter where you look.

Anonymous said...

About jobs in the UK...

There's no question that it would be harder to get an interview in the UK if the job ads here all came out in October or November, but it isn't easy by any means to get an interview in the UK. The permanent jobs tend to attract a slightly different pool. Departments are under tremendous pressure to hire people with quality publications for the REF, so the people who get interviews for permanent positions are often people who have done postdocs or have already had some sort of academic post. My impression is that candidates who are a bit seasoned have an advantage over those striking out for the first time and they might have an advantage over some of the hotter commodities that get snapped up in the American market early on.