Our books

Become a Fan

« Why go to conferences? | Main | Measuring Philosophical Impact -- A Prima Facie Case for More Objective Measures »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Would be nice to know percentages, rather than doing them in my head each time

Marcus Arvan

Done -- and I've now included average publication #'s per hire.

T. Cunningham

Making sense of the gender demographics would require some sense of the total numbers of male and female applicants this year, which I presume is unavailable. But we might reasonably suppose that this number mirrors the larger percentage of women in the field, absent other assumptions. Looking at a 2012 study by Paxton et al in Hypatia suggests that women make up about 1/3 of the total population of graduate students. Assuming they also make up the same percentage of job market candidates, the data points given in this post suggest that from this population-based perspective there is no evidence of gender discrimination in this year's hiring, whether FOR female candidates or AGAINST them, given simply that the share of women hires is roughly proportionate to the share of women in the graduate student population.

For comparison, It would be interesting to know similar demographic information for female candidates in other positions in this year's job market, including VAPs, PostDocs, adjunct positions, semi-stable teaching positions, etc. This might reveal a trend toward hiring female candidates in more prestigious positions or the opposite.

If data like Paxton et al present continues to be gathered and reported it will be important to compare whether, over the long run, the proportion of women hired each year mirrors the proportion of women in the candidate pool and whether the proportion of female graduate students trends toward parity.

Sydney Penner

A quick perusal of the hiring thread suggests that the gender ratio varies significantly by specialty. Whether those variances reflect variations in the job candidate population or reflect search committee biases is hard to tell, of course. Either way, it looks like this year's hiring will do its little bit to reinforce the association of some specialties with women and others with men, e.g., history with women.


Does anybody know how many TT jobs were (are) available this year?

Susan G Sterrett

First, thanks very much for doing this compilation.
Second, I agree with Sydney Penner's comment that you cannot look at totals to draw conclusions about the absence of discrimination. There is a name for that phenomenon: occupational segregation.
Thirdly, I don't think studies on gender inequity in academia have identified tt hiring as the place where gender discrimination is the most marked. Rather, it is the entry into tenured and full professor positions. We have no numbers for that in philosophy, and to do it right one has to do longitudinal studies to follow each tt hire and see which turn into tenured, then full. Since you've made a list with names, maybe this is a good place to begin doing that! I assure you that you would be
doing something unprecedented, and highly informative, were you to follow through on it.

Rob Gressis

Is the information from past Leiter threads available? If so, we could, right now, start doing a longitudinal study with many years of data!

Marcus Arvan

Susan: Thanks, and great idea! I'll try to do a longitudinal study at some point (maybe this summer).

Rob: I'm pretty sure everything is archived over at Leiter's blog, so past hiring threads should still be there.


One thing that does seem relevant to the gender issue is mean publications by gender, which is not listed, though important.

Imagine, for example, that the mean publication rate for newly hired women was 3 and men was 1, all other things being equal, it suggests that women have to publish three times more to have equal representation. If it were reversed and mean for men was 3 and women were 1, it suggests that departments are making an active effort to hire women despite lower publication records.

(This of course assumes that publication record is relevant, which I take it MA does assume, otherwise why bother listing them in the first place.)

Interpreting the findings are a different story, but it does seem very relevant to determine bias.


There was good data compiled last year, primarily by C. Suchy-Dicey. This year's thread is still very incomplete: some hires haven't been made, and many more haven't been reported. What we have now is something less than half of this year's TT hires, judging by the number of TT ads there have been.


Does anyone else think it's a little insane that almost half of TT hires continue to be straight out of grad school?

Also, I can't access the link to the Leiter post right now (appears to be broken), but I'm wondering if the "post-doc or VAP" category includes adjuncts, or if adjuncts are just officially unemployable. As an adjunct, I am curious if there's data on the adjunct/post-doc/VAP breakdown. My guess would be that these are not equal: that on average post-docs make people more employable, VAPs a tiny bit more employable (unless they include 4-4 loads), and adjuncting not at all.

Marcus Arvan

I think it's insane. Going to write a post about it!

elisa freschi

I am really surprised by the amount of people with NO PhD and NO publications who get a TT position. Given that, if I am not wrong, philosophy is hardly if ever studied in high school in the US, this means that 50% of the beginning assistant professors have only been studying philosophy for, say, 3 to 5 years. Am I right? And why does one expect them to be familiar enough with philosophy to be able to teach it?

Moti Mizrahi

I share the puzzlement expressed by Roman, Marcus, and Elisa regarding the number of ABDs and newly-minted PhDs getting TT jobs. Marcus sort of touched on this before here: http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2013/01/a-peculiar-job-market-trend.html
And there are interesting comments, too.

Anon Graduate Student


your numbers strike me as quite off for the American system. I spent 4 years as a philosophy undergraduate and have already been in graduate school 7 years. I will enter the job market next year ABD. Assuming I manage to get a job immediately, I will already have been studying philosophy for more than a decade and teaching for more than four years. You could even decide not to count undergraduate study, and the average ABD job applicant will still have been doing philosophy for at least six years, longer in most cases. Three years experience is an impossibility, five is extremely unlikely. Others should correct me if I'm wrong.

elisa freschi

Thank you, Anon Graduate Student. As you rightly notice, I do not know how the system works in America. Still, would you expect one who has studied biology for 6 years to be able to teach biology at *university* level (I am not talking about teaching philosophy at high school)?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Subscribe to the Cocoon

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory


Subscribe to the Cocoon