Notes from both sides of the market - part 5: standing out in a crowded field

I began a series last year, "Notes from both sides of the market", as a kind of follow-up to our Job-Market Boot Camp, but this time discussing job-market issues from the perspective of someone who has now been on both sides of the process (I was on the market as a candidate for seven years, and have now served on two search committees). Given that the fall job-market is just a few months away now, I thought it might be helpful to resurrect series, discussing issues that may be relevant to current and future job-candidates. As I mentioned in the first post in this series, I don't think it's appropriate for me to share or comment on any specific aspects of searches I've been a part of--so I won't do that. Instead, I am simply going to discuss some very general things that I've noted on both sides of market. Anyway, here goes!

In most hiring circumstances--and I expect hiring in academia is no different--it seems presumptively good to stand out from other applicants in some way. As any recent candidate on the philosophy job-market knows from PFO letters, hiring institutions for full-time academic positions routinely report receiving several hundred applications per position (in some cases, upwards of 600!). So, put yourself in the shoes of search-committee members. You have something like 400-600 CVs, cover letters, research statements, and so on, to sort through--and you need to somehow whittle things down to a small number (say 6-10 candidates) to interview. Suppose, further, that many (though by no means all) of these candidates have broadly similar CVs, coming from respected departments, often with a few publications in good journals, good letters of recommendation, and so on. You can only imagine, I think, how difficult it may be for a candidate to "stand out" in a situation like this. So, are there things one can do to stand out? Are there things one can do to do the opposite (i.e. not stand out)?

Two things that I don't recall hearing discussed very often is the role that have a very original research program (i.e. dissertation) might play here, or what having a very original research program as such might involve. A few years ago, Jason Brennan (Georgetown) wrote a post at Bleeding Heart Libertarians wrote a satirical post on "The Five Major Types of Dissertations in Political Philosophy", which he listed as follows:

1. The Disciple. “Hey, did you know my advisor hasn’t written about topic X? My dissertation explores what I think my advisor would say about X, except that I’m less talented or polished than she is, so this is more like a crappy version of what she might have come up with. Enjoy!”

2. Oh, Good, Another Piece on Rawls. “Footnote 458 of A Theory of Justice has not been sufficiently explored. Buckle up for 300 pages of exploration!”

3. Splitting the Difference. “Famous philosopher A argues X. Famous philosopher B argues not-X. In this dissertation, I argue the truth is somewhere in-between.”

4. Incomprehensible Kantian Nonsense. “I’m going to argue that some policy P is justified on Kantian grounds. This argument will take 75 steps, and will read as if it’s been translated, or, rather, partially translated, from 19th century German. It will also be completely implausible, and so, to non-Kantians, will simply read like a reductio of Kant rather than a defense of P.”

5. Consequentialism without Social Science. “I’m going to argue that policy P is justified on consequentialist grounds. It didn’t occur to me to examine what political scientists or economists have to say about how P would actually work. I sure hope there won’t be one in the room if you interview me, because they’ll be able to tear my dissertation apart in five seconds. Heck, an astute undergrad majoring in either subject could do that. I’m counting on you hiring committee members to know nothing about institutions and instead to rely on your unexamined biases.”

I'm not going to comment on whether Jason is right about this--but suppose he were and you found yourself on a search committee hiring in political philosophy. Suppose you received 400-600 applications with candidates all claiming to being doing something new and original in their dissertations...but 95% of them were variations on the five types of dissertations listed above. Would any of the hundreds of candidates doing small variations on the same projects stand out to you? Maybe not! Thus, if you were one of the candidates doing research in one of those areas, as original as your research might appear from your perspective, it might appear to search committee members to be precisely the opposite--as blending into the proverbial woodwork, doing what everyone else is doing! 

I mention this not to scare any present or future candidates--and indeed, I'll offer some suggestions in a moment on how to better ensure that you do stand out. But before I get to that, I want to ask a question of readers who have served on search committees: do you think that this sort of thing is a problem for job-candidates (i.e. so many of them work on similar problems that is therefore difficult for them to stand out)? I ask this question because I am genuinely curious. For my part--having been on both sides of the market--it does seem to me like many people work on similar stuff, and therefore, it may be difficult for candidates to stand out.

In any case, however search-committee members answer the above question (and I do hope some search committee members chime in), two things seem to me to be in job-candidates' interests. First, I think job-candidates and the graduate programs they come from (including their advisors) should perhaps be more aware of this issue, not assuming (as I get the sense some do assume) that it is a good idea to write a dissertation on something because it is currently a "hot topic". For my part--and this is just my own sense as a philosopher--I suspect people may be better off seeking to write dissertations on topics that are not hot yet, but might become so (as that is a way to "stand out"!). Second, and more to the point for those whose dissertations/research programs are in currently "hot areas", I would suggesting making it a point--insofar as it is possible--to express in one's cover letter and research statement how one's project is not "just another project" in hot-area X. In this case, given that one is presumably competing against many other candidates with similar research programs, making it clear how one's program is original and "not like the others" is, I think, probably helpful--at least if one does want to stand out.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours? 

Comments

[Pendaran Roberts]

Here are my thoughts.

1. Working in a hot area makes you more employable than if you don't.

2. Doing original work in a hot area is even better.

3. Doing work in an area that isn't hot makes you less employable than 1 or 2.

4. Doing original work in an area that isn't hot is a gamble: you could end up producing something that becomes hot; however, there is a huge risk of just being even more obscure.

So, what to do? You can risk 4. But as this is your life and not a poker game I suggest...

Aiming for 1 or 2!

Important note: you have to get your PhD done quickly, as what's hot changes. If you take 5 years, you may find that your area is no longer hot. Aim for 2 years!

What if you're not interested in currently hot areas? Become interested! Probably you can figure out something about them that interests you and work on that.

If you really can't stand the currently hot stuff, I'd suggest not doing the PhD. The job market is so so bad that if you don't have the advantage of being hot, well... it's going to really suck for you!

TRUST ME!

[recent grad]

Pendaran,

My dissertation was not on a hot topic. I have a job.

Snark aside, almost all advice I see says not to do a dissertation on something just because it's hot. It's better to just do good work in an area you're interested in and let the cards fall where they may. It's not a guarantee of a job, but it's a saner route in life.

[Amanda]

I think the best way to split the difference is to be sure to do something in an area that you like, however, make sure that the topic is (1) a new take on things, i.e., not derivative from the work of others, and (2) something that non-specialists can understand. The second is especially important; what increases your chance of landing a job is broad appeal, as those on search committees come from every area of philosophy. Hence a safe bet is doing something that would be mildly interesting and make sense to a philosopher of any sub-discipline.

[Pendaran Roberts]

"My dissertation was not on a hot topic. I have a job."

So what?

"Snark aside, almost all advice I see says not to do a dissertation on something just because it's hot."

I think this is bad advice by badly informed people.

Look at the AOSes of advertised jobs. If you work in an area where you can only apply to OPEN jobs, this is going to seriously hurt your chances.

Now, of course, you shouldn't do a PhD in an area you don't like. So, figure out something in a hot area that you do like, or my advice is not to do the PhD.

[Anon UK reader]

What are we understanding by 'hot area'. My understanding of a 'hot area' is something like the epistemology of disagreement (c. 5 years ago), not just 'epistemology'. But Pendaran's comment ('look at the AOSes of advertised jobs') suggests that something as general as 'epistemology' or 'ethics' counts as an 'area' that might be hot. Obviously you should do your PhD in a hot area so defined. But surely the question is about more narrowly defined 'areas'?

I'm a PhD student, so I'm not well placed to answer that question. But being interested in your area is obviously a necessary condition for writing a good PhD on it. An unfashionable area you're interested in is much preferable to a fashionable one you're not interested in.

I recommend speaking to several (as many as possible) more senior philosophers about your topic choice. If you pick something unfashionable, you might find that, all the same, most of those who you speak to think it sounds like an interesting topic. if that's the case, its being unfashionable probably won't hurt you too much on the job market, I imagine. I may be wrong about this, but I don't think I am. What matters is your ability to interest other philosophers in your work in the context of an interview and a job talk.

[recent grad]

Pendaran,

You say: "The job market is so so bad that if you don't have the advantage of being hot, well... it's going to really suck for you!"

I cited my own case as a counterexample. You then asked "So what?" When you make a claim like the above and I give a data point that runs counter to it, that's *relevant*.

Also, in your second comment you're now talking about AOSes. With some exceptions, such as philosophy of race, AOSes are much too broad to assign a label of "hot". One can do hot or unhot work in virtually every AOS.

At some point, it might pay off if you listened to other people's honest advice. I am not the most informed person and I make mistakes, but I do put thought into things and I have a TT job. I would especially recommend following Amanda's advice. My work, though not hot, was original, accessible, and interesting enough to non-specialists. It was clear from interviews and job talks that this was a huge advantage.

[Pendaran Roberts]

"I cited my own case as a counterexample. You then asked "So what?" When you make a claim like the above and I give a data point that runs counter to it, that's *relevant*."

Your one data point is irrelevant.

AOSes can most certainly be hot. Look at what areas you see advertised. For example, you seldom see metaphysics jobs.

Philosophy of science though is hot! Lots of jobs in philosophy of science.

Anyway that's my advice. Don't work in AOSes that you don't see jobs for. You'll have to apply for OPEN jobs and those are extra competitive.

[Amanda]

In addition to my earlier comment, I feel the need to add that I agree with Pendaran on the "don't work in Metaphysics" advice. I know so many people who insist on doing metaphysics from my mid-ranked PhD program. It is such a bad decision unless you are from a top top program. There are very few jobs in metaphysics, and I just shake my head at my fellow grads who insisted on working on that AOS anyway. I do think it is critical to work on something you love, but my guess is if the only thing you love is metaphysics, you aren't trying hard enough to seriously consider topics in other AOS's.

[Guy]

Amanda,
In general, one does not stand much of chance on the market in any area of specialization unless one went to a school that is widely recognized as strong in that area.
And that makes some sense.

[Amanda]

Hi Guy,
If you look at who got hired at I don't think you are right about that. I would argue that plenty of people got hired in ethics or history of philosophy, for example, even if they came from a school that wasn't "widely recognized as strong" in that area. (The exception, as usual, is hires at top research schools) And besides, it is irrefutable that there was anywhere from 5-15x as many jobs advertised in ethics, philosophy of science, and history of philosophy when compared to metaphysics and epistemology. Some AOS's give one a better chance of getting a job than others.

[Anon UK reader]

As an epistemologist PhD student, I find this kind of depressing. But it's not as simple as you guys are making out. Sure, there are more jobs advertised as being for ethics as an AOS than epistemology or metaphysics, but that needn't mean it's significantly easier to get a job as an ethicist. For one thing, it seems to me that there are significantly more people doing PhDs in ethics than in epistemology, so you're competing with more people. For another, I wager (though have no proof of this) that jobs advertised as 'open' more often end up going to epistemologists and metaphysicians than to ethicists.

I may be wrong about both of these things, but we need to know this before we can draw any conclusions from how many jobs are advertised in a particular AOS.

On the other hand, I wouldn't recommend doing a PhD in aesthetics. For some reason (which I truly cannot fathom), departments just don't hire aestheticians. If you really want to game the system by choosing an in-demand AOS I'd suggest political philosophy. This opens up jobs outside philosophy departments too. But I'm someone who just can't get excited about (the academic side of) politics, so for me there would simply be no point in doing this.

[anonymous]

Pendaran, to be fair, you just gave some unsubstantiated advice that didn't appeal to any data or anything, and so I don't think it's quite fair to say to recent grad that their 'one data point is irrelevant'. We might wonder what you are basing your advice on (just trust you, you say). We might worry that you are basing it on your own anecdotal evidence. In which case the anecdata of others is highly relevant.

[Marcus Arvan]

anonymous: I agree. My own anecdotal sense, based on my experience on both sides of the market, is at odds with Pendaran's claims. No doubt some people get jobs working on "hot" topics--but that anecdata alone isn't sufficient to justify any particular advice. This is why I would like to hear from more search committee members. I suspect things look very different on different sides of the market. As I mentioned in the OP, working on a hot topic might seem advantageous from the job candidate side (like Pendaran's)--but if on the hiring side you have hundreds of candidates working on N variations of the same "hot topic", it can seem disadvantageous, as all of those candidates may blend into each other while candidates working on less "hot" topics may stand out more, coming across as more interesting and original.

[Amanda]

In my experience, persons working in ethics or history of philosophy have been far more successful than metaphysicans or epistemologists. The former are subjects teaching schools really like, along with "diversity" areas like feminism etc. That is just what I have noticed, take it for what you will. I still think my earlier advice is the most important: work on something that has a broad appeal to philosophers working in all fields and something that can be explained to non-specialists.

[Amanda]

Marcus, I would like to hear from search committee members as well. However, they, just like us, will of course only be offering anecdotal advice. I personally have no issue with anecdotal evidence, as long as no one is pretending that theirs' is the final word on things. I think one reliable way astute persons learn is from listening to a wide range of anecdotes and assessing that evidence in conjunction with their own experience and maybe data.

[Pendaran Roberts]

"Sure, there are more jobs advertised as being for ethics as an AOS than epistemology or metaphysics, but that needn't mean it's significantly easier to get a job as an ethicist. For one thing, it seems to me that there are significantly more people doing PhDs in ethics than in epistemology, so you're competing with more people."

There are more people doing jobs in ethics than any particular area but less than are doing PhDs in all areas of philosophy combined. So when applying for ethics jobs your chances are still better than they are when applying for OPEN jobs.

"For another, I wager (though have no proof of this) that jobs advertised as 'open' more often end up going to epistemologists and metaphysicians than to ethicists."

Well, if OPEN jobs aren't really OPEN, then sure I guess maybe things are more complicated than they seem.

But taken at face value, it's better to have an ethics AOS where you can apply for the dozens of ethics only jobs, then to have a metaphysics AOS where you can only apply for jobs that are OPEN (and the hand full of metaphysics jobs that come up each year).

I think a lot of PhD students get into philosophy totally naive as to their prospects (I did). Not all AOSes are created equal by the job market gods. Keep that in mind!

[Anon UK reader]

It seems that the worst AOSes for the job market is are aesthetics, epistemology and metaphysics, in that order. (See: https://public.tableau.com/profile/mark.alfano#!/vizhome/philjobs/philjobsmaptimelines )

Funny, because according to this poll of philosophers (or, at least, Letier-blog-readers) epistemology is the most important area for a department to be strong in: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/07/what-areas-are-most-important-for-a-strong-phd-program.html

I wonder why there so few jobs in epistemology. There are significantly fewer than in metaphysics.

[Pendaran Roberts]

Little off topic but wanted to share this.

Looking at the data available here,

https://public.tableau.com/profile/mark.alfano#!/vizhome/philjobs/philjob

Thanks Anon UK reader for the link!

There has been a 9% increase in fixed term jobs and a

15% decrease in TT jobs

Between 2013 and 2016

[not so hot history]

"history of philosophy" does not seem to be hot at all. Better, perhaps post-medieval history of philosophy is, but ancient and medieval aren't hot. If I didn't miss anything, there were 3 jobs in ancient 2 years ago, 3 this year. And no job in medieval in either year.

[Michel X.]

not so hot history: I assume you're restricting to TT jobs, right? (Otherwise, there were definitely a few more ancient jobs).

For TT medieval this year, I see Seton Hall, Sacred Heart, Seattle, NUI Maynooth, and Providence College. (Plus a few postdocs and a couple visiting positions.)

For 2015-6 (TT AOS: Medieval), I only see West Georgia and Colgate (and just a couple postdocs/visiting positions).

---

It seems weird to me that, according to Alfano, aesthetics/phil. of art tops the lists for fixed-term positions, and yet virtually no TT jobs are ever advertised. You'd think that the demand might translate up the chain of jobs.

Also, FWIW, for this year I count 43 (real) open TT jobs (2 high school) on PhilJobs, 10 of them "open but...". From the hires reported so far, it looks like 18 people were hired for them, of which 9-10 are LEMMings of one stripe or another, depending on how we count (since people tend to have several AOSes), 3-4 are primarily historians, and 2 work primarily in ethics (up to 5 if we double-count a little due to multiple AOSes).

[Amanda]

As Michel notes, there were a lot of medieval jobs this year, and not very many people working in that area, so it seems a decent bet. Not to mention many Catholic schools simply advertise as "history of philosophy", but would count medieval as a big plus. A number of jobs just say "history of philosophy", and it seems they would be happy with anything from Aristotle to Kant. The thing with history is it will always be taught in philosophy departments, so there will always be schools who need historians, especially religious schools. In addition, (although I don't have official stats on this) I get the strong impression there are far less people who complete history Phds than ethics or epistemology. Lastly, those who do ancient philosophy can also look for jobs in classics departments, and those who do medieval or Kierkegaard or something can look for jobs in religion departments.

[not so hot history]

Michel X.: the Colgate job was either Medieval or Kant and a Kant scholar landed it. West Georgia went to an ancient philosophy person (I think).
You're right about this year, I forgot (I knew that Providence had an opening, even though I think they wanted somebody who does mostly Arabic. I wonder who got the job).