In the comments section of our last "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes in:
Could we have a thread where people anonymously post the accomplishments that they think should have landed them a job? At the very least, I think this would provide valuable commiseration for those of us on the job market who feel completely helpless about improving our job prospects. At the most, perhaps it could help call attention to the horrible market inefficiency in philosophy, and spur a conversation about how more efficient hiring practices could benefit both junior philosophers *and* academic institutions.
For me, a post would look like this:
5 publications
14 citations
14 classes taught as instructor of record
0 job offers
Having followed this blog for a few years, I know that there are several readers whose accomplishments far outshine my own but who *still* haven’t been able to find permanent employment. I find it particularly upsetting that your readers with 6-10 publications can’t find a job, while a quick browse of PhilJobs reveals that peoiple [sic] with 0 or 1 publication get tenure lines at Ivy League institutions.
I think this is a really good query, but that it might be even better if we had a reporting thread on an even more general question: what is your candidate profile (professional experience, accomplishments, etc.), and how are you doing on this year's market?
I think it might be good to hear from people on this--not only hear from people who think they are faring worse on the market than they think their accomplishments warrant, but also from people who are faring well on the market--for a number of reasons. First, it might provide us all a clearer picture of what the market is actually like, what types of candidates are doing well or not so well, and so on. Second, it might shed more anecdotal light on 'the hypothesis' I recently ventured, and whether certain types of candidates have more trouble on the market than others. Third, it might provide candidates a clearer picture of where they stand, and what they might do in order to do better on the market.
So, then, what is your "candidate profile" and how have you done on this year's market? Feel free to mention things like your:
- PhD program's general Leiter-rank (viz. 'Leiterific/top 10', mid-ranked, low-ranked, unranked, etc.)
- Publication numbers (multiple "top-10 pubs", "no pubs", "only lower-ranked pubs").
- Teaching experience & evaluations (lots of experience, high student scores, etc.)
- Year on the market (still ABD, new PhD, 1 year post-PhD, 3 or more years post PhD, etc.)
Candidates should feel free to be as specific or vague as possible. You may of course feel free to report exact numbers of publications, etc., as the above reader did. However, bearing in mind that this is a public venue, if you would like to report your profile in a way that does not make you identifiable, I would suggest being deliberately vague (i.e. instead of reporting your program's exact Leiter rank, maybe give a range; instead of your exact number of pubs, a general picture; etc.). For what it is worth, I think it is unlikely that people will go sleuthing around to figure out who you are (this would, I think, be very difficult). However, I just wanted to make a quick note of it for anyone who might have those concerns.
In any case, I am very curious--as I expect many of you are as well--how candidates are faring, and so I hope a good number of you choose to share in whichever way you feel comfortable.
Recent Comments