AOS, job-types, and placement: a hypothesis

Several weeks ago, I shared some interesting findings that Jonathan Weisberg (Toronto) compiled on academic job-placement. Weisberg has since updated his findings, including the following figures:

One thing that Weisberg didn't include in either of these figures is unranked programs. However, he did report findings for them, and the findings he reported are really interesting. Although he found unranked programs in general had only a 29% tt-placement rate (on par with the lowest-Leiter-ranked programs above), some unranked programs had TT placement rates well above many of the highest Leiter-ranked programs:

PROGRAM	N			TT	PHD	PGR
The Catholic University of America	11			0.91	0.18	0
Baylor University	13			0.85	0.08	0
DePaul University	11			0.82	0.09	0
University of Tennessee	13			0.77	0.00	0
University of New Mexico	7			0.71	0.00	0
Vanderbilt University	9			0.67	0.00	0
University of South Florida	15			0.60	0.00	0
Florida State University	12			0.58	0.08	0
University of Oregon	12			0.58	0.00	0
University of Kansas	9			0.56	0.00	0

For what it's worth, the above findings as a whole seem to me to fit reasonably well with the hypothesis I floated several years ago: namely, that candidates from lower-Leiter-ranked programs (well, at least some of them) may have the most difficult time getting tenure-track jobs--due to them producing research-focused candidates who may be poorly-positioned to compete for research jobs or jobs at teaching institutions. For notice what the above unranked programs are doing: these programs aren't placing their candidates into R1 programs (with PhDs or Leiter-rank). They are instead placing 56-91% of their recent PhDs into TT positions at teaching institutions. Unranked institutions that focus in niche areas (Continental, Religion) and/or prepare their students as teachers seem to vastly outperform many (if not all) lower-ranked Leiter programs when it comes to placement.

Anyway, this got me thinking about the final figure that Weisberg posted:

The thing that is the most striking to me about this chart is the extreme variance of TT placement-rates the further one moves down the Leiter-rankings. Up toward the top of the scale, MIT and Pittsburgh are the only real outliers. Down between 2 and 3.25, on the other hand (which correspond to programs ranked 25-50 in the Gourmet Report), the variance explodes. For instance UC Riverside (ranked 32) places over 70% of its candidates in TT jobs, whereas Maryland (ranked above Riverside in 2006, which is Weisberg's focus) was found to place not even 20% in TT jobs. 

What accounts for these disparities? It could be a variety of things, of course. But let me hazard a hypothesis about something that might be going on: some kind of interaction between AOS, PhD program-rank, and TT placement. Let me explain. I have worked at a mid-sized liberal arts institution for ten years now. When I started here, my department only had two tenure-track philosophy faculty: one focusing in Asian Philosophy and one in Aesthetics (hired decades ago). The latter faculty member is now several years retired. Today, my department has five full-time faculty who focus in the following areas:

1. Asian Philosophy
2. Ethics and Social-Political
3. Feminist Philosophy
4. Philosophy of Race
5. Applied Ethics

Notice anything interesting? We do not have any full-time (let alone tenure-track) faculty in the department whose areas of primary focus are "core" areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, philosophy of mind, etc. Not a single one. It's not that we wouldn't like full-time, tenure-track philosophy in these areas. We would love it. It is just that these are not high-demand hiring areas at an institution like mine. I could go into some detail as to why this might be. In brief, I think it's probably a combination of two things. First, metaphysics, epistemology, language, logic, and other core areas don't tend to draw students. Second, insofar as just about everyone is trained in 'core areas' in grad school (in my day, we all had to take proseminars and other coursework in 'core' areas), we just don't need specialists to teach the only kinds of courses we need to offer in those areas: namely, lower introductory-level courses. In brief, although maybe things could change if our university continues to grow (and we have grown rapidly), it appears to be highly unlikely that we will do a tenure-track hire in core areas in the foreseeable future (side-note: I think similar issues make it comparatively unlikely that schools like mine will do hires in philosophy of science).

I suspect many other liberal arts institutions are not unlike mine in this regard. But now notice what this means: if you choose any 'core' areas as your AOS while in graduate school, this means that the vast majority of jobs hiring in your area will probably not be at schools like mine. Rather, the kinds of schools that hire in 'core' areas will be R1 universities. But now which kind of candidate is going to be the most competitive for those jobs, all things being equal? Answer: not candidates coming out of lower-Leiter-ranked programs. No, insofar as 'core' areas are often regarded as especially prestigious areas of philosophy (look at places like Rutgers and NYU), the kind of candidate far and away most likely to be competitive for 'core' jobs at R1's will be those coming out of top-10 programs. If this hypothesis is right, then if you are a grad student, your choice of AOS may have immense implications for your competitiveness. If you are in a top-10 program, then choosing metaphysics or epistemology as an AOS may be a fine choice. But if you are in a lower-ranked program? It may well be the worst choice you can make: one that may make you uncompetitive for any job (since you may be unable to compete well for R1 jobs and there simply aren't many 'teaching' jobs in those areas).

Anyway, I don't know if this hypothesis is true. But I suspect there is something to it. So I took a look at a few department pages. Here is what Riverside's grad program page says (my bold):

The Philosophy Department at UC Riverside is a nationally ranked program with a genuinely pluralistic emphasis.We have strengths in specific areas of analytic philosophy, 19th and 20th century European philosophy, and the history of philosophy (especially eighteenth and nineteenth century).

What is striking about Riverside's program, in other words, is that it has strengths in niche areas. If my above hypothesis is true, this may go a long way to explaining their program's high-levels of success in TT-placement. Here, in contrast, is Maryland's grad program page:

The Department offers a graduate program leading to the PhD degree as well as a terminal MA. The faculty have a wide range of interests throughout contemporary analytic philosophy, with special strengths in the following areas:

• Aesthetics
• Moral and Political Philosophy
• Philosophical Logic
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Science

I don't mean to cast aspersions on Maryland's program in any way. They may be a great program. But notice the difference. As I expect we all know, basically nobody hires in Aesthetics. This means that of the remaining five areas Maryland lists as strengths, four are 'core' areas. If my above hypothesis is true, this may go a ways to explaining why Weisberg found Maryland's placement rate to be so much lower than comparative programs. Finally, while I did not do anything like an exhaustive survey, I did look at several other outliers and broadly found similar things (that lower-ranked programs with strong placement rates appeared to have strengths in niche areas, whereas those with weaker placement rates seemed more focused in 'core' areas).

Anyway, at this point, this is just a hypothesis. But I think it is one worth considering and investigating further--as it may be vital for grad students to understand, at least if they want to make wise decisions about what to specialize in to be competitive on the academic job-market given the type of program they are coming out of.

Comments

[Nichi]

I think this is basically right, and an interesting insight. I'm a grad student at UC Riverside and I commonly hear our high placement rate explained by the amount of energy faculty put into helping grad students do well, particularly on the job market. Though I doubt that is alone sufficient since I've seen other faculties that seem to put a lot of energy into helping grad students as well. Meanwhile Florida State also has a relatively high placement rate, and it takes a similar strategy of doing a small, less core domain very well.

There may also be a correlation between AOS hiring and the religiosity of the school. Christian schools and organizations seem more interested in metaphysics and epistemology than a more general audience is. Looking at CUA, for example, they have a lot of people doing metaphysics.

[Amanda]

I agree with both Marcus and Nichi. I think the number one difference is area of specialty. I have been saying this for years. If you go to a low or mid ranked program (say below 25), focus in a core area (language, epistemology, metaphysics, or highly theoretical ethics, i.e. not normative or applied) then publish in top journals...you have basically shot yourself in the foot. This isn't necessarily the fault of the student, it is at least in large part the fault of the faculty and grad program. It is the grad program's job to be aware of these things, which many are not.

Most of the stories you see online of people struggling with the job market are people who meet this profile, and then their lack of job is so often assumed to be because this person is a man (even though 2 out of every 3 hires are men!) Would a woman with this profile get a job? Maybe, they would have an advantage, but the thing is very few women have this profile. Women tend not to focus in core areas, and the ones that do tend to be from top programs.

I do also think a significant secondary factor is the energy departments put into hiring their students. UC Riverside's placement record has significant help by John Fischer, who I have heard is uniquely amazing in dedication to his students. Of course, part of this is Fischer's prestige, but there are lots of prestigious faculty who do not place the way he does.

Religious schools have an advantage regardless of rank, for there are a lot of religious schools hiring that prefer candidates with PhDs from religious schools. I suspect the type of metaphysics done at religious schools are religion oriented metaphysics, but that is just a guess.

Lastly, how committed mid and low ranked programs are to their students getting teaching experience is also an important factor.

[Al]

Amanda, a fan of your posts and helpful info here. I wonder what you think faculty owe. You say “It is the grad program's job to be aware of these things, which many are not.” First pass, my view is that faculty working in area X should happily take on students in that area whatever the job prospects but that departments should be crystal clear about placement record l and shouldn’t try to talk students into a dead end by sugar coating things. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth but do you have in mind that more is owed? Once aware, what’s called for? Genuinely interested because I work in a “core” area and at a school certainly not in the top 25. Luckily my department caters to students who are joining a phd later in life and more in it as a hobby but not always.

[Amanda]

Hi Al,

What I had in mind was something like the following:

1. |The department should provide honest education to entering students about the job market, which should include information on what areas schools tend to hire in, and from what type of Leiter rank. For instance, telling students that placement in CORE areas outside of the top institutions is a very hard bet.

I think most departments fall short in that they don't keep up with job market trends themselves, and so they don't know what to tell the grad students. I would say anyone who is the supervisor for PhD student(s)and especially the placement director, has a duty to keep up on this.

2.Departments should continue to hold one or two meetings a year about the job market, where new information and trends are discussed. I think these meetings should also include some discussion about alt-ac opportunities.

3.I think departments, and perhaps individual supervisors, should encourage their students to get teaching experience (unless one is at a, say, top 10 school) and make some efforts to increase the odds of this happening, i.e. talk to someone you know at a nearby state school, talk to the admin about grads getting their own courses, etc. Of course, sometimes there might not be much that can be done, and in this case all that is owed is encouragement.

4.Depending on the student and the professor's connections, it might sometimes be apt to do things like talk to friends about opportunities that are a good fit for the student or something like that.

5. One member of the department should be responsible for keeping track of opportunities for grad students and sending them emails about these opportunities, i.e. fellowships, certifications, etc. Grad students should look on their own as well.

As far as job market responsibilities, this was what I had in mind. There are other supervisor responsibilities of course, as far as reading work and caring about students as persons, etc. But I was just talking bout the job market in this post.

[Anon]

Anecdotally, this fits my experience. I am a woman from a low-ranked top 50 Leiter school with an AOS in a core area. I don't have enough publications to be competitive for R1 schools or unranked PhD-granting schools (though probably more publications wouldn't help me to get a job at one of those schools anyway). I have lots of teaching experience (in areas outside of my AOS as well as in my AOS) and an excellent teaching record. I can't get a tenure-track job (FWIW most of my interviews for TT and non-TT positions over the years--approx. 12-15 of them-- have been at selective small liberal arts colleges or small universities).

[Mike Titelbaum]

Hi Marcus,
While I'm on board with your general hypothesis, I think you might be slightly exaggerating the cut-offs. I'll admit that people from top-10 schools probably fare *best* in "core" areas, but it's not a death sentence to focus on those areas if you're outside the top ten. Here at UW-Madison our graduates in "core" areas and the philosophy of science have tended to place well, despite the fact that the Gourmet ranks us in the low 20s. At some point in the rankings there's probably a drop-off in ability to place oneself with certain AOSs. But I don't think it comes after the top 10.

[Al]

Thanks, Amanda. That’s helpful.

[Amanda]

Hello Mike,

I've noticed Wisconsin for a while when analyzing placement, as you guys seem to have an unusual record of placing people at R1s, given your rank. And good for you! But from what I have seen your program is atypical. I will also add, however, that philosophy of science is something I would consider very different than typical CORE areas. Lots of schools want it because they want to attract science majors, while metaphysics or epistemology won't do that. I consider philosophy of science a niche area.

[Mike Titelbaum]

Hi Amanda,
I’ll grant that Madison may be atypical. As for phil sci not being “core”, I don’t really like or understand the “core” designation, but Marcus seemed to be counting it as such in his analysis of Maryland above. In any case, we’ve also done fairly well placing people in “core” areas that aren’t philosophy of science. So I just wanted to note that it is possible even outside the top ten!

[Marcus Arvan]

Hey Mike: Your point about the cut-off is very well-taken. As you note, I suspect the top-10 programs have the most competitive 'core' students, but other programs outside of the top-10 may still be pretty competitive.

As for philosophy of science, I didn't mean to classify it as a core area. As Amanda notes, it's surely more of a niche area. I only mentioned it because, in addition to core areas, I suspect it is an area that liberal-arts institutions may hire in less-often.