Comments on: The Philosophy Job Market

By: one

one — Mon, 24 May 2004 00:51:06 +0000

“so the average age of people with a Phd is 135” yikes!

By: David Tiley

David Tiley — Fri, 21 May 2004 10:46:52 +0000

There is an over-arching truth, though, about all of these positions. If you want to be an accountant (say) or a marketing executive or an engineer, or even a child-care worker or a doctor, then you will get a job and practice your craft for a lifetime, unless something personal gets in the way. So you can stand in any third year class in these mainstream disciplines and know that most people will end up as the aforementioned accountants etc. If you are a philosopher, a historian or an English academic, you have to be absolutely at the top of what you do to get a job. And I think that’s really sad.

By: aeon skoble

aeon skoble — Fri, 21 May 2004 02:29:09 +0000

“My experience is that the Ph.D. is in no way an asset when it comes to non-academic jobs; rather, it is an imepdiment, something each applicant must somehow overcome to even be considered for a non-academic position.” I’m sure that’s true – but for all PhDs, not just in Philosophy. “As for a B.A. in philosophy, I’m sure it’s as fine as anyother degree for an entry level job. The irony, though, is that when a Ph.D. goes up against a B.A. for an entry level job, the B.A. will likely win over the Ph.D.” Sure, no argument there – the PhD will have to deal with concerns about being overqualified. My point was only regarding the value of a BA in Philosophy—or any of the traditional liberal arts, including Mathematics – if you were applying for a job at a bank, or on a management team for a national retail chain, or selling ad space, I can’t imagine it would make a bit of difference whether you spent senior year reading Aeschylus, doing topography studies and linear algebra, or studying Kripke.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 20 May 2004 21:14:14 +0000

It may well be a “foolish prejudice,” in fact it most surely is a foolish prejudice. But at the same time, at least in the U.S., it is a pervasive and virtually insurmountable one. And the wall one has to leap over gets even higher with each passing degree. My experience is that the Ph.D. is in no way an asset when it comes to non-academic jobs; rather, it is an imepdiment, something each applicant must somehow overcome to even be considered for a non-academic position. As for a B.A. in philosophy, I’m sure it’s as fine as anyother degree for an entry level job. The irony, though, is that when a Ph.D. goes up against a B.A. for an entry level job, the B.A. will likely win over the Ph.D.

By: DJW

DJW — Thu, 20 May 2004 20:58:27 +0000

When I teach political theory for political science departments, I attract a few philosophy majors. They are pretty sharp, in general, but where they really outshine the poli sci majors is their reading skills—their ability to do a close, careful, analytical reading is generally well beyond that of other majors. If I were hiring for a job that required a college degree but no particular disciplinary focus, I’d be pretty keen on Philosophy majors.

By: aeon skoble

aeon skoble — Thu, 20 May 2004 18:52:39 +0000

“Try applying for a job with an undergraduate philosophy major in the Real World…” Do I really have to explain how foolish a prejudice that is? Most jobs require skills in critical reasoning, close reading, formulating and responding to arguments, having and giving reasons, rigorous yet creative problem solving – all skills that are required by a major in philosophy (and, to be fair, other liberal arts majors). Survey after survey of Fortune 500 recruiters reveal a marked preference for the liberal arts major. Philosophy majors outperform business majors on the GMAT, and all majors on the LSAT.

By: JohnWendt

JohnWendt — Thu, 20 May 2004 17:04:25 +0000

From A Tenured Professor: “Even apart from humanities PhDs there is a plethora of Smart People Who Can’t Do Math pumped out by undergraduate programs that make a fuss about the value of a liberal education, promote “critical thinking and cultural literacy rather than technical skills and disparage “narrowly vocational” interests. … “Try applying for a job with an undergraduate philosophy major in the Real World…” Young woman of my acquaintance graduated with an AB in philosophy a few years ago. At job interviews they asked things like “Do you know Quark?” Since she didn’t even know what it is, she wound up as an advertising coordinator at a small, special-audience magazine.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 20 May 2004 04:40:22 +0000

Dave—I’m sure this sort of thing goes on, but at the same time the utter glut of candidates applying for positions may be undermining the ability of advisors to effectively lobby on behalf of students. Still, I have no data to appeal to, and am only going on things I’ve heard/seen.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 20 May 2004 00:10:02 +0000

Chris, this runs directly counter to my own experience in a top history program…Although I bailed out long before I would have gone on the market, during my time there I knew of numerous instances in which behind-the-scenes lobbying by an advisor played a decisive role in securing a position for a candidate. Its funny, many members of my cohort are finishing up this year, and I occasionally google their names to see if and where people get hired. The ones getting the good jobs without exception have advisors who have cozy relationships with the hiring departments. Chris wrote: In these fields having the “plum” advisor is barely an advantage these days.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 19 May 2004 22:58:21 +0000

Two things: 1. sadly, in my experience, hiring committee decisions often do go public and become a form of watercooler gossip; 2. Brian, in reference to English and Hsitory, I think your belief in the “old boy” networks, and their effectiveness is overstated. In these fields having the “plum” advisor is barely an advantage these days. Philosophy, though, may well be another matter.

By: Rana

Rana — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:58:06 +0000

Brian, that’s a good point. Unfortunately, the “bloodless hiring committee discussion” analogy breaks down here, since this is a public forum (as are the other blog comment threads), and one which IA visits and used to participate in. These comments are not going on behind closed doors nor is the end goal hiring a candidate. Gossiping around a watercooler would be a better analogy.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Wed, 19 May 2004 20:43:18 +0000

I agree the discussion of IA’s particular case has got out of hand. But I would like to put in a plug for dehumanized, bloodless hiring committee decisions. My impression is that the more the hiring committee sticks to those ‘bloodless’ considerations, the less likely they are to just end up hiring one of their friend’s, or a student of one of their friend’s. After all, you don’t have personal information about every one of the candidates, and most people are nice people, so if you stress niceness you’ll be in effect giveing an advantage to those you have more information about. And if anything’s going to keep the existing networks and hierarchies intact, it’s that kind of advantage to the well connected.

By: wolfangel

wolfangel — Wed, 19 May 2004 19:49:51 +0000

The problem is that IA has become the face of the job market. If her story is such that it was her fault she didn’t get a job (gave up too early! wasn’t willing to relocate! wasn’t good enough scholarship!) then the problem is after all not in the way academia is working but just one individual who’s bitter, but really just wasn’t up to our standards, you know. And then we can all move on, safe and secure in knowing that it works just like it should, all on merit. I know I feel better now.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 19 May 2004 19:15:19 +0000

I’d like to echo Rana’s remark. Also as one of IA’s friends, I’d like to point out that what seems to be forgotten is that IA is in fact someone, a person. One common feature shared by the various discussions of her and her blog is that they all have the ring of that de-humanized, bloodless way in which hiring commitees discuss the relative qualities of the various applicants for a given position. ‘She’s this’, ‘she’s not that’, ‘but do we know if she can be this’, ‘she said that’ ‘but what has she published’ etc. It would be ironic … were it not so F’d up. Move on people, talk about SOMEONE else.

By: Rana

Rana — Wed, 19 May 2004 18:28:29 +0000

OTOH, since she is anonymous, how are we supposed to judge her merit? Exactly. We’re not. As one of her friends, I have to say I’m getting a bit tired of the attempts to do so.