Roman asks in the comment section of my post on this year's TT hires if "anyone else thinks it is insane" that nearly half of this year's TT hires so far have been hires of people directly out of grad school (Elisa also finds it insane). I don't really know how to evaluate questions about sanity, but I do know how to think about moral questions, and so I want to spend some time in this post thinking about the morality of the practice.

What I am about to write may appear to have a certain flavor of griping. Truth be told, I do have a horse in this race, and can't claim to be a disinterested party (I've been in a non-TT position for several years now). Be that as it may, I really don't mean to gripe. I accept that life is unfair, and that I, and I alone, am responsible for my professional future.

That being said, I think it may be worthwhile to think about the ethics of hiring people for TT jobs right out of grad school. First, I don't think it's an "open and shut" issue. Second, there are a lot of people out there — in VAPS, adjunct positions, or worse (having to leave the profession) — whose lives are profoundly (negatively) affected by practices and norms of hiring people for TT positions straight out of grad school. Third, I hope to be on a search committee some day, and I want to know how I ought to approach the hiring process if I'm ever so lucky to be there. Finally, I also think there are very real and unappreciated questions about whether hiring people for TT jobs directly out of graduate school is harmful to those hired.

I begin by making one big — but I think rather weak — assumption: namely, that many people with VAPS, post-docs adjuncting positions, etc., are roughly equally qualified and promising as teachers and philosophers as comparable candidates coming directly out of graduate school.

Two brief remarks about this. First, there are clearly some "stars" in grad school who can stake a legitimate claim to being much more promising than people in non-TT positions. My examination the CV's of people who have received TT positions this year suggests that some such "graduate school superstars" exist. However, my examination also suggests that many of those who got TT jobs out of graduate school aren't graduate school superstars of this sort. Second, however many talented people there are coming out of graduate school, there are clearly very many talented and accomplished people in VAPs, post-docs, etc. — people with lots of good or even top-notch publications and teaching honors — who aren't getting TT jobs. Many people with VAPs, post-docs, etc., are clearly comparable in accomplishment and promise to those coming directly out of grad school. If people want to argue with me on this, fine — but I think it's a pretty safe assumption.

So, assuming this, let's turn to moral evaluation — in particular, to the question of whether it is ethical to hire someone directly from grad school (even though there are people at least as promising in post-docs, VAPs, adjuncting positions, etc.).  Here's a very brief sketch (I must be brief: this is a blog!) of why I think it's arguably not ethical:

  • Utilitarian analysis: individual acts and/or a rule of hiring people directly out of grad school over comparable candidates in VAPs, post-docs, etc., does not maximize happiness. The converse acts/rule (prioritizing comparable people in non-TT jobs over grad school applicants) do(es) maximize happiness.

Here's why. First, the department who hires does as well either way. Either way, they hire a comparable applicant. Second, perhaps the biggest "utility reducers" in the academic market are people who get "stuck" in non-permanent jobs as a result of staleness. These people suffer year after year on the market, become paid worse and worse over time, and sometimes wash out of the discipline altogether. Third, prioritizing hiring people from VAPs, post-docs, etc., would minimize this. People would be taken out of the non-permanent job pool and into permanent jobs faster so that they don't grow stale and wash out.  Finally, those that wouldn't be getting jobs straight out of grad school wouldn't really be harmed, since they could still get post-docs, VAPs, etc., leading to TT jobs.  That's a very quick first gloss at the utilitarian argument, but I think it's solid.

Now turn to:

  • Kantian Analysis: hiring people directly out of graduate school passes neither (a) Kant's contradiction in willing test for imperfect duties (the Universal Law Formula), nor (b) his harmonizing with humanity test (the Humanity Formula).

Consider first the contradiction in willing test. Could you consistently will that no (comparable) people get TT jobs directly out of graduate school? Yes, because any such individual could get a job later on, after a post-doc, VAP, adjuncting, etc. But could you consistently will that some (comparable) people get TT jobs directly out of grad school? No. Why? Because some such people getting hired could cause you – in a VAP, post-doc, etc. — to go "stale", thus making you less/un-hireable, which of course you couldn't will.

Now turn to the harmonizing with humanity test from the Humanity Formula. Can hiring no (comparable) people directly out of graduate school harmonize with humanity (e.g. the capacity of individual to set and pursue ends)? Surely – because people not hired directly out of graduate school can still effectively pursue their end of getting hired out of a VAP, post-doc, etc. But can hiring some (comparable) people out of grad school harmonize with humanity? No. Because hiring some such people undermines the capacity of people in post-docs, VAPs, etc. made "stale" not able to set and pursue their ends of getting a TT-job.

Now turn to:

  • Virtue-Theoretic Analysis:  not hiring directly from grad school best expresses and promotes virtue.

People in VAPs, post-docs, adjunct positions really suffer (first-world problems, I know, but the suffering is real). It's really, really hard to go on year after year getting publications, good teaching reviews, etc., all for naught — and seeing people years younger than you get jobs with hardly a dot on their CVs. So, I would say, a compassionate and merciful search committee should prioritize people who have been out of grad school a while. They've worked for it, suffered for it, and accomplished things worthy of reward. Yes, people in grad school have too, but not nearly as long or under the same kinds of conditions. Second, I want to say, if you want to promote virtue (as a teacher, philosopher, and person), hire people who have been out of grad school a few years. They've had to bust their butts to become good teachers, good researchers, good members of the community, etc., under way-below-optimal conditions (e.g. teaching 3-3's, 4-4's, and worse).

Finally, I want to mention something that I think is important and relevant that I rarely see discussed. There is a not-insignificant number of people who receive TT jobs directly out of graduate school who never receive tenure. Why? Well, some of them (a surprising number, I would say) never publish, or don't publish enough, or never learn how to teach well. Getting a job right out of graduate school — when you've never published anything, or taught a course — can be a recipe for failure. And that's not good for the person who was hired — nor, of course, those in non-TT jobs who were passed over for the hire, nor of course for the department who hired the person and now has to fire them. People from non-TT jobs who have good records publishing, teaching, etc., are, offhand, in a better position to succeed in a TT job. And those grad students who might get passed over if those non-TT people were hired over them? Well…I would say, post-docs and VAPs are an excellent way to learn how to publish and teach before you get put on a tenure-clock, thus increasing everyone's chances of actually getting tenure once hired. Which, again, is good for everybody (nobody wins when someone doesn't make the cut for tenure).

Posted in

80 responses to “The Ethics of Hiring for TT Positions Directly from Grad School”

  1. Anon Graduate Student

    One problem with the arguments given (and I think there are many) is that it seems to assume that all (or even most) job candidates directly out of graduate school are in a position where considering a VAP, Post-doc, etc. is an option. There are many reasons why one might be able to move to an (at least potentially) permanent position but would be unable to locate for a temporary position. Many job candidates have spouses, children, disabilities, medical needs, immigration issues, etc. that prevent them from spending years moving from job to job or accepting positions that do not include substantial benefits (e.g. health insurance).

  2. Roman

    Another question to ask, of course, is WHY a department would hire someone straight out of grad school. Aside from the super-star possibility (and we’ve all met super smart grad students with publications in Nous), I can only assume a good deal of it is (1) the bias toward “promise”, and (2) recommendations. Those are clearly bad reasons to hire somebody. Are there others that are better? (There is, of course a rationale for (1): a not-so-top department might think: this person looks promising, so if we don’t hire her this year, a much better department will scoop her up next year.)

  3. One question I have in all this – and maybe there’s another post that has some information I’ve lost track of (so sorry in advance), or maybe the answer is obvious – is what are some of the reasons why certain committees find substantially less experienced candidates more suitable than their more experienced competitors. I’ve always just assumed (and the market proves this assumption wrong year after year) that a more experienced candidate would have more experience working with colleagues professionally, and hence come across better as a good colleague, could speak better of her or his research because it might be more developed, and could certainly say many many better things about pedagogy, especially things that reflect experience. Now barring people who have serious flaws in their applications (like I know people who have cover letters so bad, and that they won’t change, that regardless of their other qualities they will never get an APA interview), it seems that there are many cases where less experienced candidates look more suitable than candidates who can do the things I just mentioned. I’m not sure answers like pedigree alone or AOS/AOC alone really explain it.

  4. In response to Roman’s comment, I wonder what committees actually hold as the features that reveal “star potential.”

  5. Marcus Arvan

    Anon: of course, but all of those things are worse for people in non-TT jobs. Moving around year to year — without any job security — is bad when you’re 29 or 30; it’s worse when you’re older! It’s not as though people in my position don’t have kids, family, etc.!

  6. Anon Graduate Student

    Marcus, I agree that ithese issues would get worse as you get older, but this assumes that it was ever an option to begin with. I’ve watched several colleagues turn down VAP and postdoc positions because moving somewhere for a year or two just wasn’t an option. These people end up adjuncting or leaving the profession. Assuming that leaving the profession or adjuncting because one is unable to take a temporary position fails to maximize happiness, on at least the utilitarian formulation of your ethical principle this seems to indicate that TT positions should go to those comparably qualified who are least able to take non-TT positions (which may or may not have anything to do with how long they’ve been out of school).

  7. Ambrose

    I can’t think of any reason other for any search committee to give any weight at all to the notion of “staleness”. The idea, apparently, is that you are “stale” as a philosopher if your PhD is “stale”. And the PhD gets “stale” after about 5 years, apparently. Regardless of whether it might be an excellent piece of work, or excellent for a graduate student, or whatever. It just gets worse, in some way, in virtue of being a few years old. Even if that made any sense, what does it have to do with one’s status as a philosopher? If you’ve been working on stuff ever since, publishing and teaching, surely you might be the opposite of stale — you might be better informed, more creative, a better thinker and conversationalist than you were back then. You might well be better in every philosophically important way than the vast majority of “freshly minted” PhDs. Am I missing something? Seems to me that the very idea of “staleness”, as it is understood by philosophers, is just flatly preposterous and could not possibly be a gauge of an applicant’s merit. (Obviously, it might have been at one time — if there was ever a time when there were so many jobs that any philosopher on the market for more than a few years was likely to be not very good for that reason alone. That isn’t our situation and hasn’t been for a long time.)

  8. Rob Gressis

    Hi Marcus,
    When you write (I’m paraphrasing) that “people with VAPS are roughly equally qualified to many people hired straight out of graduate school”, what do you mean by equally qualified? It seems to me that you could mean two things (“Seasoned” is the name of the candidate with many years at VAPs, etc.; “Fresh” is the name of the candidate straight out of grad school)
    (1) Seasoned and Fresh are equally good at teaching, research, and likability.
    (2) Seasoned and Fresh are equally good fits for the department’s needs.
    If you mean (1), then what if they are equally qualified, but Fresh is a better fit? In that case do you think that Seasoned’s situation should give Seasoned extra weight, in some cases enough so that Seasoned should be hired even though she’s a slightly worse fit than Fresh?
    If you mean (2), then do you think that Seasoned’s situation should be used as a tie-breaker?

  9. Roman

    Rob, I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that in this market, every vacancy gets enough applications that the tragic dilemma you describe is extremely unlikely to arise. If a department finds a Fresh individual who is a better fit than a Seasoned one, despite parity in qualifications, all they need do is return to the pile of applications.

  10. Marcus Arvan

    Rob: I have to agree with Roman here. There are many, many Seasonds who are by all accounts perfect fits for jobs — they got all the right AOS and AOCs and teaching experience to boot — yet they still lose out to Freshies. I don’t buy the “fit” argument much, unless by “fit” one means: the department prefers someone Fresh — in which case we’re right back to my arguments against the practice of selecting Fresh.

  11. Marcus Arvan

    Anon: I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there are just as many people in post-docs and VAPs for whom those positions “aren’t an option”, but they sacrifice for them anyway — in which case they’re still worse off (i.e. several years older and having made severe sacrifices).

  12. Daniel

    Marcus:
    I’m curious, though not disagreeing, with the evidence for this: “There is a not-insignificant number of people who receive TT jobs directly out of graduate school who never receive tenure.”
    Do you have a sense of the numbers here, or of how they compare to the tenure rates for people who do temporary positions first?

  13. Just a naïve question: could not it be that hiring people with a PhD is more expensive and that this is the main reason for hiring PhD students?

  14. Anon

    I’d just like to point out how NOT safe and supportive this topic is (particularly the comments in the previous thread that inspired it). This is supposed to be a blog for early career philosophers, and you (Marcus, Roman, Elisa, etc.) are going to discuss how it’s insanse and unethical that a bunch of us got TT jobs straight out of grad school? That’s about 50% of this yesr’s job market to whom you are (intentionally or not) broadcasting the idea that they ought not to have gotten the jobs they worked so hard for, and that it’s crazy that they got them. I just find this incredibly insensitive and unspopprtive. I really like this blog, and I’m kind of shocked by the thoughtlessness of this topic.

  15. Marcus: I am also curious about the success rate of TT professors receiving tenure straight out of grad school, and whether this would be lower than that of people with prior postdoc or VAP experience. I have been looking around to find evidence one way or the other, but I can’t find any relevant data.
    I would also like to add a Rawlsian consideration about hiring people straight out of grad school. Behind the veil of ignorance, would like to see a situation where people who got into good grad schools have a much higher chance of landing a TT position compared to those from obscure departments, who typically land only a string of temporary and badly paid jobs, to go stale after 5 years? Perhaps we wouldn’t mind if only the brilliant minds went to excellent departments, whereas those who went to less good grad schools did so solely because they had less talent or were less willing to work hard or whatever. But of course, there are multiple things unrelated to talent that determine where you end up in a good grad school (e.g., quality of your undergrad education, which correlates with wealth, two-body problem with non-academic partner constrains your geographic choices etc). I think that from such a perspective, we would rather like a situation where a proven track record of publishing and teaching can outweigh coming from a brilliant department, but no comparable track record.

  16. Anon

    So, many people on this thread are rightly pointing out that VAPs and postdocs “aren’t an option” for many candidates, likely including those who take them and sacrifice for them. But here’s something to worry about: gender plays a huge role in whether people are in a position to make that sacrifice. Every time the question of women in philosophy and hiring comes up, you hear people on search committees say that they hired a male candidate in the end because the female candidates they offered the job to didn’t end up taking it, given that a job for their male partner wasn’t also available. Male candidates put in the same position (that is, offered a job themselves, but not offered a job for their female partner) are much more likely to just take jobs. I don’t have firm numbers on this, but the anecdotal evidence seems to be pretty strong – at least strong enough that the burden here is on the person who thinks that this doesn’t systematically happen.
    I think there is a very real worry that men will be much more likely than women to run the gauntlet of VAPS and postdocs for several years, and will be much more likely to be able and willing to uproot their families to do so. Some women might do it, but the rates, I suspect, will be much lower, given the very strong norms that still exist around men being primary breadwinners, families moving for men’s careers, etc. Obviously there is something wrong with these norms, and obviously something needs to happen to change them. But we’re working in non-ideal theory, here, where the norms exist, and the numbers of women in philosophy are already far, far, far too low. I suspect that taking away the possibility of a TT job out of grad school will only lower the numbers of women in philosophy, and that seems to me to be too high a price to pay to solve what is, I admit, also a serious problem.
    (It’s also not clear to me why you think that people who haven’t learned to publish and teach in 5 or 6 years on the tenure track will learn to do it better in a year or two of VAPing. Postdocs might be different, insofar as they give you time to focus only on research. Do you have reasons to support this claim at the end?)

  17. Marcus Arvan

    Anon: I’m honestly a bit surprised by your reply, but if I seriously goofed on this one I apologize. The intent of this entry is in no way to minimize the hard work and achievements of people who get jobs directly out of grad school. It is also in no way intended to imply that they didn’t earn or deserve those jobs. It is merely intended to raise a serious question relating to people who also worked hard, likely deserve, and have suffered a great deal to earn such jobs.
    Here’s a more personal way of looking at it. People who get jobs directly out of grad school have no idea how tough it is to be stuck in the non-TT world. Again, I don’t mean to minimize how tough grad school is, but being stuck in the non-TT world is absolutely soul-crushing. You publish, teach a ton of classes, maybe get great teaching reviews to boot, do university and community service, etc., and you’re getting older by the year…It is, my thinking was, a legitimate issue to discuss here. I’m sorry if I messed up.

  18. Michel X.

    It looks to me like your arguments, if they go through, show that it’s wrong to follow a rule whereby newborn PhDs are preferred to their more mature counterparts. What I don’t think you’ve shown, however–and what you seem to claim to show, variously–is that the practice of hiring newborns simpliciter (i.e. absent “rules” and whatnot) is wrong.
    I think we can all agree that rules or guidelines favouring newborns are probably at best tenuously justified, and perhaps even that they do more harm than good overall. We might even agree that a collection of such discrete acts is globally harmful. But if the intent is to argue that even a properly discrete act of hiring a newborn is wrong, that’s much tougher going, and I don’t think the prospects of success are very high. Once we get down from the general to the individual level, a slew of highly contextual factors suddenly become salient in a way that was easier to ignore before.
    All that to say, if your target is the thought that PhDs go stale, or that hiring newborns is preferable for reasons x, y, and z, I think we can all get behind that. But if your goal is to argue that hiring newborns is wrong in itself… well, good luck. I think that’s where we part ways.

  19. Michel: I don’t think the arguments only pertain to a rule, but also to individual acts. Suppose this one department chooses to hire someone who has been in a VAP for, say, five years over someone just out of grad school. All three of the arguments I gave would seem to justify that act. It (A) maximizes utility (reduces great suffering of the VAP, while not proportionally harming the grad student), (B) passes Kant’s tests, whereas a maxim to hire a grad student does not (it can’t be willed as a universal law, harmonize with humanity), and (C) is a kind, merciful thing to do.
    Now, maybe the arguments themselves are wrong, but I don’t think they just apply to rules; I think they all apply to individual acts too.

  20. Elisa: I don’t think that’s a naive question at all. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that’s the case.
    Helen & Daniel: I don’t have hard numbers. What I do know — both from personally knowing quite a few people who got TT jobs out of grad school and from looking at CV’s — is that there is a surprising number of people who get TT jobs straight out of grad school with no publications who, several years later, still have either no publications. What I also know is that in order to get a TT job from a VAP or post-doc, a person has to have a good publishing track-record.
    Obviously, this evidence is anecdotal, but it is suggestive. Just about everyone I know — both those who have gotten TT’s out of grad school and those who haven’t — remark on the same thing: how very difficult it is to transition successfully from grad school to the professional world. Learning how to publish while teaching while advising while engaging in university service is not something one is very well-prepared to do right out of grad school. Even the people I know who got TT jobs out of grad school and succeeded have tended to take 2-3 years to get a publication, this despite the fact that some of them got jobs at R1 schools with light teaching loads. These are some of the reasons why I think it is advantageous to all — both grad students and those in non-TT positions — for the profession to adopt a “post-doc before tenure track” rule. Post-docs and VAPs are great places to learn the ropes without a tenure clock.

  21. Several thoughts:
    1. Suppose I’m on a search committee and I’m looking at two applicants that, as far as my ability to judge their research is concerned, look equally good. Suppose further that I know that some other philosophers did not think all that highly of candidate A but I have no such information about candidate B. It seems to me that that further information is some reason to prefer candidate B, all else being equal. It also seems to me that the fact that a candidate did not get a tenure-track position in previous attempts on the job market is some evidence that other philosophers did not think highly of her. The evidence is certainly not very reliable and should easily be defeated by other considerations, but, still, it seems to me to be some evidence.
    2. On the assumption that search committees have some degree of success at evaluating candidates and hiring the best ones, then (i) the average seasoned job candidate will be worse than the average fresh candidate. That, of course, is compatible with Marcus’s assumption that (ii) many seasoned candidates are equally qualified as fresh candidates. In fact, it’s compatible with the claim that (iii) many seasoned candidates are more qualified than many fresh candidates. I think all of these claims are true. The truth of (ii) and (iii) would be reason to worry if only fresh candidates were being hired for TT positions. But that’s not the situation. According to the post, more than half of TT hires are in fact seasoned candidates. Given (i), wouldn’t the hiring numbers suggest that seasoned candidates are already being favoured? To properly answer that question, of course, we would need to know what percentage of applicants are seasoned candidates. But if we don’t know the answer to that question, then perhaps it is also premature to advise change from current practices.
    3. Should search committees generally be considering happiness concerns when hiring or should they be focused strictly on which candidate looks like the best-qualified candidate for the position in question? Marcus suggests that search committees should give some preference to seasoned candidates on grounds that doing so will maximize happiness. Should they also give some preference to, say, candidates with families on grounds that unemployed singles make fewer people miserable than unemployed people with families? One might imagine many considerations of this sort … One might think that if all else is equal it would be stupid not to favour the candidate the hiring of whom will maximise happiness. On the other hand, this could get really messy really quickly and one might think search committees have their hands more than full just trying to evaluate candidates’ professional qualifications.
    4. Finally, I’d like to chime in with the other commenters who’ve pointed out that moving from position to position is not a plausible option for everyone. This is why the trend to postdocs in the humanities worries me. I wish that everyone had the opportunity to get a TT position straight out of graduate school, so that people who need to settle down and stay put would be able to do so without leaving the profession.
    Sadly, there aren’t enough jobs, let alone good jobs, to go around, and so there are hard questions about who should get the jobs that there are.

  22. Anon: I am sorry if you (or anyone else) felt offended by something I said. I did not say that hiring young people is “unethical” I am just genuinely surprised by the idea that one might think that after 5 years (or some close amount of years) of studying philosophy one is ready to teach it at university level. Would you suppose that someone could teach mathematics to university students after having studied mathematics for just 5 years? Of course, one might say that one will only teach classes one has well prepared, but still…is not philosophy (just like mathematics) more than still notions?
    This does not only imply that this habit is bad for the students. It is most of all bad for the young teacher herself, since she has not the chance to have the peace of mind she would need to complete her PhD/do research/learn what it is to do philosophy as a “grown up”. What I mean by this last remark is: if you are hired right after you have had only a couple of nice philosophical ideas and not even a publication/a PhD thesis, you might run the risk to overestimate your intuitions or underestimate the amount of time/trials/counterevidences you need. You then run the risk to write/think “too fast” and without weighting pros and cons properly, I am afraid. Don’t you know this kind of half-grown philosophers?

  23. Anon (3:32 am) raises a great point, which connects to Anon Graduate Student’s point, one that you seemed to curiously dismiss, Marcus. Anon Graduate Student was talking about people not willing to move to a VAP or post-doc, and then you replied by saying there are people for whom it isn’t an option who are actually in those positions. But, of course, you put quotation marks around “isn’t an option” because obviously it was something they were willing to do for the sake of staying in the profession if they are actually in those positions. So, in other words, you declined to factor in those for whom it isn’t an option, with no quotation marks.
    What will change if you do factor them in? I don’t know. I’m not arguing that doing so will change your position, but it will have to change your argument. And then there’s the gender equity point, directly related, which may change your argument even further, if you’re willing to grant the point at least for the sake of argument.

  24. Chike: good point.

  25. Sydney: all good points, as well.

  26. On the “safe and supportive” question: I am among those who could take this personally, having secured a TT job right out of grad school.
    I will say that, for my part, I remain open to the rightness of your position (and the usefulness of discussing it, right or not), even if it implies that I should not have been given this great job that I am so very happy to have.
    I say that because I think it would be obviously wrong of me to let my happiness in my position blind me to the ordeal of those who spend a lot of time in non-TT positions, and if the best of way of dealing with that problem is to put us all through a little bit of the ordeal, then so be it.
    (But, of course, that is not me granting that the argument is right – I do say “if”)

  27. Anon

    Marcus – Anon 3:32 am here, and I say this with the most well-meaning intentions. You do awesome things on this blog, and I’m really grateful for it. One of the things that I’ve especially liked is that you’ve carried on the discussion, raised elsewhere, of issues related to gender and blogging. As I recall, one of the points that came up there was the importance of responding to and engaging with the points made by women and others with less social capital rather than breezing past them. I don’t know if Anon Grad Student at the top is a woman or not, but it wouldn’t be surprising to me if the people bringing up issues of gender and family considerations were. And the point, in the end, is that Chike referred mostly to two points raised by others (and pointed out where they had been made – thanks for doing this, Chike!)- and you then responded by attributing the good point to him. This seems to me to be the equivalent of the philosophy seminars where women make points that are brushed aside and later taken more seriously when raised by men. I don’t think you’re doing that intentionally, but then I think people very rarely do. Maybe just try to be aware of it.

  28. Anon

    To be clear, I am very sensitive to the plight of those stuck off the TT (it is the plight of very close friends), and I think that remedying that situation is extremely important. I was mostly surprised by the tone and tenor of comments calling it “insane” that there are hires from grad school, and those questioning whether such hires are “familiar enough with philosophy to be able to teach it?” I think we can address the terrible problems being faced by many job candidates while still being supportive of everyone.

  29. Anon: Thanks for pointing that out. My short replies to Chike and Sydney weren’t meant to brush the points aside. Quite the contrary, the points made by Anon, Chike, and Sydney have me rethinking the arguments given in the post! I’m not sure I have good responses to them, which is why I just conceded the points. My aim was not to brush the points aside — it was to concede their persuasiveness.

  30. Elisa’s concern about whether someone with 5 years of experience studying philosophy is ready to teach university students seems misplaced, to me, since the alternatives mentioned included VAPs and Post Docs, which also involve teaching university students. In fact, many of the VAPs have quite high teaching loads.

  31. Ambrose

    Sydney is skeptical about the idea that SCs should be taking into account happiness maximizing, or anything other than “just trying to evaluate candidates’ professional qualifications”.
    But isn’t obvious, taken for granted by all of us, that SCs are never in the business of simply evaluating professional qualifications? There are matters of “fit”. There are equity/AA considerations. There are other things harder (impossible) to pin down, based on personal idiosyncracies of the candidates and the SC members. We all agree that these other things are often important ingredients in a decision, right? If so, it seems to me quite arbitrary to say that things would just be too “messy” if SCs were to take into account the kind of stuff that Marcus is proposing. Isn’t it very important that in our profession there are now large numbers of people basically equal in “professional qualifications” to most “fresh” PhDs who are condemned to years of futile, underpaid labour and then, in time, washing out altogether? If the under-representation of women, for example, is important enough to warrant equity programs, it is at least arguable that the under-representation of these other people (including many women) is also important enough. In addition, I don’t see that it’s really so difficult to take into account this kind of thing. Off the top of my head, I can think of lots of “stale” people who could be easily discounted because they don’t do research, etc. Others, though, are active and clearly quite successful in philosophy by any purely philosophical standard. Why would it be so hard to note that fact about some applicants, and compare such a person with a “fresh” applicant who is not better by any of those metrics but has “promise”? As Sydney says, those comparison already factor in, when SCs find the older person a bit less appealing. So the proposal is merely that the same considerations which are already at work might sometimes be viewed in a different light.
    As for aiming for “maximal happiness”, that’s always hard to do. But no one thinks we should set aside that goal for that reason alone when we consider other issues. Why not make a stab at it in this context? I think it would be quite sensible to give some mild preference to people with families. When I didn’t have one, it was really not such a big deal to be adjuncting. Actually, life was pretty fun even given the adjuncting — back then. Now that I do have a family, it’s a constant soul-crushing nightmare. Philosophy as a discipline could reasonably judge that it’s better for everyone to live in a world where children (and spouses) of philosophers have a better chance at a tolerable life than one in which single 28 year olds have dental benefits and job security while similarly qualified middle-aged parents have to shoulder burdens and anxieties that wouldn’t even arise for many “fresh” candidates.

  32. Ambrose, given its situation within the rest of my comments, you’re perfectly justified in thinking that I’m skeptical about search committee taking into account considerations of happiness maximizing. But I was actually raise that issue as a genuine question. I’m not sure such matters should be taken into account, but I’m also not at all sure they should not be.
    I also meant ‘professional qualifications’ in a broad sense as anything relevant for how well a candidate fills a position, so some, though not all, of the considerations you mention are ones that I would have thought of as part of the evaluation of professional qualifications.

  33. Lewis Powell: I might not be aware of the US system, but isn’t it the case that as a graduate student or a Post-Doc you do not have full responsibility of the classes you teach? I.e., someone else will be your teaching tutor (formally or informally)?

  34. Elisa,
    That is true of many (but not all) graduate students. It is not the case for Post-Docs or VAPs.

  35. Kristina Meshelski

    I am one of those who got a job straight out of grad school. But of course I have many friends who starting going on the market before I did and still do not have TT jobs, and who are as qualified if not more qualified than I was. So in one sense I jumped the line, and it is absolutely unfair, so I feel what you’re saying Marcus. But two points:
    1. People are really underestimating the importance of fit. Yes, there are tons of people on the job market in philosophy, but many of them specialize in the same things. Also, as the market gets worse, I notice more and more job ads that list 3 or more unrelated specialities, such that there must be few applicants which exactly fit what the dept is looking for. Also many hiring departments might just get excited about someone’s research agenda, and in a way, every person’s research agenda is unique.
    2. I can’t help but feel like we are all suckers if we spend too much time on questions like the unfairness of hiring people straight out of grad school. What is unfair is using contingent labor to replace TT labor, and departments that in any way collude in this, or don’t do much to stop their administration from doing it are WAY more culpable morally for this than for hiring a “fresh” person instead of a VAP. We need to unite against the real threat instead of worrying about which of us got something the others didn’t, you know?
    (Incidentally, if someone is not ready to teach after spending 5-9 years teaching as a grad student, which is the norm in US, then that person will never be ready to teach.)

  36. Marcus Arvan

    Kristina: I appreciate your points, and agree that the use/abuse of contingent labor at poor wages is a much larger blight on higher education. But still, I think the issue at hand is a relevant one to consider. I want to know what I should do, if I ever get to be on a search committee. After having experienced what it is like to be in a non-TT position, I would absolutely favor people in non-TT jobs over candidates directly out of grad school, for the reasons I give in the post. One thing that bothers me about our profession — and society more generally — is that I think we tend to treat people as abstract labels (e.g. “Job candidate”) more than as flesh and blood people. If I knew of, say, remotely comparable job candidates, one of whom had been adjuncting for several years and the other a grad student, I would favor the former in the hiring process simply on account of the situation they have been in as a person. In other words, I wouldn’t approach hiring in the way that search committees appear to (e.g. find the best “fit”). I would try to make the world a better place for a person who had it particularly hard: the adjunct.
    I realize there are those out there who may think all this is silly — but again, I just don’t think it is. We live in such an impersonal world today. I don’t think it is the way things should be. And that was really the broader point I intended to convey in the post.
    Anyway, thanks again for your thoughtful comment!

  37. Ambrose

    Hi Sydney,
    Maybe I should have put that last thought more broadly. One way to think about it is “maximizing happiness”. We could also think of fairness, justice, or simply compassion — anything along those lines would be good enough for my purposes. And I think this is what Marcus is driving at (as his latest post makes clear). Any conception of ethics will do as a rational basis for preferring the non-TT academic serf to the otherwise comparable but “fresh” candidate. Even just a bit of non-conceptual decency will do. Since there is no good reason for preferring the “fresh” one other than superior “professional qualifications”, it seems like a no-brainer.
    At least, that’s how it seems to me on the assumption that pairs of such candidates really are otherwise comparable, often enough. You might disagree, on the grounds that we can induce the “stale” person’s inferiority from the fact that that person has been on the market before without getting hired. But I think that would be a very thin argument given how many factors other than a person’s philosophical or professional merits might plausibly explain that kind of track record, especially nowadays.

  38. CA

    I guess it’s unclear to me that assessing the impact on someone’s life is an appropriate criterion to use in a hiring process. Perhaps in the abstract this argument seems somewhat plausible, but if I have two good candidates one who had 3 years of vappage with some publications and the other has some credible teaching experience and scholarly work, and if I think both are good fits and strong candidates, should I really ask them about how badly they need this job? How do I evaluate that information? Or should I just assume non-TT position= “desperate” new PhD=”not that broken yet?”
    But perhaps this should be treated as a more general policy. The search committee could impose an additional piece of evidence–“please include a statement of need for this job.”
    Now I should say that I think we become good teachers through practice and so experience counts a lot for me when we’re hiring for our SRLAC. But that is privileging experience and record rather than need. I’m quite comfortable with this and I suspect in the future we’ll see ads saying “must have 3 years of teaching experience.”
    And I would also add that I think that it would be more rational if hiring favored experience. I think the perverse underbelly of Leiter-think silliness involves an assumption that if someone is in a VAP, the reason is likely that they have been found wanting and passed over by other searches: While if some hot-shot is coming out of grad-school (that Leiter-think holds in high esteem) we’d better get them before someone else does. This seems to be twaddle, but I suspect it operates in a lot of hiring committees.
    So I think an argument that it is reasonable to hire experience over promise makes a lot of sense, though I’m not yet convinced that there is a moral argument to prioritize VAPs over new-PhD’s as a rule, but I need to think more about this.

  39. CA: Thanks for your comment. I guess I want to ask what you mean by “appropriate.” If you mean from the kind of impersonal standpoint people in our society have decided is appropriate for hiring people, then I would would say it is of course not appropriate — not from that perspective. But this is what I am trying to challenge. I am arguing that it is a moral duty. And surely morality is the highest standard for what should be considered appropriate, no?

  40. I’d like to follow up on a point that I conceded earlier (to Chike, Anon, etc.) — as I’m still puzzled about it.
    Chike, you suggested I wasn’t properly distinguishing between people for whom moving for a non-TT job “isn’t an option” (in scare-quotes) from those it isn’t-an-option simpliciter (no scare-quotes).
    I wonder what you mean by this. Some options — moving away from children, spouses, partners, etc. — aren’t good options, but still they are options that some people who accept non-TT appointments do choose. Indeed, they are (terrible) options that men and women throughout history have chosen in order to make a living. But they are options.
    Someone might consider moving away from family “not to be an option”, but again, there are many who choose these options, as terrible as they are. In which case I think “not an option” should be put in scare quotes. And what is not-an-option simpliciter? I have a hard time seeing what could count. Slaves don’t have options simpliciter, but no one on the academic job market is an out-and-out slave.

  41. AE-CP

    It’s worth noting that even if we assume it is a moral duty for hiring committees to, other things being equal, improve the plight of the worst off in their hiring decisions, this on its own will not necessarily favor a VAP/post-doc over a grad student. What if the grad student is supporting two kids and a parent with dementia and the VAP is single? What if the grad student is a first generation college student from an underrepresented minority and the post-doc is a rich white dude?
    Favoring VAP/post-docs over grad students is not necessarily a good heuristic for improving the plight of the worst off. If we really think this is a moral duty for hiring committees, then carrying it out would involve a lot of careful research into the personal history of the candidates in order to actually satisfy the duty.

  42. AE-CP: Your comment puzzles me a bit. You suggest that a rule hiring VAPs over grad students is not necessarily a good heuristic because such a rule would not “necessarily” favor the worst off (you give a grad student supporting 2 kids and a parent with dementia as your example).
    But look: a heuristic is a rule of thumb. A good heuristic is thus a good rule of thumb. That being said, let’s think about the probabilities.
    The average VAP or adjunct is at least a few years — probably several years — older than the average grad student. After all, the former have been out of grad school (real life example: I am 36. I know many, many grad students get jobs in their late 20’s).
    That being said, who is more likely to have a family, kids, parents with dementia? Surely the average 36-year old is more likely to have these things than the average person in their late 20’s. Not to mention, again, all of the other negatives a person who has been adjuncting/VAPing faces that grad students don’t.
    So, I say, the rule is a good heuristic. It may not correctly prioritize the worst off every time — but it would certainly do a better job than not prioritizing VAPs/post-docs/adjuncts…

  43. AE-CP

    The thought was just that there are so many things other than age that could easily be relevant to which candidates are worst off. So focusing on time from degree might not be the best way of learning who is worst off. It’s an empirical question: maybe it is the best heuristic. I’m just not prepared to assume it’s the best one.

  44. Marcus Arvan

    AE-CP: fair enough, but in that case I’m more than willing to “run the modus ponens” and accept that search committees should be sensitive to those other things too, as opposed to taking the point to be a modus tollens against my overall position. After all, my ultimate point — which I didn’t make clear in the post but noted in a recent comment — is that I think we’re under a duty to regard people as people who suffer, not just abstract labels like “job applicant” or “candidate.” You better believe that if I had two comparable applicants and I knew one was single and the other had two kids and a parent with dementia, I’d favor the latter. All that being said, I still think a rule favoring non-TT people over grad students is a good heuristic. You’re right: it’s a defeasible one to be sure — but I still think that non-TT people are in general much worse off than grad students, and this that search committees have a duty to adopt te rule unless and until potentially defeating information(e.g. a grad student has kids, the VAP doesn’t) comes to light.

  45. Marcus Arvan

    To the person whose comment I just rejected — the person expressing surprise at the resistance to the post’s proposal — can you make your point without making accusations? I don’t think your basic point warranted censorship, but the aggressive, unsupportive manner in which it was expressed and used to make accusations did.

  46. J

    Would you also advocate search committees carrying out investigations to see whether a given candidate had other options in philosophy for the next year (more funding from their PhD-granting dept, an offer of a VAP/post-doc/adjunct position, continuing some position they already have, other TT offers, etc.) or maybe even other options outside of philosophy? Or do you think that previous suffering should give someone an edge that future suffering doesn’t?

  47. J: I guess I would say yes to both.
    First, I think it would be ethical to hire a grad student who has no more funding over a VAP who can get renewed. However, I also think it is one’s duty to hire an adjunct over a grad student who has no more funding, because (A) the adjunct has already suffered for longer, and (B) adjuncting jobs are just about always available to grads with no more funding (so that they can get a TT job in a year or two without jumping to the front of the line).
    In short, in a world where people have to suffer — our world, unfortunately — I think grad students who have no funding should have to suffer in adjuncting positions for a year or two so those who are stuck in adjunct positions or non-renewable VAPs can get TT positions first. Such a system would indeed be one in which there is real suffering, but the suffering is minimized and the worst kind of suffering (washing out of the discipline, permanent adjuncting) is avoided to the maximum extent possible.

  48. Hi Marcus. Let me first note that I believe you misunderstood Anon’s comment. There was no concern about whether you were brushing aside the points I made. Quite the opposite. The issue was precisely that you managed to pay attention to them and acknowledge them when I raised them, having missed them when they were raised before. Anon related this to the all-too-common experience of female students raising points in class that are overlooked until a similar point is made by a male student, at which point the comment is recognized as a brilliant intervention. I think Anon was very clear about how her disappointment at this having happened did not erase her admiration for what you do with this blog and especially the way you have recently tackled issues of gender and blogging. But I would not be surprised if her disappointment was compounded by the way you missed what she was saying once again in your response to her complaint.
    Moving onto your last reply to me, the distinction being made here (as originally made by Anon Graduate Student and as relevant to the gender-related concerns Anon raised) is simply between those who will choose to move for a temporary job and those who will not. The latter class, if unable to obtain an academic position of whatever kind locally, will consider non-academic work.
    When you used scare-quotes around “isn’t an option”, it was obvious you were talking about people who are not in the latter class, because you spoke of people willing to sacrifice by moving for a temporary job. Anon Graduate Student asked you about the class of those not willing to sacrifice in that way, who are obviously not slaves precisely because we all have the option of leaving academy.
    Anon pressed the point that, if we’re concerned about gender imbalance in hiring, we should worry about making it so that more female grad students have to choose between a temporary job or nothing, because there are reasons to think they may disproportionately decide against moving for temporary jobs. Even if she’s wrong about this, I think you ought to say what that means for your view if she happens to be right. And beyond the gender concern, it’s simply the case that you did not factor in the happiness of those unwilling to move for a temporary job into your utilitarian calculus, which was Anon Graduate Student’s original point.

  49. I am amazed by the fact that the whole discussion seems to focus only on the fact that giving a job to someone who is younger is “unfair”. I have nothing against this position and Marcus has convincingly argued in favour of it, but, how comes that no one writes that younger people have less experience and are, thus, ceteris paribus, worse candidates (Lewis and Helena have rapidly dismissed this hypothesis when I raised the point)?
    Is it a sign that the US system is young-phile and that one generally thinks that, unless and until contrary evidences arise, the younger the better?
    (I have worked in Europe and Japan, where gerontophilia is the norm:-))

  50. (please read “Helen” instead of “Helena” in my comment above, with many apologies)

  51. Hi Chike: I think you’re being unfair to me. I never ignored Anon’s comment to begin with. I addressed it, and you then explained that there may have been a gendered subtext behind the comment that I missed in my putting scare-quotes around “not an option.” I was sorry I missed the subtext, and I thanked you for bringing it to my attention. But I just don’t think I was ever guilty of the offense I was being accused of. I never ignored a point by a woman and then thanked you — a man — for “brilliantly” making the same point. I addressed the original point. You pointed out to me that I didn’t consider a subtext — which was a different point. I then explicitly thanked both of you in my reply.
    I really do try — in all of my behavior — to be sensitive to these kinds of things. I would hope that readers would evaluate my conversational behavior in light of (A) my normal conversational behavior (I sometimes too easily dismiss points by men too, particularly if there is a subtext I am missing), and (B) the manner in which I have tried very hard to draw issues of gender inequity to discussion.
    I really feel as though my comments have been understood uncharitably from the beginning in this case — but, at the end of the day, if I am guilty of the behavior, I apologize.
    Finally, allow me to address your substantive point: that women may be less willing to make such sacrifices than men — in which case, I need to deal with this in my argument. I guess here’s what I want to say. I don’t think it’s reasonable for a person — man or woman — to go into a line of work in which a perfectly expectable result heading in from the beginning (when beginning grad school) is having to move around for non-TT jobs, and then say that such a sacrifice is not one they are willing to make. I do think it is reasonable for someone to ask such a discipline to aim to reduce the time that people who make such expectable sacrifices have to make those sacrifices.

  52. Hi Marcus. I don’t think I’ve been unfair to you at any point. I wonder if your perception in that regard has been coloured by a continuing series of confusions, one of which I would like to try to clear up as fast as possible: are you failing to distinguish between Anon Graduate Student and Anon? Because they are two different people.
    You did indeed fail to respond to Anon’s original comment before responding to mine, whether or not you had been planning to get to it eventually. And the problem is not that you failed to respond to Anon Graduate Student, but rather that you saw the point that s/he was making when I reiterated it but not before. It can certainly be unfair to criticize someone for taking a while to understand a point and needing someone else to explain it again in a different way… but Anon’s complaint should be put in the context of feeling ignored since you didn’t respond to her original comment.
    Also, you’ve got the timeline mixed up because you did not thank anyone but me in your original reply to me. I believe this is all a matter of you being confused by the pseudonyms, and the faster we clear that up, the faster you will be able to see why Anon was offended and why – in trying to explain that – I was not being unfair to you.

  53. (also it would have perhaps helped if I had stuck to always saying Anon 3:32, because it should be noted that you replied to another “Anon” – Anon 11:33 – right after Anon 3:32’s comment, the one that went unnoticed)

  54. Chike: my initial response was to Anon. You then said I missed a subtext. I then thanked you. Anon Grad Student then said I might have committed the error in question, congratulating you — a man — for a point that Anon made earlier. I then immediately stated that my aim in thanking you and Sydney was to bring my attention to points raised by all three of you (you, Sydney, and the original Anon). So, I don’t think at any point I committed the behavior in question. I:
    (A) Initially responded to Anon
    (B) Thanked you for bringing by attention to a subtext I was neglecting.
    (C) Replied to Anon Grad Student by trying to explain that I was not simply thanking you, but trying to concede points made by all (including Anon) in the thread to that point.
    At no point, then, did I ignore or set aside any woman’s point: not Anon’s point, and non Anon Grad Student’s point (which, again, I tried to address in C). I’m sorry that I wasn’t clearer.

  55. Seriously, though, it might help avoid problems like this if people used something other than “Anon.” It is hard to keep all the Anon’s straight…

  56. -You had an exchange with Anon Graduate Student, not with Anon 3:32, whose initial comment you did not respond to
    -I never said you missed a subtext, as there was no subtext… Anon 3:32’s initial comment was very explicit about the gender concern
    -Anon Graduate Student did not say the thing about congratulating a man – that was Anon 3:32
    -Anon 3:32 speculated that Anon Graduate Student might be a woman, but did not assume it, and I should note that I am not making any assumption either way

  57. Chike: Also, just to be clear, I did respond to Anon’s original comment before you jumped in (I responded at 04/04/2013 at 08:14 PM), well before you interjected.

  58. No, you did not. Anon 3:32’s comment had not yet been posted at that point.

  59. I see that now. But I have to confess that I still think you’re being unfair. There’s one comment I failed to respond to in the entire thread, you objected to me for not responding to it, I thanked you, Anon Grad Student objected to the fact that I thanked you for objecting, and I responded by clarifying that I was thanking you and Syndney for pressing Anon’s gender concerns — which I also thanked Anon for in the same comment.
    So, where did I err? The way I see it, there’s only one thing I can be reasonably criticized for doing: not responding to Anon’s comment at 3:32. Everything else was me just me thanking people for pointing that out, and then trying to explain that I wasn’t trying to ignore anyone’s point.

  60. Also, Anon 3:32 is the same Anon I responded to before 3:32 at 8:14.

  61. Anyway, look, I’m sorry for the misunderstanding, and for whatever errors I committed. It’s frankly hard to keep straight who is who. I do my best to respond to comments thoroughly, and in a way that treats everyone with equal consideration and respect. (I should probably add that some of the last few postings by you and I occurred at the same time, so it looks like I still might have confused one person with another. Apologies again, but it is hard to keep all the Anon’s/Anon Grad Students apart).

  62. I have been quite sure that there was no confusion on my part thus far, but your last reply has me questioning that – are you saying that, based on IP addresses or some other info that only you are privy to, Anon 3:32 = Anon Graduate Student.
    Your 8:14 reply is clearly to Anon Graduate Student. There had been no other Anons yet at that point. But it is highly confusing if Anon 3:32 and Anon Graduate Student are the same person, because Anon 3:32 explicitly refers to Anon Graduate Student as another person. Please clarify.

  63. I replied to Anon 3:32 immediately in the very next comment (at 5:43am). You’re right, I didn’t address the gender element there — because my point was that the same problems are worse (for everyone, men and women) after graduate school in non-TT position. You then objected to me not mentioning the gender points. I thanked you. Anon 3:32 then raised the objection about me thanking you. I then tried to set things straight at 8:29am. Apparently I didn’t set things clear enough.

  64. And just to explain why I haven’t just let this go: I do indeed think you are doing your best to treat everyone with equal consideration and respect. But the same goes for me, which makes it hard for me to accept that you think I have treated you unfairly. I am quite sure that this perception is rooted completely in confusion about who is who, and that’s why I wanted to get to the bottom of it so that you would recognize that I at no point accused you of anything you didn’t do or in any other way treated you unfairly… like I said, had I started specifying “3:32” earlier, it could have perhaps helped to clarify things, but that’s not a matter of treating you unfairly…

  65. Fair enough — but as my last comment shows, I think your criticisms of me haven’t had the facts right. I did respond to 3:32 in the very next comment after 3:32’s (at 5:42). You’ve been saying that I never did.

  66. Marcus, I have already addressed the issue of your reply at 5:43. Its content makes it absolutely clear that it is a reply to Anon 11:33. I’m not sure how you could re-read it and take it to be a reply to Anon 3:32.

  67. Also, I still don’t get why you have returned to saying that Anon 3:32 = Anon Graduate Student.

  68. I was assuming at the time that Anon 11:33 and Anon 3:32 were the same person. I now see my mistake.

  69. Because, for the life of me, I can’t keep all of the different Anon’s/Anon Grad Students straight in my head.

  70. And so I want to emphasize once again that it all made sense to me once I realized you were confused about who is who. This is why you did not understand Anon 3:32’s complaint. I pointed out this misunderstanding, which led to you thinking I was being somehow unfair.

  71. Marcus Arvan

    Got it — sorry I said you were being unfair.

  72. No problem. Your substantive response to the gender concern is an interesting one, and I hope that the derailing over who is who doesn’t scare away those who might be interested in replying to it.
    One issue is this: it is indeed a perfectly expectable result that one might have to move around for non-TT jobs. But your proposal, if taken seriously by the academic community, will change that from one strong possibility among others to something approaching certainty (not all the way, of course, as one might get a non-TT job but not have to move). If we take Anon 3:32’s hypothesis seriously, then, it remains the case that we will be actively making a change to the current state of affairs that is likely to have a depressing effect on women entering and/or staying in the field.
    I’ll say again that I think your proposal is worth considering, but that’s a heavy potential cost…

  73. Chike: fair point — but here’s a disturbing possibility on the other side that no one (to my knowledge) has discussed: that hiring directly out of graduate school may be even worse for women.
    You might think this is crazy, but consider a few things. As Susan Sterrett points out in my thread on this year’s TT hires, empirical research shows that perhaps the greatest level of discrimination against women in academia occurs at the level of decisions for tenure (i.e. far more women are denied tenure than men).
    Now, there is a lot of evidence that women are often denied tenure on unfair grounds (I have heard many a story of women being denied tenure when they have better records than men). This is horrific and needs to be fixed. But here’s another possible problem: perhaps women are placed at a distinct disadvantage in tenure-cases by being hired directly from grad school.
    Let me explain why I think this is a real possibility.
    First, I have personally known well upwards of 15 people (men and women) who have gotten TT-jobs right out of grad school. Almost all of them struggled mightily to publish. Some of them haven’t published at all.
    Second, there is my own experience. I will tell you this. In all honesty, I am truly glad I didn’t get a TT job out of grad school. Why? Because I would have been absolutely screwed. I had no idea how to publish, or how to teach well (I had good teaching reviews in grad school, but a full-time course load is a different story!). It took me 2-3 years to even begin publishing and getting decent teaching reviews, which would have been 2-3 years too late if I had been in a TT. I am almost certain: I would not have gotten tenure.
    Finally, here are some facts about this year’s hires (so far):
    31% of male TT hires were directly out of grad school.
    40% of female TT hires were directly out of grad school.
    Although the median number of publications for male and female hires was even (median=1 publication), here is the breakdown of means by gender:
    2.52 publications per male TT hire.
    1.67 publications per female TT hire.
    Finally,
    28% of male TT hires had zero publications
    35% of female TT hires had zero.
    Let me make one thing CRYSTAL clear. I do not subscribe to the notion that these facts indicate unfair advantages to women. I am well-aware of the forms of discrimination/bias that make it harder for women to publish (there are many).
    My point is this: that, despite whatever good intentions people might have (in terms of bringing more women into the discipline — which I absolutely agree with) — hiring people directly out of grad school may actually disadvantage women more than it helps.
    Perhaps everyone — male and female — would be better off if people weren’t hired for TT spots directly out of grad school but had to learn to publish/teach/etc. in non-TT positions for a couple of years first.

  74. Very interesting. I hope that Anon 3:32 comes back to say what she thinks.

  75. Elisa,
    The only contribution I have made is to point out that any employment options one faces after graduate school involve teaching “at the university level”, so it is not a special feature of TT jobs. I did not dismiss anything, nor did I take a position for or against gerontophilia.

  76. The last part of Marcus’ last comment seems to support my point (one does not really learn how to do independently research/ how to publish/ how to teach independently at university level during grad school). Thus, I would give everyone the chance to learn it, before hiring her/him in a TT position.

  77. I am skeptical of the idea that a generalized practice where no-one, or hardly anyone is being hired straight out of grad school, would be damaging for women in particular. For instance, in psychology it is the norm to do a postdoc first, usually for 2 or 3 years. Almost no-one gets hired out of grad school, because psychology SCs find publications very important in the CV. So you need some extra years to beef up your publication record before you even make the first cut. My psychology colleagues and friends find it baffling that philosophy SCs apparently frequently hire people for TTs on the basis of prestige of grad school, glowing letters of rec and an unpublished writing sample, no matter how brilliant.
    In psychology, a postdoc position offers you a relatively low teaching load (often not higher than 2 courses/year), and with the ability to publish together with people from a different team than the one where you graduated, which also helps you to learn new experimental procedures, statistical tools etc, and expands your network.
    Importantly, this practice doesn’t deter women in the least. In psychology, about 45% of TT and tenured full-time faculty at departments with a graduate program are women. They do much better than philosophy.
    Now, anecdotally, the women I know who got hired on TTs in psychology have very strong files – I have no data, but it’s not the case that they have fewer pubs than their male colleagues (this is in line with what Marcus was suggesting).
    In sum, if philosophy adopted the practice of hiring postdocs rather than grad students, they would get people who have (1) better networks by virtue of having spent research time in at least 2 departments (2) a track record of publishing (3) experience in teaching and designing their own courses.

  78. Ambrose

    Elisa raised a good point earlier. Why should the nebulous quality of “promise” should count for more than years of teaching and administrative experience and good publications? Nor do I understand why one ceases to have “promise” in virtue of having done a whole bunch of stuff after grad school and with a heavy teaching load and all kinds of new stresses. Why wouldn’t that show that one has the “promise” of doing even more, better stuff if put into a less crazy, stressful position such as a TT job?
    We non-TT schlubs are told that we just aren’t quite good enough for a real job. And yet we are hired by the same employers telling us this, year after year, to do that same job. I teach, I do administrative stuff (unpaid) and I publish in good journals. If I’m really not good enough for this kind of job, the university is ripping off the many hundreds of kids I teach every semester. (Maybe courses taught by people like me should cost a bit less? Maybe they shouldn’t count for the same number of credits as courses taught by TT people?) But if they’re not being ripped off by being taught by one of the many sessionals who do about half the teaching at my school, surely we sessionals deserve better treatment.

  79. AGS

    Anon Graduate Student here (not to be confused with other anonymouses)
    First a thanks to Chike Jefferies for defending my point about those for whom short term positions are “not an option.” The discussion seems to have passed the point of useful return so I hav e nothing further to off on that count, it I do appreciate your well intentioned comments.
    Marcus, I will post as “AGS” from now on in hopes of staving off further confusion.
    I wanted to point out one other possible happiness consideration that might speak against selecting against job candidates fresh out of graduate school. When I enter the job market for the first ime next year I anticipate one of three outcomes:
    1. I will immediately secure a TT position
    2. I will spend some time adjuncting, VAPing, postdoc-ing, etc. and eventually secure a TT position
    3. I will spend some time adjuncting, VAPing, postdoc-ing, etc. until I become convinced that I will not secure a TT position and eventually leave the profession.
    3 is clearly the least desirable option, and it strikes me as even less desirable than a scenario which I do not anticipate happening:
    4. My initial failure on the job market convinces me that I will never secure a TT position and I leave the profession.
    If, as you seem to wish, the most common path to a TT position is 2, the false promise of hope will be held out much longer to those who will (for whatever reason) never manage to secure permanent jobs. The unhappiness caused by failing now (4) when I would already face the challenge of attempting to begin a new career in my thirties strikes me as far greater than the unhappiness caused by failing later (3) when I will be even older, less flexible and embittered by disappointment. If “staleness” of PhDs is a real hiring issue it at least gives one some sense of when to throw in the towel. If I’m going to give up, I would much rather give up sooner rather than later. I recognize that things are not this cut and dried, but given a choice between a world where 1 and 4 are real options or a world where 2 and 3 are real options I would choose the former.
    And, of course, all of this assumes there is no option 5- I spend the rest of my life in adjunct/VAP/post-doc positions.

  80. @Ambrose, thanks for the rephrasing. It goes without saying that I completely agree with you, but I will repeat it anyway.
    @AGS, let me ask a provocative question: why should 5 be the worst possible option? I understand that a situation such as the one described by Marcus in his “What it is like to be a VAP” cannot be endured forever. But can’t one be satisfied to teach/do research even without a tenure? Or is it the case that the US system “postulates” that either you get a tenure/TT or you are an under-average philosopher and no department hires you again?

Leave a Reply to Rob GressisCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading