I began a series last year, "Notes from both sides of the market", as a kind of follow-up to our Job-Market Boot Camp, but this time discussing job-market issues from the perspective of someone who has now been on both sides of the process (I was on the market as a candidate for seven years, and have now served on two search committees). Given that the fall job-market is just a few months away now, I thought it might be helpful to resurrect series, discussing issues that may be relevant to current and future job-candidates. As I mentioned in the first post in this series, I don't think it's appropriate for me to share or comment on any specific aspects of searches I've been a part of–so I won't do that. Instead, I am simply going to discuss some very general things that I've noted on both sides of market. Anyway, here goes!
In most hiring circumstances–and I expect hiring in academia is no different–it seems presumptively good to stand out from other applicants in some way. As any recent candidate on the philosophy job-market knows from PFO letters, hiring institutions for full-time academic positions routinely report receiving several hundred applications per position (in some cases, upwards of 600!). So, put yourself in the shoes of search-committee members. You have something like 400-600 CVs, cover letters, research statements, and so on, to sort through–and you need to somehow whittle things down to a small number (say 6-10 candidates) to interview. Suppose, further, that many (though by no means all) of these candidates have broadly similar CVs, coming from respected departments, often with a few publications in good journals, good letters of recommendation, and so on. You can only imagine, I think, how difficult it may be for a candidate to "stand out" in a situation like this. So, are there things one can do to stand out? Are there things one can do to do the opposite (i.e. not stand out)?
Two things that I don't recall hearing discussed very often is the role that have a very original research program (i.e. dissertation) might play here, or what having a very original research program as such might involve. A few years ago, Jason Brennan (Georgetown) wrote a post at Bleeding Heart Libertarians wrote a satirical post on "The Five Major Types of Dissertations in Political Philosophy", which he listed as follows:
1. The Disciple. “Hey, did you know my advisor hasn’t written about topic X? My dissertation explores what I think my advisor would say about X, except that I’m less talented or polished than she is, so this is more like a crappy version of what she might have come up with. Enjoy!”
2. Oh, Good, Another Piece on Rawls. “Footnote 458 of A Theory of Justice has not been sufficiently explored. Buckle up for 300 pages of exploration!”
3. Splitting the Difference. “Famous philosopher A argues X. Famous philosopher B argues not-X. In this dissertation, I argue the truth is somewhere in-between.”
4. Incomprehensible Kantian Nonsense. “I’m going to argue that some policy P is justified on Kantian grounds. This argument will take 75 steps, and will read as if it’s been translated, or, rather, partially translated, from 19th century German. It will also be completely implausible, and so, to non-Kantians, will simply read like a reductio of Kant rather than a defense of P.”
5. Consequentialism without Social Science. “I’m going to argue that policy P is justified on consequentialist grounds. It didn’t occur to me to examine what political scientists or economists have to say about how P would actually work. I sure hope there won’t be one in the room if you interview me, because they’ll be able to tear my dissertation apart in five seconds. Heck, an astute undergrad majoring in either subject could do that. I’m counting on you hiring committee members to know nothing about institutions and instead to rely on your unexamined biases.”
I'm not going to comment on whether Jason is right about this–but suppose he were and you found yourself on a search committee hiring in political philosophy. Suppose you received 400-600 applications with candidates all claiming to being doing something new and original in their dissertations…but 95% of them were variations on the five types of dissertations listed above. Would any of the hundreds of candidates doing small variations on the same projects stand out to you? Maybe not! Thus, if you were one of the candidates doing research in one of those areas, as original as your research might appear from your perspective, it might appear to search committee members to be precisely the opposite–as blending into the proverbial woodwork, doing what everyone else is doing!
I mention this not to scare any present or future candidates–and indeed, I'll offer some suggestions in a moment on how to better ensure that you do stand out. But before I get to that, I want to ask a question of readers who have served on search committees: do you think that this sort of thing is a problem for job-candidates (i.e. so many of them work on similar problems that is therefore difficult for them to stand out)? I ask this question because I am genuinely curious. For my part–having been on both sides of the market–it does seem to me like many people work on similar stuff, and therefore, it may be difficult for candidates to stand out.
In any case, however search-committee members answer the above question (and I do hope some search committee members chime in), two things seem to me to be in job-candidates' interests. First, I think job-candidates and the graduate programs they come from (including their advisors) should perhaps be more aware of this issue, not assuming (as I get the sense some do assume) that it is a good idea to write a dissertation on something because it is currently a "hot topic". For my part–and this is just my own sense as a philosopher–I suspect people may be better off seeking to write dissertations on topics that are not hot yet, but might become so (as that is a way to "stand out"!). Second, and more to the point for those whose dissertations/research programs are in currently "hot areas", I would suggesting making it a point–insofar as it is possible–to express in one's cover letter and research statement how one's project is not "just another project" in hot-area X. In this case, given that one is presumably competing against many other candidates with similar research programs, making it clear how one's program is original and "not like the others" is, I think, probably helpful–at least if one does want to stand out.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What are yours?
Leave a Reply to Marcus ArvanCancel reply