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:
- Asian Philosophy
- Ethics and Social-Political
- Feminist Philosophy
- Philosophy of Race
- 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.
Leave a Reply to AlCancel reply