The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

What are R2 jobs like?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I'm currently in a teaching-only position with a pretty manageable workload but no research funding. The role has good job security from what I can tell. My long-term goal is to publish enough to eventually get a SLAC or R1 TT job. I am currently (selectively) on the market, and I am wondering whether I should be applying to R2 jobs (think 3-3 load with multiple preps, regional state schools, etc.). Do these jobs typically come with some research funding to be able to attend conferences, even if it's modest? In the short term I think I would have more time to publish if I stayed put at my teaching-only job, but is it worth it to try to get a TT job with a heavier workload for the boost that seems to come from applying to a TT job when one already has one?

Good questions. I'd be curious to hear about this too, as I suspect that like many people, I probably don't know much in detail about how jobs at R1's and R2's differ.

Do any readers have any helpful insights to share?

Posted in

35 responses to “What are R2 jobs like?”

  1. R2Employed

    I’m at a public regional comprehensive R2 that is doing very well financially. We are on a 4/4 and receive $1000 professional development funds per year. I think you will find wide variance in teaching loads and finding across R2 institutions.

    Reply
  2. R2D2

    This is a difficult set of questions to answer, as the poster did not supply enough information about their present situation. If they have completed their PhD they SHOULD apply to R2s, because they are more likely to get a job at an R2 than an R1 or a SELECTIVE-LAC (think Williams, or even Colgate). Further, if they are in the sort of job they describe it is quite likely that they are already not competitive for jobs at R1s and SELECTIVE-LACs.
    If they are still finishing their PhD, then I would give a different answer.
    Applicants should note, it is very hard to move “up” the hierarchy of positions (as traditionally conceived), once you get your first tt-job. The market is only fluid for the top players (usually).

    Reply
  3. OP additional info

    OP here, sorry for the confusion: I have my PhD, and although I am in a (NTT) teaching position currently I have gotten close (several flyouts) to both SLAC and R1s in the past couple of years.

    Reply
  4. R2D2

    I was at a comprehensive (which is ranking “below” an R2). It was a fine job, but there was very little support for research, typically ranging from $ 0/yr. (when the economy crashed), to $ 600/yr. There were other sources of money for conference travel, but they could not be counted on and it was competitive to get it (for example, the International ed office supported travel overseas for conferences, and the Union also gave small grants). Much of my research travel was just paid for by the Bank of Me.

    Reply
  5. Anon UK Grad

    Like R2Employed, I work at a public regional comprehensive university. We have been transitioning to an R2 for the last several years, and expect that classification in the 2025 report.
    What this means in practice is that, while officially we still have a 4/4 teaching load, there are significantly more opportunities to get course releases for research activity than there were before we started the transition. In practice, all TT faculty in my department teach 2/2 except one, who is on 3/3 (by choice — they are a full professor who really loves teaching).
    The number of preps we each have is something that we try to balance against other scheduling factors. For the last few semesters I have only had one prep for each semester; before that, I usually had two.
    There is some research funding, but the exact quantity varies year on year, based on state funding and other factors that are mostly outside departmental control. That said, I have always had about 1000$ in professional development funds each year, and in some cases I have had more.
    What does this mean for you? If your goal is to eventually make it to an R1 or a fancy SLAC, having a job that enables you to publish is going to be very important. But, I disagree that it gets harder to move once you are on a TT job; I think it is harder to move once you have tenure, but before that I don’t think it is any harder than being on the market more generally.

    Reply
  6. what even is an R2 really…

    I’m at an R2-ish institution. I was given a startup package of several thousand dollars and there are additional travel funds (usually around $1000) available each year. However, much of this funding is only available because we have a research-minded dean who has secured large grants. We also regularly have small ($1000 – $6000), internal (i.e., not very competitive) grants available.

    Reply
  7. R2ish

    I am also at an R2-ish institution that is financially struggling. My department is basically run on our endowed money without minimum institutional support. Also, we have a TON of admin work to do because of the lack of supporting staff.

    Reply
  8. Rsquared

    I’m at a regional state university, which is classified as an R2 and has aspirations of becoming an R1 one day. Our department only teaches undergraduates, though.
    I have a 3-3 load. (There’s some rumblings that that might increase in the future.) There has been between $750-1250 in available travel money each year (though that has the potential to go down or up in the future). There are ways to apply for more funding and course releases through the college.
    The worst part of working in a school like mine, in my experience, is the low salary, despite the good state benefits.

    Reply
  9. doctopus

    I work at a regional comprehensive. Our standard load is 4/4, but in my department at least, one of those four is always online async.
    We have $500 of guaranteed research funding each year, but we can always apply for more from the college, and the process of getting it is not competitive.
    I do two preps per semester. It’s really not a bad gig. The biggest time suck is a product of our department culture: while it’s not explicitly required, everyone is generally expected to teach over the summer. These classes are also online async, but the teaching grind never stops. It might be worth asking about summer teaching in interviews if you’re planning to have that time off for research.

    Reply
  10. Bill V.

    Is there any data to support OP’s intuition that there is a boost to chances of getting an R1 job when you already have a TT job? I would have said the opposite.
    Moving jobs, especially if the intention is only to stay a short while, is very disruptive to one’s life. Getting used to new locations, colleagues, courses, students and service obligations takes a lot of mental space, and will probably leave one with less time for research than it sounds like OP has now. The pay is probably better, and that definitely matters.
    FWIW, I work at a Cal State, a large regional campus serving mostly the local area, recently designated R2 (only because we hit a threshold in the number of EdDs we graduate, there are no other doctoral programs). The department is more “research interested” than the university as a whole. We officially have a 4-4 load, but very commonly we are able to get internal grants or release for service that brings it down to 4-3 or 3-3. (And newbies by union contract get several course releases in the first few years of the tenure track.) As a department we have a policy to do everything we can to make it so that we only have two preps each per semester, almost always a course for majors plus 2 or 3 sections of a course for the general education program.
    As for professional development funds, new hires get a start up package of a few thousand. In good years, the rest of us get up to $1k per year; in lean years, nothing. There are some opportunities to earn additional professional development money by participating in certain teaching center workshops.

    Reply
  11. R2ish

    I work at a private R2. Teaching load is 2-3, but new hires get course releases, and there are other ways to get course releases down the line. The 2 course semester can be one prep. We have a lot of autonomy in what we teach. Research funding is about $4-5k guaranteed, and new hires can get significant start-up funds. There are other internal research funds that require an application, but are not too hard to get.

    Reply
  12. TN

    You’ll get like 1-2000 for research money a year. If you like your job and have less teaching I would just spend that yourself to go to conferences. Or pick up a side hustle to make 2k a year, private tutoring for a few months or something. Why would you move jobs for 1000$ which is essentially what you’re proposing?

    Reply
  13. OP

    Thanks everyone for your replies! It seems like R2ish jobs can vary quite widely, which is useful info in and of itself.
    I did want to follow-up on Bill V.’s point about the intuition I was operating under. It’s true that moving, adjusting to a new place, etc. will likely serve as productivity barriers in the short term. I suppose I wondering, though, whether applying from a TT job (vs a NTT full time job) would give me a slight edge, all else being equal (that is, say, holding # and quality of publications fixed)? I’ve seen comments on here in other posts that seem to suggest that some SC members view already having a TT job as a bonus, since it means some other school has “signed off” on you meriting one.

    Reply
  14. R2 search committee member

    If your plan going in is to try to publish your way to a “better” job, please do the R2s you’re considering a favor by not applying to their positions, especially if you are a viable candidate for those other jobs. At my R2 (and many other teaching-oriented institutions), it is rare for the department to get a tenure-stream position, and we are looking for potential colleagues that are interested in the position as it is, heavy teaching load and all, not those arriving with one foot already out the door.

    Reply
  15. AnonymousR

    Just to add another data point. I teach at an R2 and the official load is 3-3. Faculty can apply for a course release occasionally. We are given about $1600 in travel a year, although if there is money left at the end of the year one can sometimes ask for more to cover expenses. We don’t really have a research budget. Faculty can also apply for a summer grant program (it’s selective and not guaranteed each year) but worth like $8000 if you get one, which is pretty decent.

    Reply
  16. Ryan Bingham

    Does @R2-search-committee-member really think we have the luxury of not applying to their job just because we might, ultimately, want something better if we can get it? It’s unfortunate that departments can lose lines, but that’s a you problem. Just like it’s a me problem that I need to convince you I won’t leave. But it’s unreasonable to expect applicants to self-select out for these kinds of reasons. In the words of every employer who has ever had to fire someone: “That’s business.” In the end a business never cares about what you had to sacrifice for its interests when it comes down to what’s best for the business. And make no mistake that the enterprise we are in is about business, not fairness. Otherwise we’d all have jobs. This is a topic that has been rehashed over and over again on this blog.
    Sorry if the tone of this doesn’t fully fit with the mission of the blog. But I think it’s important to recognize the tone-deafness of @R2’s request on a blog where people are struggling with the realities of the market.

    Reply
  17. frustrated member of the elite

    Academia is, not uniquely, but especially toxic in its attempts to enforce norms about never leaving jobs, not using jobs as stepping stones, etc.
    –Your department is not a family (and if you think it is, it’s probably a toxic one everyone should escape from!)
    –Your institution is a corporation (or resembles one, or is in bed with many) whose employees don’t owe it loyalty or anything other than (at best) what they are contractually obligated to do
    –Not being able to survive, not being emotionally or physically stable, the harms of adjuncting, living below or near the poverty line, etc. are serious, deep harms to academics who have devoted almost their whole lives to the pursuit of education and qualifications
    –As hirers, we need to do better in the messaging we send to job seekers. Don’t be toxic! Don’t make your fellow faculty literally afraid to apply, seek out, interview for, tell you they are interviewing for, etc. other positions. If you care about them, support them. Assume that people will leave if your job is not super desirable (or even if it is). Fight for better working conditions for yourselves, your colleagues, and most importantly, those who are contingently employed.
    I implore my fellow members of the elite (aka those with tenure track jobs of any kind) to stop telling job seekers that they are somehow being immoral, crappy to us, or anything else when they are trying to live a functional life. Feel free to not hire someone you think is a flight risk if that is your biggest concern. But don’t try to guilt people into not applying to your job. I’d say it’s more than tone deaf.

    Reply
  18. The Real SLAC Prof

    @OP
    You don’t mention the “prestige” of the NTT job you currently enjoy, nor do you mention the prestige of your own pedigree. If the goal is an R1 or SLAC TT position, I don’t know that landing a TT at a not very prestigious R2 is really going to help. And, depending on the details of your situation, it could actually hurt. (I’m taking you at your word that your current position offers stable employment and good working conditions, minus the lack of research funds.)
    I think most R1s and SLACs are confident in their assessments of candidates; they don’t need to use the fact that a candidate already has a TT position as second-order evidence of the candidate being hirable (if someone is already in a prestigious R1 position, this can constitute this kind of second-order evidence, but that is a different sort of case). Because of this, getting a R2 TT job is not going to really add anything to your candidacy, by itself. And given how costly it is to look for a job and move, it could even hurt your candidacy.
    It is also the case that one’s “potentially” rating peaks as a recent grad and diminishes over, say, 5-7 years. And potentially is especially enticing to elite R1s. It seems to me that, perhaps counter-intuitively, one’s potentiality rating more sharply decreases after one accepts a not very prestigious TT job as compared to being in a NTT position. I think there may be a tendency to think that in accepting a TT position, one has revealed one’s true standing in the hierarchy.
    To be clear, I’m not endorsing any of this (in fact, I find much of the emphasis on prestige and promise very gross), but I did want to put this out there as something to consider, since your motivating assumptions about the value of getting a R2 TT position, if your aim is ultimately to secure an R1 or SLAC position, seem off to me.

    Reply
  19. The Real SLAC Prof

    Sorry, that should be “potentiality” in my comment above. No more posting after midnight! 🙂

    Reply
  20. frustrated member of the elite

    More practically, I actually agree with the Real SLAC Prof (I’m not totally sure about the “potentiality decreases after accepting non-prestigious TT job” part, but I strongly agree at least with the idea that a non-prestigious TT job–basically any job that people don’t see as a “research focused” job–isn’t going to help with the process). FWIW this is probably obvious but prestige cuts across the R1/R2/SLAC categories, though obviously there is more of it concentrated in R1 jobs and elite SLACs. I do think that some R2 jobs would help if you are on a stepping stone mission.

    Reply
  21. whatever

    I think Marcus should copy & paste ‘frustrated’s’ above response and post it at the top of the Cocoon for all to read!
    Thanks for saying that, frustrated!

    Reply
  22. Anony

    @Ryan Bingham. I worry that the way you are discussing this functionally supports a strongly adversarial relationship between applicants and hiring departments. Do you want search committee members to be honest about the possibility of tenure/promotion, the permanency on the position, the overall financial health of the university, and the possibility of future cuts?
    If so, then it seems fair to be honest with them about your career goals, your plans to stay/leave, etc.
    Now, if we already have good reason to assume that committee members will be dishonest (or at least withholding) about the questions above, then it seems fair for applicants to act in kind. I am genuinely unsure whether committee members would generally be open and honest in response to these questions.
    But I understand why the R2 search committee member above would ask people not to apply if they plan on jumping ship as soon as possible. It would make the job of weeding out people who want to do so much easier.

    Reply
  23. Ryan Bingham

    @Anony – What I said doesn’t make the situation any more adversarial than it already was. At best @R2’s advice will lead the most honest of us on this forum to not apply to such jobs, but it won’t stop the most cut-throat among us from getting hired on false pretense and leaving them in the lurch. So why not let everyone have a fair shot at a job? Norms that dictate we do otherwise only penalize the more pious among us. And remember that it’s possible the candidate with greater ambitions will like the R2 enough once hired to join @R2 in the trenches and never leave. Or they’ll never be good enough to move on anyway. Or the candidate who thought they would like it doesn’t after all and leaves anyway. So why be forced to leave the profession when you don’t end up getting the better job just because @R2 didn’t want to deal with the potential hassle of losing a tenure-stream line? Sorry, but it’s just not the candidate’s problem. (I say this against my own current interests, because it would be much better for me if fewer people applied to these jobs!)
    I also think it’s naive to think that committees are as forthcoming as you seem to think they are. Bear in mind that candidates are already (reasonably) afraid to broach a good many topics for fear of being rule out of consideration by even asking – I know I am afraid! An interview isn’t some free and open exchange. Neither is a salary negotiation. Offers can be, and have been, pulled when the candidate said or asked for the wrong thing.
    Obviously I can also understand why @R2 has the view they do. But, as @frustrated-member-of-the-elite says, those views reinforce toxic norms.

    Reply
  24. Ryan Bingham

    I should add that many of the things you mention (e.g., the possibility of tenure/promotion, the permanency of the position) are contractual matters and misrepresentation of them would likely be fraudulent or involve a breach of contract. The other things, like the possibility of future cuts, are very likely to be hid and, to my mind, far more impactful on the life of the individual made redundant than the loss of a tenure-stream line is to the individual members of a department. The transparency required in the direction of department to individual is of a wholly different nature. And when a university wants to make a cut, no assurances about how unlikely it seemed at the time of hiring are going to matter anyway. That was my whole point — businesses and academic administrators don’t act in the interests of their employees. They act in their own interests.

    Reply
  25. Recruiter

    I think that if R2 universities (like mine) want to retain good faculty and not lose TT lines, they should simply do things to make those jobs worth keeping.

    Reply
  26. AnonymousR

    I don’t think the norms being discussed in relation to @R2’s concerns are toxic norms. Some people here seem to be thinking of the issue from the perspective of the candidates’ interests. “It isn’t in the candidates interest to forsake applying to job for the reason’s @R2 describes.” But I take it that @R2’s concerns relate to issues beyond any individual person. There are some very small-to-medium sized philosophy departments which really depend on whether they can get a line to run their program. If that line goes away, that hurts a lot of people, including the department, the program, the students in the program, etc. So the issues involved here include a range of concerns and are not just about individual people I take it.

    Reply
  27. Ryan Bingham

    @AnonymousR Here’s what @R2 wrote: “If your plan going in is to try to publish your way to a “better” job, please do the R2s you’re considering a favor by not applying to their positions, especially if you are a viable candidate for those other jobs.”
    Who would that be addressed to if not job market candidates? And the thought was not that we can’t talk about other interests here, including those of vulnerable departments. What I took issue with was directly asking candidates to subordinate their interests to those of a department. In any case, I’ll drop this now because it’s not what this thread was meant to be about. In fact, what this thread was meant to be about was whether it was in the OP’s interest to apply to R2 jobs…

    Reply
  28. The Real SLAC Prof

    It is difficult for me to understand how it reinforces toxic norms for a couple of commentators to point out the difficulties created by people attempting to use less prestigious jobs as mere stepping stones to more prestigious jobs. Shouldn’t people (including jobseekers) attempt to understand all the implications of their actions before acting?
    Yes, the job market is terrible and unfair, but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t possibly be norms of decency for job seekers. Nor does it mean that anyone who points out the real consequences of being used as a stepping stone is somehow reinforcing toxic norms.
    For my part, whether someone is behaving decently in using one job as a stepping stone for another will turn on the details of the case, e.g., how long was the person in the job? Did they have one foot out the door for their entire stay? Did they leave the department better than then found it? And so on.
    I would just point out, knowing that this comment will also be viewed as toxic by many here, that the philosophy world is very, very small, and a prudent young philosopher should keep that in mind as they attempt to scramble their way to the “top.”

    Reply
  29. Anonimal

    @The Real SLAC Prof writes, Yes, the job market is terrible and unfair, but that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t possibly be norms of decency for job seekers. Nor does it mean that anyone who points out the real consequences of being used as a stepping stone is somehow reinforcing toxic norms.
    I’m not sure what to make of this claim. What norms of decency do you have in mind? I’m genuinely curious.
    For the sake of argument, let’s say that I’m a career-oriented young philosopher who intends to use my current position as a stepping stone to a better one (however I define ‘better’ in this situation). While I’m at my current job I undertake my contractual duties. And, since I’m working for a better position, I probably do more than what’s mandated (again, as delineated by my career plans; maybe that’s excelling at teaching, or taking on larger admin responsibilities, maybe it’s sacrificing my free time to publish a bunch of articles that have my university’s name all over them). Let’s say that after 1-3 years I manage to find a ‘better’ position. What norm of decency have I infringed upon? Would you think an adjunct has infringed upon some norm of decency for doing exactly the same thing? And, since (contractual) norms involve some kind of reciprocity, what retention policies/norms/incentives does an institution have in place to persuade talented faculty to stay?
    Again, what’s the reciprocal norm for my institution? We’ve seen Institutions recently sack entire philosophy departments (Manhattan College, ACU, etc.). Not all of those effected landed on their feet, despite being committed to the institution. Point being: institutional decisions do not countenance ‘norms of decency’ in their deliberations.
    My gut suggests that insisting on norms of decency for applicants/professionals without spelling out reciprocal norms for employers places an undue burden on employees for a problem that is manifestly institutional. I don’t know if this amounts to a ‘toxic’ anything, but it does sound a bit like saying ‘you took a minimum wage job at a small local business, now you need to stay there because Ma and Pa can’t afford you leaving — nor will they do anything to encourage you to stay, even they could — and they’ll fire you when they feel it’s in their best interests”. Assuming the situations are suitably comparable, I’m sure you can see why many feel that insisting on a specifically moral obligation here (especially if economic deliberation is ‘moral norm free’) looks disingenuous.
    So what did I misunderstand or misconstrue?

    Reply
  30. frustrated member of the elite

    @The Real SLAC Prof and anonymousR, one important difference is a job seeker is just a job seeker; they’re a person; they’re trying to survive in the world and live a decent life. It’s of course true that departments, and individuals who teach in those departments, can be harmed when folks leave their departments. But to not connect up that harm with the administration of your OWN university, the poor state of higher ed funding and especially humanities funding more generally, and see that they are responsible for the situation you are in, not the individual you hired who left, is the problem. I’m just begging members of the academic elite to understand that these are institutional and structural problems; job seekers are doing their best under unjust circumstances; and if you are permanently employed by an institution of higher ed, you should be directing your time and energy towards making things better institutionally rather than trying to make demands or guilt trip individual job candidates. Basically, there’s a really important asymmetry here: whether you realize it or not, you are representing the interests of (and the ideology of!) your institution when you blame or even just put the focus on job seekers or colleagues who leave rather than the larger structural problem. Job seekers are not representing institutions. Any analysis of labor, the injustices of higher ed being so corporatized, etc. is going to get the result that the problem is not individual people leaving/not being loyal to departments or institutions. The problem is the institutions themselves, their corporate interests (or just them qua corporations), and the broader social-structural issues that have gotten us into the situation we are in.

    Reply
  31. frustrated member of the elite

    And note, I’m obviously a leftist, but if you’re more of a centrist or right-ist or economics worshipper, you’re going to get the same result… I just can’t see any reasonably consistent structural analysis/social-political view on which it makes sense to tell job seekers that there is something wrong with them applying to jobs that they see as (hopefully) stepping stones. On the economics-worshipping view, them leaving would just be a supply and demand problem–and it’s still your institution that is failing to cough up what the person is worth.

    Reply
  32. Possibly naive

    I think the idea that the job market is gameable such that someone can use a job as a stepping stone is false. Most people who leave R2 jobs probably do so because they develop a research profile that no longer fits that position. In that case they SHOULD leave, to take a job more suited to them. But I imagine that anyone entering a job with a plan to just get something better may not do great at that first job, foiling their plans to move on. In other words, the job market is so nuts that at each stage, candidates should take the best job that they are eligible for, rather than holding out hope that something “better” will come along. What’s best at each stage will likely depend on the person. For OP, for instance, a TT job with heavier expectations/less job security is likely not as good as the poster’s current position, unless they are sure they want to be on the tenure track to have the research benefits that come along with that, in which case applying laterally from TT to TT is (in my experience) much easier, because you’ve already proven you can publish and teach well with the load of a TT position. (Also, I agree with frustrated member of the elite – let’s stop expecting vulnerable individuals to shoulder the burden of structural problems)

    Reply
  33. Ryan Bingham

    I didn’t say @R2’s comment itself was toxic, nor did I claim that there are no norms of decency for candidates. Clearly there are such norms. I just don’t think prioritizing the long-term interests of a department over your own should be one of them given the asymmetrical power relations. I genuinely feel for @R2’s situation and think there is a time and place, even on this blog, to think about how we can all pitch in to fight against the structural issues they face. My claim was only that it is problematic to pass the burden on to candidates who are arguably far more vulnerable than either the gainfully employed faculty or the students in those departments. The job market really is psychologically tough and I don’t think it’s particularly fragile to find a comment tone deaf that tells us we’re violating norms of decency for prioritizing our own immediate and long-term interests.
    Perhaps it’s not a bad reminder that some departments are particularly vulnerable and so we should be cognizant of the effects of our actions should we have genuine alternatives (though I don’t think candidates with a bunch of alternatives are the ones we’re talking about). But the tell comes in the thinly veiled threat should we not comply:
    “I would just point out, knowing that this comment will also be viewed as toxic by many here, that the philosophy world is very, very small, and a prudent young philosopher should keep that in mind as they attempt to scramble their way to the “top.””
    What could this warning even mean? I’m genuinely unsure. Perhaps when I’m at the APA, with travel funded by my new R1 and see my old R2 departmental chair who paid their own way, they’ll shun me or talk badly about me to others? Will they complain to my new employer? Will they refuse to invite me to conferences or to be part of a new essay collection? None of this seems very decent, though I suppose it also doesn’t hurt me all that much anymore. I suppose if I didn’t get the R1 job and they found out I was trying to leave, they could make my life hell. But, again, where is the norm of decency in such a case? The comment is quite revealing that this was never about decency but about control and propping up the interests of the department (the business) over the individual: where obligation gives out, threat steps in. I’m not generally very sympathetic with Nietzsche, but the idea that a certain form of morality is a tool used to keep people from stepping out of line is starting to resonate here. As I tried to point out, @R2’s comment only really punishes those who actually observe the norm. It won’t stop a real ladder-climber.
    Thanks to others for the solidarity. And I want to emphasize to those in vulnerable faculty positions that I otherwise have a deep sympathy for your plight.

    Reply
  34. The Real SLAC Prof

    It’s strange to me that several people here seem to think that the primary entities hurt by shabby behavior by junior colleagues are “the system” or “the institution” when those most directly impacted by poor behavior are your fellow philosophers.
    As I indicated above, I don’t think it is always wrong to attempt to use one job as a stepping stone toward bigger and better things (although it rarely works out the way the striver imagines it will and it does have costs). But, say, accepting a job at an R2 knowing that you will turn around and apply for another job the following year simply because it is more highly ranked than your current position is a shitty thing to do. And the people you hurt by this behavior are your colleagues. Not the man or the system. And it isn’t wrong for someone at an R2 to say “hey please don’t use a position at my institution as a stepping stone.”
    I’ve seen a similar dynamic on this blog multiple times over the years. It’s very sad that the apt focus on power asymmetries is often invoked as a justification for behaving poorly to one’s philosophical colleagues.

    Reply
  35. Anonimal

    @The Real SLAC Prof writes, “accepting a job at an R2 knowing that you will turn around and apply for another job the following year simply because it is more highly ranked than your current position is a shitty thing to do. And the people you hurt by this behavior are your colleagues. Not the man or the system”
    I’m not sure I see what makes it shitty, to be completely honest. You, your colleagues, and the institution have a year+ to change my mind. And job markets are such that I may never go. So it’s a big ask to say don’t apply if you don’t intend to stay for the foreseeable future. I would endorse a rule of thumb like, “don’t apply for a job you would never take”, but something like “treat your job like hotel California” is a bit much, irrespective of any potential harms that staff leaving might cause.
    In any event, the emphasis on structural/institutional features in this situation is part of an effort to identify the source of the harms you insist on. The harms your colleagues experience are consequences of your institution’s policy and decision making, not the employee who leaves. Consider: the harms involved in a colleague leaving are (1) time involved in conducting a job search, (2) juggling dept level admin to cover staff shortfall, and (3) administrative decisions to rescind a budget line for the position itself; maybe (4) postgraduate students who neeed to scramble for supervision replacement. (1), (2) and (4) is just part of business as usual. It may be a time sink, but it’s not a harm (at least as I understand it). And no junior faculty member (any faculty member?) is responsible for (3). All things being equal, a unit that has previously demonstrated that a budget line is justified and received the go ahead to fill it shouldn’t have to worry about losing the line — especially when the need to refill it is quick. The fact that units like yours do worry suggests that you should be pissed at your institution, which seems to be really jerking your collective chains. The (threat of the) institution rescinding the line is the source of the harms you and your colleagues experience.
    I’m sure we can all agree that an upper admin decision to cut a faculty budget line rather than hire someone to fill the position is awful. but it is not something that you or I are responsible for. We don’t make the decision nor do we implement it. Blaming a faculty member who leaves for what your institution is doing to you therefore seems misplaced. Even if my leaving is a catalyst for your harms, it is neither my intention nor am I causally responsible for this outcome.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading