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 (2026-27)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2026-27)

recent posts

about

Philosophical “superstars”

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

Sometimes I hear people describe some philosopher as a "superstar", but what exactly does that mean? Is it about publications? Or fame? What is it like to be a superstar, and is it worth trying to become one? If so, how does one go about trying?

I've heard that at some R1s, to get tenure one must be considered something like "one of the top-5 leaders" in your field. How is this determined? Presumably, partly by what one has published, but also (or so I've heard) from what other recognized leaders in the field say in outside letters of support. Beyond this, I have no idea and think it's probably best to just do one's best work.

What do readers think?

Posted in

10 responses to “Philosophical “superstars””

  1. sahpa

    With all due love to the wonderful community here at the Cocoon, we sure do have some neurotic folks in the family 🙂
    There is nothing more to ‘trying to become a superstar’ than trying to do your best work and grow professionally — that means (yes) networking, reading, writing, discussing, etc. The rest is luck, including structural advantage, and (yes) talent.

    Reply
  2. R1 prof

    In my experience, ‘superstar’ in our context means something like: someone who is quick (but not necessarily deep) on their feet, publishes in top journals and presses regularly, and has been lucky enough to have their work noticed in such a way where it sets an agenda.

    Reply
  3. The Real SLAC Prof

    In my experience, people use the term “superstar” to refer to early career people who have had a good deal of professional success. I have never heard of senior philosophers (e.g., Nussbaum or Chalmers) described in this way, even when they are legit public intellectual philosophy supernovas who set the agenda for their subfields!
    Specifically, I have heard the term used to describe people who have done very well on the job market, getting interviews at all or nearly all the top R1 positions advertised in a given year. A superstar will have upward of 12 on-campus interviews at the best places and get offers from most or all of them. They often (but not always) go on to have multiple publications in the top generalist journals.
    In many cases, these people had a similar level of success in the graduate application process. They come to be christened as “superstars” because top R1 departments are competing for them both as graduate students and as young faculty. They tend to enjoy knock-on advantages in terms of invitations to give talks and participate in conferences, and so on.
    I don’t think being a superstar is under anyone’s direct voluntary control, so it seems futile to try to become one. While it may be a confidence boost to get multiple TT offers, and it can have real practical advantages in terms of one’s geographic mobility and salary, there are many, many professionally happy and successful people who aren’t superstars. There are also some disadvantages of being a superstar: people tend to be jealous and might sometimes publicly question whether the superstar actually deserves their status. Most of us suffer from imposter syndrome, and having this type of early professional success doesn’t always help and can actually make things worse.

    Reply
  4. Either/Or

    I think the concept is a useful one to understand for job seekers and graduate students.
    It is useful because there is a difference between a superstar and someone who has a distinguished resume (a PhD with a respected supervisor, publications in journals like Mind or Nous, and a PhD from a top Leiterific departemnt). A superstar may lack some (maybe even all) of these, and a superstar can have better job market chances than the nonsuperstar with some or all of these.
    I agree with The Real SLAC Prof that established figures cannot be superstars, so maybe a better term is “wunderkind.” The wunderkind has garnered the attention and respect of prestigious senior figures in philosophy. He or she is like the boy Jesus at the Temple, impressing the elders when he or she speaks. As others have said, being quick on one’s feet is important to being considered a wunderkind.
    The buzz and letters from prestigious outside writer letters help carry the wunderkind to a good job. Giving a job to a wunderkind is a bet on “promise” and a bid for coolness.
    It’s important to understand the wunderkind for graduate students and job marketeers because pouring all your effort into getting publications is not the way to be the most competitive candidate on the market. Publications are the next best thing to the wunderkind’s hype asset, but the wunderkind can beat you (even if you have a publication in Mind) because profs in the cool kids clique at NYU, Rutgers, etc., remember how brilliant the wunderkind was at APA talks and dinners.
    The lesson is not to neglect networking. Objective or pseudo-objective achievements you can put on your resume like publications are not as important as the right kind of networking–the kind that makes you a wunderkind. So, speak up at talks, go to after-parties, try to co-write a paper with a famous guy/gal outside your institution. Don’t bet everything on that Philosophical Studies (or even Mind) publication offer coming through.

    Reply
  5. R1 prof

    Together The Real SLAC Prof and Either/Or nailed it.
    Maybe I’ll just add that philosophy also appears in a way easy or effortless coming from the superstar, so The Real SLAC Prof is right that it isn’t the kind of thing to try mimicking and Either/Or is right that your n-th publication isn’t going to help you stand out against the superstar.
    There’s usually half a dozen or so of these people anointed every PhD admissions season, and ~1-3 on the market every year.
    It’s a thing. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    Reply
  6. a moon

    To be clear, David Chalmers was talked about as a superstar in the early phase of his career. I do not work in his area of philosophy, but early in my career, around 1999, I met someone who described David, and even bragged a bit about knowing him from somewhere. Then in 2002, at my first TT job, a colleague mentioned they were at Indiana in grad school with him (and he stood out from others … really stood out). One story (is it true?!) was that while David was still in grad school, a faculty member assigned a paper to his class that Chalmers had written in a previous class. I can tell you, NO ONE from my grad program (five years before me or five yeras after) stood out so much above the rest of us. I have had a successful career by many measures, and I was largely unnoticed amongst my peers.

    Reply
  7. Camel

    I’d like to correct one remark by The Real SLAC Prof. They say:
    “A superstar will have upward of 12 on-campus interviews at the best places and get offers from most or all of them. They often (but not always) go on to have multiple publications in the top generalist journals.”
    This is incorrect, or at least a bit misleading. Nowadays, it’s unheard of to have upwards of 12 campus visits, at least within a single year (but even also across multiple years). Those who are “superstars” will often not even apply to 12 jobs in a given year. Also, it’s much much harder to be a “superstar” than to have multiple publications in top journals. Given the extreme competition of the job market today, even having multiple publications in top journals may not be enough to put one on the shortlist at top departments. (It’s also worth emphasizing that the evaluation of candidates is never entirely objective).
    Source: I’ve been on multiple search committees at a top department, and I myself have had a number of campus visits at top departments.

    Reply
  8. The Real SLAC Prof

    @Camel,
    You may be right that the number of on-campus interviews superstars are getting today is no longer around 12–maybe it is more like 6. The number of on-campus interviews obviously varies depending on how many jobs are advertised each year. The point is that superstars are getting a lot of offers from R1 departments who then compete with each other to nab the person, thereby increasing the general sense that the person is, in fact, a superstar.
    Your comment about publications is a little ambiguous. On one reading, you seem to be suggesting that being a superstar is a matter of having a number of top publications, plus something extra. I don’t think this is the case, and this is part of what can be confusing to graduate students. As others have brought out, a necessary and sufficient condition of being a superstar is having buzz around one’s candidacy. This buzz is conferred by more established people in the field deeming the superstar special in some way. Sometimes superstars have a number of high-ranking publications, but sometimes they don’t. In the later cases, they are simply seen as promising based on their work-in-progress and the way they conduct themselves when doing philosophy in public with others (usually backed up by a prestigious pedigree).
    This is why I think it is futile for graduate students to try and emulate superstars (and it can be a mistake to, say, model one’s own research statement on the research statements of superstars). Obviously people should take R1 Prof’s advice and aim to go on the market with one or two really good and prestigious publications; that is a good strategy to maximize the likelihood of getting a job. But trying to make oneself into a superstar is likely to lead to disappointment.

    Reply
  9. Camel

    @The Real SLAC Prof,
    Yes, I think you’re totally right on the point about publications (and on the futility of trying to make oneself a superstar).
    A minor verbal point: I more often hear “superstar” used to refer to early-career philosophers who are already successful and influential. To me, the term “superstar” suggests that one is already a star, which suggests that one has already achieved some tangible degree of success. But I agree that there is the phenomenon of the up-and-coming grad student (possibly with no publications) who generates a lot of buzz. I think this is becoming rarer and rarer, though.
    Also, I do think that you’re still overestimating the number of campus visits such people receive. The people I’ve known who have been extremely successful on the job market sometimes had 3-4 campus visits in a given year. But I’ve never heard of anyone receiving 6+!

    Reply
  10. H

    Don’t try to become a superstar. It’s not under your control anyway. And it requires many puzzle pieces falling just right. I’ve also known a few anointed wunderkinder that failed to deliver and they became bitter, resentful. Don’t do that. Already getting a TT is great. I’ve known ppl who write in all the top journals yet took years to crack the market. And I’ve known ppl with hardly any pubs getting name recognition. It’s a crapshoot. Just write stuff you like, be nice to other people on the profession

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading