philosophysmoker-Mstarz

I kind of miss the landrush, when we'd all line up and start running when JFP came out. The irregular trickle of jobs just feels less exciting. And perhaps it is creating a false impression that there are fewer jobs this year, because there's no specific deadline for posting them.

-- zombie

This is what happens to me every year. I know what the job market is like. I know that there are lots of jobs and lots of applicants, and that the odds of me getting a job are not high, and that for any particular job, the odds of me getting that job are low. I know this.

But then the job ads start coming out. And I see a couple of jobs that seem really attractive. Maybe I know somebody in the department; maybe I've been to the city or town and thought it would be pretty cool to live there; maybe it's close to family or friends; maybe there's a reason why it would be particularly good for my family; maybe there's something about the job that I connect with somehow, where I'd be especially well-suited for it, or it would be especially well-suited for me.

And then I can't help but start to think about what it would be like to get that job. I start to get hope. I would rather not get these hopes, but it's hard not to. At least, I seem to have no ability to prevent it. I can't help it. And I have found myself doing this again over the past few weeks.

And a few times, I've actually gotten interviews at these places. It is very hard to avoid this hopefulness when you are prepping for an interview with your favorite job from this year's JFP, or with your favorite job ever.

And frankly, I'm not sure how you'd be able to summon the motivation to apply for these jobs, or to prep for the interview, if you weren't at least somewhat hopeful that you'd get the job. I once had an interview with a school that was located in a city I'd lived in as a child, and where I had a really tough time. When I thought about the possibility of moving back--and bringing my family with me--I didn't feel particularly hopeful. I wasn't excited about it. I wasn't "into" it. And I think that came through in the interview. I didn't say anything about it, of course; I didn't attempt to express these feelings and did what I could to conceal them. But I couldn't get myself excited about the job, and I think it showed. I don't think I fucked it up, or anything, but I also didn't blow them away, and I didn't get the flyout. So I suppose I see the utility of feeling hopeful. It seems to play a somewhat important role in providing motivation.

But I really don't like having to let go of these hopes as the season progresses. I don't like it at all. And so I wish there were a way to avoid it, and then to do without it.

Sorry if this post is a bummer. Here's some Miles Davis.



--Mr. Zero

I've been using the joint PhilJobs/JFP website for a few weeks now. It seems to me that it works very well. They seem to have retained the entire PhilJobs user interface, which was better and more intuitive than any version of the online JFP. It also seems to me that the various search functions work better than the ones from the most recent online JFP did. I tested it on jobs in my AOS, and the search did not exclude any jobs. There were some false positives, but (a) in each case it was clear why the search picked it up, and (b) I'd rather have false positives than false negatives. I also like the "save job" function, which seems like it works better than the "star" function from last year's JFP. And I like that they just aren't running ads that violate the APA's nondiscrimination policy.

It's still very early in the job-market season, and so it's hard to say what the ultimate impact of the merger will be. And I haven't used PhilJobs very much before this--my usual procedure up until now was to consult the JFP first and foremost, and then to spot-check the other sources for jobs that didn't show up there. It was generally a pretty small number. So I don't really have a sense for how this is affecting PhilJobs. Maybe some Smokers who are more PhilJobs-savvy could weigh in: does there seem to be an appreciably larger or smaller number of ads up for this time of year? Does there seem to be an appreciably smaller number of ads for community college positions? For positions outside the English-speaking world?

My initial impression, when the merger was announced, was that it was all-things-considered awesome. That is still my impression. I think that the PhilJobs interface is superior in every important way to that of the JFP, and the fact that the JFP is now free to candidates is decisively awesome. Some comments left on that post convinced me that there were reasons to worry that PhilJobs will decline in quality as a result of the merger, because it will now adopt the JFP's practice of charging advertisers. But subsequent commentary convinced me that there were also reasons to worry that without the merger PhilJobs would have ceased to exist due to lack of funds. So I guess I'd rather have a somewhat worse PhilJobs that still exists as a PJ/JFP fusion than the same old JFP and a non-existent PhilJobs.

Though I guess I could be wrong. Am I wrong?

Anyways, it seems to me that this is another in a recent streak of good moves by the APA. And although I thought that last year's redesign of the JFP was a substantial improvement over the previous version, I am particularly impressed that they were willing to abandon it after only one year when this clearly better opportunity arose. A lot of people/organizations wouldn't have wanted to do that.

--Mr. Zero

Holy shit. According to the email I just got, the APA and the PhilPapers people are merging the JFP with PhilJobs. And it will be free to job seekers, it says. Free! I love free. Holy shit.

They also say they'll use the PhilJobs software, which is better than the new JFP website from last year. So that's good, too.

I think this is a good move. I mean, we'll see what it looks like when it rolls out in a few weeks (or whatever--the timeline is pretty vague). But I gotta say, I've been pretty impressed with the APA lately.

--Mr. Zero

Because of the fact that the JFP doesn't come out in two discrete bunches anymore, it's hard to make a direct, precise comparison between this year's October JFP situation and those from years past. But as of right now, I have between five and ten jobs on my list than I had at this time last year. So, for me, at least, things seem a little better. Not that this means anything.

According to PhilJobs, the JFP had 203 listings, of which 167 are tenured or tenure-track, and 36 are not. (PhilJobs itself claims 351, of which 247 are tenured or tenure-track, and 104 are not.) Whereas last year's JFP day had 194 ads plus another 48 web-onlies (some of which were no-doubt duplicates from the print edition, and who-knows-how-many were non-tenure-track). So, without pretending to be very precise, my sense is that, all things considered, this year is about the same as last year, or maybe a little worse. I don't know. According to last year's October JFP post, which is where I got the information concerning last year's JFP from just now, there were 140 ads in the print edition from October of '09, 267 in '08--just after the econopocalypse but before the devastation had fully manifested itself--and 347 ads in October of '07, the most recent year with a decent economy going in. I did not double-check any of these numbers. Corrections and additional context are welcome.

Leiter has been optimistic the past couple of years, suggesting that rebounds in other disciplines are signs of a rebound in ours. Last year was political science; this year it was sociology. I'll believe it when I see it.

 --Mr. Zero

I've had a chance to sit down and familiarize myself with the new JFP. My overall impression is that it's a decent first draft. If they get some kinks ironed out, there's a lot of potential for this to be good. But right now, there are some problems, most of which seem to me to be related to the fact (I think it's a fact, anyway) that this thing was put together very quickly.

And I don't mean that as a criticism, exactly. Since taking over as ED (just in August, right?), Amy Ferrer seems to have moved extremely quickly to get a new JFP system set up. I think that counts for a lot. After years of being ignored by Schrader, we have an ED who is paying attention to us and trying to help. I cannot begin to imagine David Schrader leaving a comment on this blog, or reading it, or even knowing about it. Let alone implementing a suggestion that was made here or on Philosophers Anonymous or something.

And this is important function of the APA. PhilJobs is great, and the Phylo jobs board and wiki are great. It's great that there are volunteers who do this, and who do a good job. But the profession needs to have an official job market service center. It would not be at all kosher to just leave the JFP exclusively in the hands of volunteers--however good at it they may be.

That said, there are a number of areas for improvement. I don't claim to be the first to have mentioned all of these, but I'm too lazy to go back through yesterday's comments and cite sources. For the same reason, I'm not going to make any attempt to compile a complete list of suggestions. These are just the main things that stood out to me as I was browsing around last night and this morning.

(I'd also like to point out that I strongly agree with Jaded's remarks yesterday regarding constructive criticism. I'm trying not to just complain and stuff. I'm trying to complain constructively.)

• The AOS/AOC stuff should be displayed on the ad thumbnail. Ok. I see that this has been fixed. But it seems to me that the AOS and the AOC fields are not adequately distinguished.  
• There should be a way to get all the ads to display on a single page.
• The AOS/AOC tags don't work very well--I click on the tag for my AOS and I get a lot of stuff not in my AOS. Which makes me worry that I'm also not getting everything in my AOS. 
• The "open" AOS/AOC tag returns ads that are not open.
• The AOS/AOC tag thing doesn't seem to distinguish between AOS and AOC.
• Does using the "filter" function with the checkboxes for "grant/fellowship" etc. negate the AOS/AOC tag filter? There doesn't seem to be any way to confirm or disconfirm this. The UI at PhilJobs is a good model here--you check some boxes in one area, and then you check some more in another area, and the boxes in the first area stay checked. This UI has no boxes for areas of specialization or competence. 
• When you "star" an ad, it should be marked as starred on the thumbnail.

That's how it seems to me, anyways.

--Mr. Zero

I don't have time to dig into it right now, but I'll have a review later today. Immediate reaction: I don't like the way the institution's name is small, inconspicuous, desaturated, and occasionally abbreviated or written in code, while the location is displayed more prominently. The institution's location is somewhat less important to me than its identity.

--Mr. Zero

I haven't ever been excited about the start of job market season. And I've been progressively less excited each year for the past few years. But I was still kind of surprised to discover how much I'm not looking forward to being on the job market again. I started getting my materials together and it just hit me. Like a black rock in my guts. Ugh.

When I finished my dissertation and started teaching on the VAP circuit, I sort of thought that if I was a hard worker and did what I was supposed to do--if I did a good job teaching my classes and published a lot--then I would eventually snag a TT position somewhere. I didn't think it was a guarantee, or anything. But based on what happened to people I went to grad school with, and to people whose degrees are from departments similar to mine, I thought I had a decent chance. I was trying to be realistic about it, but I was also at least a little optimistic, insofar as that's a possible combination. And so, although I wasn't in love with it or anything, I didn't have too much trouble getting myself motivated to go on the market in the fall.

But the past couple of years have been different. Although I believe in what I'm doing, and I'm proud of what I've accomplished, I'm not getting the results I want. It keeps happening, and the job market keeps not bouncing back. It gets harder to get myself moving on all the shit I need to do before the JFP drops. Blah.

Anyways, here's some Cake for your enjoyment. I hope everyone's prowess is potent this year. Especially mine.



--Mr. Zero

In comments, anon 9:19 points out that the APA has provided more information about the forthcoming relaunch of the JFP, here. There are some nice-looking screenshots. It looks like job listings will be color-coded according to type, and ads will include a google map of the location of the school. And I kind of like the "JFP" logo.

According to the update, the new JFP will also include the following features:

• Post their resume/CV. Employers with active listings will have the ability to browse resumes and contact job seekers directly.
  
• Search by keyword or filter by rank, AOS/AOC, location, and duration.
  
• Save active job listings and return to them later.
  
• Choose to receive an email notification when new jobs are posted.
  

I think it looks pretty good. One thing I wonder about is, will it be easier than before to export the data from the job ads into a spreadsheet, so I can do a mail-merge without having to enter it all by hand? That would be nice. Not that I'm complaining.

--Mr. Zero

This came up in comments a couple of days ago (h/t anon 3:42), but I haven't had time to write a main post about it until now. In the meantime, Elizabeth Harman wrote to Leiter, so rather than write my own thing, I'm just going to steal hers:

Please take note that academicjobsonline.org is a great service that makes things *much* easier for job candidates and departments that are trying to place their students. This service is free for job applicants and only requires applicants and letter-writers to upload all their materials once. Then to apply to each of the hiring departments using the service, applicants merely need to tick a few boxes. Several philosophy hiring departments did use the service last year (Duke, Tufts, Yale, Stanford, Tulane, Oregon, and Washington Tacoma), and hopefully more will this year. (All mathematics hiring uses this service. It is much more humane for job candidates.)

Couple of questions: Does anybody have any experience with Academicjobsonline.org? How does it work? Is it user-friendly for applicants? Is it user-friendly for search committees? Is this the solution we've all been waiting for all this time?

One final note: while I realize that the cost of applications is substantial and represents a financial hardship, people have to realize that conference interviews are a much greater financial hardship. Airfare to Eastern-APA cities is generally in the four- to six-hundred-dollar range, and then there's food and lodging. I would never dream of complaining about a free way to submit applications. But a less costly way of conducting interviews is much, much more important to me.

--Mr. Zero

I got an email this evening from Amy Ferrer, the new executive director of the APA, which reads in part,

...within weeks we will launch a new Jobs for Philosophers site with new search, sort, and bookmarking capabilities. Further, along with the new JFP, we’ll be offering our job-seeking members free access to Interfolio’s dossier service for job candidates, and APA members will also be eligible for one year of free access to Interfolio’s services for hiring committees. You will receive more information on these services very soon.

This is pretty awesome. We have, of course, been clamoring for a searchable JFP for years. And I've already seen a couple of job ads that seem to require applicants to use Interfolio to submit application materials, and I wondered what the deal was. I hadn't looked into it or anything, but I was a little worried I was going to have to shell out for it. This is the sort of thing that makes me happy.

I know it's weird and unprecedented to have two posts in a row in which I say that I approve of something that the APA is doing, but I can't help it. I like what the APA is doing.

--Mr. Zero

I was reading this job ad for assistant professor of online teaching at Ashford University of San Diego. The thing that caught my attention was the extremely specific and highly weird set of physical requirements at the end:

Physical Requirements:

Physical Demands: While performing the duties of the job, the employee is regularly required to use hands and arms and talk or hear. The employee requires dexterity in using telephone, computer keyboard, mouse and calculator while seated at a desk. The employee is frequently required to stand, walk and sit. The employee may frequently move to interact with fellow employees and/or clients. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, depth perception and ability to adjust focus.

There were a number of things that seemed weird to me in this section. I mean, (a) I've never seen anything like this; (b) "the employee is regularly required to use hands and arms and talk or hear"; (c) "The employee requires dexterity in [doing stuff] while [specifically] seated at a desk"; (d) depth perception. The weirdest thing about this ad, though, is that they sort of seem to be saying that you would not satisfy the physical requirements of this job if you, for example, needed to use a wheelchair. It seems like there's a bunch of stuff in this ad that would have to be in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I mean, I guess I see why they might want you to be physically located in San Diego. They're trying to run a college, and they've got meetings and stuff. But I don't see why they'd need you to specifically stand and walk. I don't see why you couldn't just roll to the meetings and stay seated the whole time.

(Also, I had a friend in college whose eyes were pretty messed up, so that she didn't have much in the way of depth perception. This problem of hers made it so that she couldn't really play frisbee very well--we talked her into it once but we quickly realized we were making a bad mistake--but I doubt it would have interfered with her ability to perform the duties of assistant professor of online philosophy.)

The other thing that stood out to me was, I checked their Wikipedia page, and according to it, anyway, Ashford is a for-profit university located in Clinton, Iowa, not San Diego, California. And as for-profit universities go, they seem to be particularly unscrupulous. Wikipedia says that they were audited by the Department of Education; that this education revealed several infelicities concerning their handling of financial aid funds; that they kept financial aid money when they shouldn't have, and that they take their time in disbursing funds to students. Additionally, only 37% of students at Ashford complete their degree program. Now, as I understand it a completion rate like that wouldn't be out of place at a community college. But community colleges are not-for-profit public service institutions, not a strategy to funnel money into the pockets of their owners.

Also, although they're private and for-profit, 86% of their operating budget comes from federal funds. I don't know what the typical number is for private colleges & universities, but that seems awfully high for a school that offers mostly online classes and that seems to have no appreciable research situation. Which makes it seem like Ashford is pretty much of an institution of predation, and not so much of higher learning.

And so the larger thing I started wondering about is, why isn't this illegal? I mean, I've been accused of being naive before, and I can't imagine that those days are over. But I don't see why this is an acceptable approach to education. Especially when these for-profit "universities" adopt the business model they do: get students to borrow money to pay for it, and then have only a third of them finish their degree. It's not a university; it's a racket.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think I'll be applying for this job.

--Mr. Zero

Holy shit! There's a print version of the May JFP! For the first time since '08! Holy shit!

--Mr. Zero

P.S. It has 30 ads and is a total disaster. But at least it exists.

Oh my God I am so fucking dumb. I thought I saw a link to vol. 194, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry. Shit. Sorry.

The vol. 193 web "only" ads are being updated from the bottom. I don't like it. Put the newest ads at the top.

I do kind of like how you can click an ad and see it all by its lonesome. Although I'm not 100% sure what practical utility this function might have. But I thought I'd try to mention a positive instead of complaining all the time.

--Mr. Zero

As several people have pointed out, the February JFP is up, and it sucks. 30 jobs in the print edition, a couple more in the web "only" ads. They have added a search function to the web "onlies," but not to the print edition (that I can see, anyways).

Several people have also asked for a "Plan B" thread. Let's have this serve double-duty. Although I periodically find myself wishing for a viable plan B, I have no idea what it would be. I therefore have no advice whatsoever. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

--Mr. Zero

Spiros asks:

I was just getting my APA receipts organized. I'll submit them next week to my University, and in due course I'll get reimbursed for nearly every dollar I spent on the APA Eastern. But I have to say that the grand sum is pretty staggering, considering what one gets in return.

Unless one happens to live close enough to DC to not need to fly, the cost for most of getting to the conference and staying in the conference hotel has to be roughly $1000. How do graduate students and non-TT slave-wage earners who don't live on the East Coast afford it?

What we do is, we scrimp; we find less-expensive alternatives to the conference hotel; we eat as cheaply as we can; and we put up blog posts and comments in which we point out what a bunch of inhumane bullshit the current set of hiring procedures are and in which we propose more humane, less bullshitty alternatives, for which we are then derided as entitled whiners who are unwilling to do what it takes to get a job in philosophy.

--Mr. Zero

...goes to #120 in JFP #192W, which reads as follows:

120. CONTRACT FACULTY POSITION/PHILOSOPHY. DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES. The Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies invites applications for a one-year, non-renewable contract faculty position available August 17, 2012. 4-4 teaching load, usually two preparations per semester. AOS or AOC: Ethics. Responsibilities: teaching Ethics and possibly Introduction to Philosophy and additional upper level courses; providing service to the department as needed. Minimum qualifications: ABD in Philosophy; ability to teach well Introduction to Ethics. Preferred qualifications: earned doctorate in Philosophy prior to start date; competency in one or more of the following: aesthetics, American philosophy, African American philosophy, critical race theory, queer theory, indigenous philosophy, women and gender studies, animal ethics, or other area of study concerning underrepresented populations; experience in mentoring non-majority students, inclusive pedagogy, and diversity policy issues. The department highly values scholarly teachers, so candidates should be prepared to demonstrate a passion for, and innovation in, the classroom. Send curriculum vitae, graduate school transcripts, three letters of recommendation, a writing sample, a brief statement of teaching philosophy, and a brief statement of research interests to: AnnMarie Adams, Dept. Administrator, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, or via email to: philrelst@bsu.edu. Electronic submission is strongly preferred. Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled. (www.bsu.edu/philosophy) The department of Philosophy and Religious Studies seeks to attract an active, culturally and academically diverse faculty of the highest caliber. Ball State University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer and is strongly and actively committed to diversity within its community. Therefore, we especially encourage applications from candidates that would contribute to this commitment. (192W); posted: 12/9/2011

It doesn't identify the school except in passing when it gives the mailing address. They literally forgot to say what school it is--it's only by accident that it includes the information at all.

--Mr Zero

After years of complaining about it, I'm finally sold on the online application process. Maybe it's just that I'm getting used to it, but it was not at all terrible this year. Easily three fourths of my applications this year were online, so it might also have just been that I was in "online application" mode from the start. It's still pretty obnoxious how you have to fill out the same contact info/references data in every application, but this year my autofill did a better job of filling out the forms for me, so it wasn't as much of a hassle.

Another nice thing about online apps is this: when I prepare paper applications, I am very bad about knowing how many of each document I will need and I always end up having to print out one or two more of a bunch of documents at the last minute. Obviously CVs and writing samples are easy, since everybody wants those, but I never print out enough research statements or syllabuses for business ethics. Online applications make this a non-issue.

Also, online applications are much, much cheaper. Way cheaper. Vastly cheaper.

And it seems like people are getting better about having "upload" slots for each required document. I only had one unexpected occasion to go into Adobe and make a combination PDF of several required documents.

It's also nice not to have to wait around for all the photocopies to copy. Making 30 or 40 copies of your writing sample is time-consuming and annoying. And I always do my copying in the evenings so I don't tie up the copier during the day, so it was nice not having to do very much of that.

But if I may make a suggestion, please put the application process all online or all offline. No more of this "submit these three documents electronically and then these four documents in hard copy" bullshit. That's the worst. Pick one.

--Mr. Zero

1. Gettysburg College wants someone whose Area of Specialization is philosophy of peace and nonviolence. That seems pretty specific. Is this something that a lot of people specialize in? Are there enough controversial philosophical issues surrounding peace and nonviolence to make this a worthwhile area of specialization? Why would a philosophy department at such a small school require a philosopher with such a specific, narrow specialization?

2. This year's award for best "is there an echo in here?" ad goes to University of Reading, Reading, Reading. (#61, 192W). Yeah, but where is this university located?

3. Saint Anselm College wants someone who specializes in "contemporary" and whose AOC is the (entire?) history of philosophy. I guess they want a real generalist. Someone with a broad background.

4. I see a couple of one-semester VAPs (e.g. Lyon College, #30, 192W). Why would anyone agree to that? I could see it if you already lived in Batesville, Arkansas, pop. 9,556. But you don't, do you?

5. As Zombie points out, and has been discussed in comments, the Cycorp ad is pretty awesome.

6. I think I picked up exactly one new application in 192/192W. I'll double-check later when I have more time, but that's piss-poor.

7. This sucks.

--Mr. Zero

...is up. 105 total ads in the print edition; last year had 145; the year before that had 131; the year before that had 188.

68 more ads in the web-onlies, many of which are not web-only. Hard to say how many new ads total; I'll have to go through and count later on when I get a free moment. Or, some industrious Smoker could do it and post the number in comments; I'm sure we'd all be grateful to anyone who was willing to do it.

This sort of sucks; I don't like it very much.

--Mr. Zero

P.S. I suspect that this post sets a new Philosophy Smoker record for semicolons per paragraph in a post; I like semicolons.