philosophy, gossipy

Wittgenstein: greatest philosopher of the 20th century?

2009-02-28T12:27:00.000-08:00

So claims Jim Holt here. Is he right? (No, he's not.)

UPDATE: It's really quite an entertaining review. I laughed out loud several times, mostly at suicides.

2ND UPDATE: You can vote on the greatest 20th century philosopher over at Leiter's place. Astonishingly, Wilber is nowhere on the list.

The Hermes Petition and the APA

2009-02-28T11:09:00.000-08:00

What are the odds that the APA will act on, or even respond in any way, to this petition? Given that the APA seems incapable of doing almost anything, even when the issue is pressing and a certain course of action is clearly indicated (e.g., come up with an online jobs database), I'm not optimistic. I wonder, is there a formal, precedented way of petitioning the APA that Hermes is following? If so, then the APA might be forced to act in order to comply with its own rules.

Anyway, I'm hoping the APA will surprise me, and I encourage you to sign the petition if you are a member of the APA and haven't already.

A bed of laurels

2009-02-25T21:43:00.000-08:00

A number of well-known philosophers have reached a stage in their careers where most of the articles they write are invited and appear in anthologies, in book symposia, or in invitation-only venues like Philosophical Perspectives. I've been appalled by the quality of several pieces of this sort that I've read recently. (Of course there are also lots of very good invited pieces out there--I'll dispense with such caveats in what follows, but please do mentally insert them wherever you see fit.) The authors seemed uninterested in offering a careful and comprehensive defense of their views. They do offer some arguments, of course, but these arguments invite obvious objections that they don't bother addressing. They often seem much more intent on making jokes than on producing a lasting, high-quality piece of philosophy. No junior philosopher submitting a piece to a refereed journal would dare to offer such a casual, even flippant defense of his or her views. A lot of these pieces are also replete with typos. Part of the problem here is that academic publishers now outsource their copy-editing to India or Singapore, where not much in the way of copy-editing gets done as far as I can tell, but again, philosophers who are not tenured and famous do their best to correct their spelling and grammar before sending off their work. Maybe I'm overly prickly, but I actually feel insulted having wasted my time reading something that was clearly not the writer's best work, and that reflects such an arrogant, complacent attitude.

I'd say if you want to read really good work, seek out articles by unknowns writing in very selective journals, and avoid the invited pieces.

Think!

2009-02-25T14:58:00.001-08:00

Isn't there something inappropriately condescending and self-important about this motto, found on a t-shirt sold by the APA and the title of a book by Simon Blackburn? Doesn't it seem to suggest that one is only really thinking when one thinks philosophically?

G* B* update

2009-02-19T16:37:00.000-08:00

Here are the candidates:

George Bartlett (Florida)
George Barton (Tulane)
George Beiswanger (George State)
Gustav Bergmann (Iowa)
George Burch (Tufts)
Gary Brodsky (Connecticut)
Geoffrey Bridges (San Luis Rey)
George Boas

Thanks to an anonymous poster for looking this up (on JSTOR).

Coming out

2009-02-18T16:51:00.000-08:00

An anonymous poster asks:

Do referees for journals ever "out" themselves once the piece appears in print? Have you ever, upon getting a paper published, gotten an email saying, "I was the anon reviewer ..."

Best and worst conference presentations

2009-02-16T19:58:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Chrono for the suggestion. I would very strongly urge you not to name graduate students or untenured faculty in the 'worst' category, for obvious reasons, though you could of course describe their talks without naming names.

Update: While we're on this topic, what does reading a paper as opposed to informally presenting it say about the speaker? Should first-timers start by reading the paper, or should they jump in the deep end right away?

Doomed?

2009-02-16T19:55:00.000-08:00

Sleeping in the tub writes:

I am very curious to hear opinions from faculty about the following article: http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2009/01/2009013001c.htm

...especially as it pertains to philosophy. I received my PhD a couple months ago, and I have to admit that I feel like I chose the wrong profession, but not because of any deficiency on my part in regard to what it has taken to be a professional philosopher. Rather, given the market this year, this seems like a dying field. I estimate that 25% of the TT jobs originally posted in the October JFP have been suspended or pulled, and there seems little to no sympathy or understanding coming from established faculty (especially those who have decided not to retire because their TIAA-Cref's have lost value). This is not about landing a 2/2 research position in a 'prime' location. This is about paying rent, buying food, and paying on loans. I realize that none of us were promised jobs when we finally 'got out,' but I have seen little to nothing from established philosophers that honestly addresses the economic crisis, especially as it pertains to our field (and to those of us suspended between graduate school and academic employment). The fall semester will be here sooner than many of us want it to be. Faculty, what is your honest advice? What do all of you really think is going to come of this profession?

Open thread

2009-02-16T13:26:00.000-08:00

Any questions, gossipy or otherwise, that readers would like answered by other readers? Suggestions for new topics? Paranoid conspiracy theories? Post them in the comments and I'll turn some of them into separate posts.

Who is G B?

2009-02-16T13:23:00.000-08:00

Inquiring minds want to know. If you don't know what this is about, see here.

Reader comments

2009-02-11T10:35:00.001-08:00

Two anonymous comments seemed to merit a separate post:

I. I would like to know if there are people outside of the profession -- i.e., without having a job, or being a current student, in the academy -- who attempt (successfully or not) to publish in respectable journals. Does this ever happen?

II. Does anyone recall the scandal about the wealthy former philosophy graduate student who paid some big-name M&E people to review his article? I think that happened in 2002 or so, but I can't remember the details.

Talent and perseverance win out...sometimes

2009-02-09T21:05:00.000-08:00

Somewhat related to the last post, my understanding is that Eric Olson spent a long time in the wilderness, including a period of unemployment, before finally publishing his way into a tenure track job at Sheffield. (Is it an accident that he ended up working at a British university, where the ability to publish is even more prized than in the U.S.?) What amazes me is that Olson was able to get a book deal with Oxford while he was still unemployed. The fact that the preeminent publisher of philosophical books would give an unemployed philosopher's book a careful and open-minded look gives me reason to hope that this profession isn't all about pedigree and prestige, and that good work, no matter who produces it, will eventually be recognized and rewarded. Am I being pollyannaish? Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing more about Olson's story, if anybody knows anything. Eric?

Making it off the TT

2009-02-08T21:05:00.000-08:00

One measure of professional success is one's academic rank and the prestige of one's institution and department: you know you've made it if you're a full professor at MIT. Another measure is the quality and impact of one's work: you know you've made it if you have publications in Nous, Phil Review, and Mind that lots of other philosophers are discussing. It's very rare to find somebody who scores very high on the second measure but very low on the first: there aren't a lot of adjuncts with articles in Nous that everybody is talking about. One reason for this, of course, is that somebody capable of writing really good, "buzzworthy" articles would likely appeal to search committees and would end up with a TT job at a good place. Another reason is that even if you are a brilliant adjunct, teaching 4-4 (or worse) and possibly supplementing your income with another job leaves you very little time in which to produce high quality work. But there are at least possible cases in which these factors are absent: imagine an adjunct who is independently wealthy and has a 2-2 teaching load in a good department, but because she needs to care for an ailing mother or whatever, cannot relocate to a better job. Supposing that our adjunct is really brilliant, would it be possible for her to become a significant figure in her field, all the while remaining an adjunct? Or is it just impossible to get taken seriously if you don't have a "real" job?

Practical philosophy

2009-02-04T22:03:00.000-08:00

An email announcing the founding of a new philosophy radio show and institute associated with the University of North Dakota (details here) makes the following claim:

We at IPPL are committed to the belief that all philosophical research is relevant to day to day life (even the most obscure stuff) and that what is needed is a “translation” of the technical or jargon-filled work. General audiences will respond to what we do, we just have to get their attention.

No doubt there are certain bits and pieces of philosophy that might be of some use or interest to the man on the Clapham omnibus, but this strikes me as an outrageous exaggeration. You?

Hot topics

2009-02-02T20:41:00.000-08:00

One advantage of being a grad student in a top program, it's been said, is that such students get access to cutting-edge work that might not appear in the journals for several years. It also seems obvious that journals are more likely to reject articles that they perceive as not being on the cutting edge. These facts, if they are facts, might seem to give students at top programs a very significant advantage over their less pedigreed brethren, since only they (and the faculty in their programs) would be in a position to submit articles on a given topic just when the journals really want to publish articles on that topic.

Do students at top programs really enjoy a huge advantage in this regard? If so, what can students at non-stellar programs do to minimize their disadvantage? Does fairness require that philosophers at top programs disseminate their current research more widely?

Graduate student -- faculty relations

2009-01-29T20:36:00.000-08:00

In certain Ph.D. programs in the South, graduate students are expected to call their professors 'Doctor', while the faculty of course refer to the graduate students by their first names. This can't make the students feel good, and I can't help but think the practice inhibits their development into professionals who view themselves as their professors' equals. Are there other ways in which graduate faculties create distance between themselves and their graduate students? More generally, how were (or are) the relations between faculty and graduate students where you got (or are getting) your Ph.D.?

'Philosophy as bloodsport' redux

2009-01-25T00:01:00.000-08:00

This brief piece by Norman Swartz is worth reading, or rereading. He claims that, unlike other disciplines, philosophy has a vicious streak that tends to alienate women (and no doubt lots of men), and in conference/colloquia settings leads to valuing the devastating "gotcha" point over thoughtful and helpful feedback, even if that "devastating" point looks quite innocuous after a bit of thought. I wonder whether any of you have stories of particularly bloodthirsty conference/colloquium presentations. Is it as bad now as Swartz made it out to be in 1994? And who is this G*** B*** Swartz is talking about?

What does 'pluralistic department' actually mean?

2009-01-22T23:56:00.000-08:00

Are there departments billed as 'pluralistic' in which the faculty members' differing perspectives actually lead to improvements in teaching or research, or does 'pluralistic department' just mean that the department is in a perpetual low-grade civil war whose battles are fought in faculty meetings? Or do the members of the different factions just ignore each other and get on with whatever it is they're doing?

Nasty referee comments and other publishing stories

2009-01-19T21:22:00.000-08:00

My own experience with referee reports has been largely positive -- the best reports have included incisive and helpful suggestions for improving the paper; the worst struck me as being the work of somebody who did not read the paper carefully and presented as decisive objections that were either entirely off the mark or at least very easily answered. None of the reports, though, have been cruel or malicious. But I've heard that referee reports can get downright nasty. Please share your (suitably emended) nasty referee reports here. Any other good stories about publishing (from referees and editors as well as authors, of course) are also welcome.

Journal rankings

2009-01-15T20:55:00.000-08:00

What do you think of the following ranking of journals? I'm trying to rank them by quality of articles published, not prestige. (Though in an ideal world these things would go hand in hand.) I'm restricting my focus to non-invitation journals that publish a sizable proportion of articles that would be described as analytic, and not including journals that specialize in ethics, philosophy of science, logic/math, aesthetics, history of philosophy, or philosophy of religion.

Best ever: Phil Review
Excellent: Mind, JP, Nous, Philosophers' Imprint
Very good: PPR, Phil Quarterly, Australasian, Analysis, Linguistics and Philosophy
Good: Phil Studies, Mind and Language, European Journal of Philosophy, Metaphilosophy
Decent: Synthese, PPQ, APQ, Ratio, Philosophy, Erkenntnis, CJP
Whatever: Facta Philosophica, Journal of Philosophical Research, Philosophia, Philosophical Psychology, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Acta Analytica, Dialogue, Southern Journal of Philosophy

Any obvious mistakes here? Does the 'whatever' category need to be more fine-grained? Which journals should be added, and where should they be ranked?

Most overrated philosopher ever

2009-01-14T21:10:00.000-08:00

For those of you too nice to indulge in this sort of thing, how about your submissions for the most underrated philosopher?

Continental philosophy: bunk, tripe, or mere hogwash?

2009-01-13T09:45:00.001-08:00

Reviews like this make me suspect that it is all three.

Journals

2009-01-10T23:53:00.000-08:00

A senior philosopher I respect once opined that there are only a few truly blind-reviewed journals: he listed Phil Review, Nous, and perhaps one or two others. Which journals are truly blind-reviewed, and (more interestingly) which journals are in practice not blind-reviewed?

Kripke

2009-01-06T19:15:00.000-08:00

It's a gossip blog, right? So give us your best Kripke stories here. And how was the thing at the APA?

Shenanigans at the APA

2008-12-30T22:21:00.000-08:00

An anonymous commenter writes:

"Is there a blog that gives updates on the shenanigans going down now at the APA Eastern? Inquiring minds want to know!"

Yes, anon, there is, and it is this blog. So, people, give us your shenanigans, your gossip, your stories of heartbreak, and your wild conjectures about the recently concluded APA meetings.

Questions for them

2008-12-25T23:16:00.000-08:00

When the interview is winding down, it is pretty common for the interviewers to encourage the candidate to ask them a question or two. Obviously, this is yet another opportunity to impress them or to fuck things up. So, what are good questions to ask at an interview? Should one get down to brass tacks (tenure requirements, course load, salary), or should one use the question to make oneself look good? What are good questions to ask, and which questions are off-limits?

What do you want from us!?!

2008-12-22T17:46:00.001-08:00

This is more of a question for members of search committees than those who successfully landed interviews. The reason I'm less interested in hearing from those who successfully landed interviews is that there's a good chance that the reason you landed interviews won't ever be a reason that I'll land an interview or others might land interviews. Most of us who want jobs don't come from Leiterriffic departments. So, what can we do to compensate for that? Something? Nothing?

I'm guessing that your answer will depend on the sort of department you work for. I thought that if you could beef up your teaching portfolio, this would impress the SLAC. If you get some pubs, that would impress research departments. As you might have guessed, none of this has brought me any luck and I'm now starting to fear that for most people the answer is 'Nothing'. But, I could be wrong. So, if there is something that can be done to overcome the lack of pedigree, we want to know what it is and who this sort of thing might work on. If some of you really wouldn't hire those of us from departments that aren't Leiterriffic it would be good to know. Some of us could give up and grad students could make some informed decisions.

Fwiw, this isn't a good thread for fighting and arguing. We just need some honest answers. Also, don't take the '!?!' as a sign of bitterness or frustration. My year wasn't as bad as it has been for many. I feel pretty okay about things at the moment.

My suitcase is empty

2008-12-18T22:37:00.000-08:00

I'm finally done grading. Now, on to interview prep, and the small matter of preparing for for my courses next semester. Oh, and holiday cheer, of course: Happy holidays to all of you!

Why, oh why, must the wiki always be down?

2008-12-16T17:48:00.001-08:00

And can somebody who knows what they're doing fix it?

Interviews with small departments

2008-12-16T08:48:00.000-08:00

Small departments are probably looking for someone with your AOS because they don't already have somebody who can plausibly teach an upper division class on that topic. So you can be pretty confident that your interviewers don't know much (and perhaps shockingly little) about your AOS. When discussing your research, then, should you be careful to define the basic terms and concepts in your area (even those that any 3rd year grad student should be familiar with), thus risking seeming pedantic and condescending, or should you operate under the assumption that your interviewers are familiar with the basics, and risk alienating them very quickly while coming off as a bad fit in a small, teaching-oriented department?

Skidmore?

2008-12-15T08:28:00.000-08:00

Last night I read on the wiki that the "core search" has been canceled. But the wiki doesn't say that today. Anyone got the straight dope on Skidmore?

Misery loves company

2008-12-14T20:52:00.000-08:00

It's been a rough weekend. With literally a small suitcase's worth of grading hovering over me (I mean 'literally' literally: I have a small suitcase that is full of papers and finals that I have yet to grade), 2 places I applied to set up interviews with people who are not me, and another place I applied to canceled its search. The number of places I have yet to hear from (or rather, have yet to know about via the wiki) is now about 1/3 of the total number of places I applied to. So far, 1 interview for me.

It no doubt reflects my bad character that it made me feel better to read the following, from Philosophers Anonymous:

"Searches are being canceled without warning, the number of interview slots is being shrunk, people are having to suddenly rearrange their travel itinerary, and so on. A seemingly large number of new Ph.D.'s who managed to land 4 or more interviews last year (as ABD) have zero interviews this year. It's rough out there."

Good lines

2008-12-11T20:53:00.000-08:00

"If I told you that you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?"

Now that is clearly an awesome pickup line, and anybody who disagrees just doesn't understand romance.

Are there the equivalent of pickup lines that one ought to intersperse throughout one's cover letters? Little verbal hooks that will make the SC think that you are a driven researcher and an inspiring teacher? This will only be good for next year (or the VAP season), but would anybody care to share their best cover letter lines?

(I'd also be interested in hearing from members of SC's about the worst lines they've ever read.)

Got one

2008-12-11T12:50:00.001-08:00

Now, for a few more ...

CalTech

2008-12-11T08:47:00.000-08:00

So CalTech apparently notified candidates for a philosophy position that the search would now include candidates outside of philosophy, and according to Leiter this was done for budgetary reasons. I'm trying to understand how this change is supposed to be of any financial help to CalTech. Whether the successful candidate is a philosopher or not, CalTech is still going to have to pay his/her salary. The only thing I can think is that there were several different searches for positions in different departments, and that these have all been condensed into one. But how this would work in practical terms--for example, who would conduct the interviews?--is beyond me.

What am I missing?

Are SC's dragging their feet?

2008-12-11T05:53:00.000-08:00

Anon 4:53 writes:

"Question for those who were on the market last year: judging from wiki activity, calls, emails, whatever, do things seem to be going slower this year than last?"

Thoughts? Also, anybody care to brag about the number of interviews they've already got scheduled?

rejections but no interviews

2008-12-10T12:29:00.000-08:00

What does it mean when a department sends out a bunch of email rejections but doesn't schedule any APA interviews? Would it be reasonable to conclude that one will eventually get an interview on the grounds that one has not received that rejection email? Should one read anything into this at all?

Anonymous comments now enabled

2008-12-10T11:51:00.000-08:00

As David helpfully pointed out, it won't be much of a gossip blog if anonymous comments are not enabled. So, now they are. Have at it!

Common job mistakes

2008-12-10T00:05:00.000-08:00

I don't have any interviews yet and I'm starting to wonder whether I made some mistakes in my application materials, or whether it's all about where I got my degree. Given the standard ad asking for a cover letter, letters of recommendation, a cv, and a writing sample, I included all these along with a 2 page dissertation abstract. My cover letter explained where I got my Ph.D. (unranked program that I continue to believe is really very good), where I am now working (VAP at a SLAC), what my dissertation was about, and some stuff about teaching tailored to the job ad. I kept most of the letters to a single page. I have two good publications and (I am led to believe) very strong letters of recommendation, but no bites so far. Did I make a mistake in my application materials, or does pedigree trump all?

More generally, what are the sorts of mistakes that applicants make, so that we can avoid these next year? Comments from members of SC's would be most appreciated.

welcome to philosophy gossip

2008-12-09T15:07:00.000-08:00

I once enjoyed the Philosophy Job Market Blog, but these days the owners of that blog rarely post, can't be bothered to even update the comments for days on end, moderate the comments, and delete comments that complain about their practices or suggest alternate venues for discussion about the philosophical profession (and who knows what else). I would like this blog to become a new venue for gossip, complaining, ranting, or even helpful advice (though this should be kept to a minimum) about the philosophical profession in all its dubious glory. I promise not to moderate comments and to post new items at least once every few days. The main point of this blog, though, is not for you to read whatever pearls I have to dispense, but for there to be an open forum where philosophers and philosophers in training can talk about their profession.