Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. André Hampshire's avatar

    If one is genuinely uninterested in engaging with non-human interlocutors, it is unclear why one continues to do so—especially while…

  2. Steven Hales's avatar
  3. sahpa's avatar

    Essays as coursework has never been just about engaging the argument itself. Authorship matters because it matters that the argument…

  4. André Hampshire's avatar

    If anything, this exchange illustrates the problem: judgments are being made on stylistic impressions (“this sounds like AI”) rather than…

  5. Ted Bach's avatar

    The existential threat is not to higher-ed as such but a particular (and now common) higher-ed business model: the one…

  6. Steven Hales's avatar
  7. Collin Lucken's avatar

Programs Discouraging Graduates From Applying to Non-Research Institutions?

A philosopher at a selective liberal arts college writes:

I am a tenure-track faculty member in a relatively small philosophy department (4-6 tenure lines) at a highly selective college on the East Coast.  Given that our department is so small, in the past 4 years I have had the pleasure of serving on 3 searches for tenure-track positions in philosophy.  Over the course of these searches, I have increasingly become aware of the fact that many applicants from a number of top institutions in the profession do not even submit applications for the positions we advertise, even when those positions are directly in the areas of specialization for which we are searching.

Here’s my question: is this simply a function of preference on the part of the applicants themselves or are some programs actively discouraging their most promising graduate students from applying to non-research institutions?  If it’s the former case, I would argue that these applicants are perhaps not acting in their best interest, but I would accept in such a case that that would not be an issue of concern for the profession as a whole.  If, however, as I suspect, it is the latter case, then I would suggest that those programs who are dissuading their best students from applying to high quality jobs at non-research institutions reconsider their practices. 

The actions of professors and placement advisers at graduate programs steering their best students away from even applying to jobs at high quality liberal arts colleges might be in the interest of the "brand" of their graduate program — even a casual student of the sociology of philosophy would have to recognize that placing students at research institutions is often considered the pinnacle of placement success for graduate programs.  However, those practices might not be in the best interests of their students; teaching loads, salaries, leaves and other sources of research support, and student quality at highly selective liberal arts colleges — whether those colleges have teaching loads of 2/2 or even 3/2 — are often highly competitive with conditions at all but the top 20 or 30 graduate programs.  Indeed, the quality of life of professors at such colleges would compare very favorably with that of their peers at most institutions.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that graduate students with job offers from top-30 programs ought to choose instead to teach at liberal arts colleges.  I am suggesting, however, that the choice to apply to jobs such as those at high quality liberal arts colleges should be the candidates’ and should be based on considerations of what would be in the best interests of the candidate, rather than what would be best for the reputation of the graduate program from which the candidate receives his/her degree.

My sense that some programs are not always considering the best interests of their graduate students was exacerbated by a visit this summer from one of our college alumni.  This recent graduate is now an ABD at a top-10 graduate philosophy program, highly regarded by his/her professors there.  S/he was so pleased with his/her experience at our college that s/he would in fact prefer to teach at a highly selective liberal arts college.  However, when s/he expressed this preference to his/her professors, s/he was actively steered toward applying only to research schools and strongly discouraged from planning on applying to jobs even at the most selective liberal arts colleges, so much so that s/he reports that s/he now keeps her job preference a secret in her discussions with professors at her grad program.  Since his/her program only writes one departmental recommendation per job, s/he is concerned that s/he will not even be taken seriously by liberal arts colleges should s/he apply to them, in addition to being concerned about the ramifications for him/her within his/her department should s/he insist upon applying to those schools.

This anecdotal case might be an isolated incident; certainly, I hope that it is.  Writing as someone who deliberately and actively pursued a job at a highly selective liberal arts college over jobs at lower-ranked M.A. and Ph.D. programs, I can suggest that the profession is very vibrant and the opportunities very rewarding outside of the rarefied settings in which graduate programs often encourage their students to search for jobs.  And writing as someone who will be serving on searches for tenure-track hires at my college in the coming years, I can assure you that no candidate who demonstrates a genuine interest in a career at our college would be considered overqualified; indeed, an active and strong research program is now a requirement for tenure at schools like mine.  Certainly, it is in my interest — and that of my departmental colleagues and institution — to help to hire the most interesting and stimulating colleagues that we can find.

Comments are open, for others to share their experiences on these scores and/or their opinions about the underlying issues.  I wuold prefer that comments be signed, but as long as there is a genuine e-mail, which identifies the writer, which also corresponds to the IP address’s location, I’ll permit anonymous postings.  (When you post your comment, you will need to supply the e-mail address, but it will not appear when you post.)  Post only once, and be patient!

Leave a Reply to doris Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

24 responses to “Programs Discouraging Graduates From Applying to Non-Research Institutions?”

  1. Even assuming the falsehood that all top students will for sure prefer a job at a top 30 PhD program to a job at an elite liberal arts college, I'd estimate that there are on average 5 individual students each year on the market from all schools combined who can be reasonably confident that they will get jobs at top 30 PhD programs. And note that being "reasonably confident" is consistent with striking out as is confirmed by some individual cases during the 15 years I've been closely watching the job market. *General* advice of the sort the liberal arts faculty member is wondering about is therefore very bad advice.

  2. With the job market being the way it is, there are few applicants, even from highly-regarded Ph.D. programs, who are assured of getting a TT job at a research institution. So anybody who discourages people from applying to liberal-arts schools is probably giving bad advice.

    I agree (having taught at such a place) that a job at a good liberal-arts school can be very rewarding.

  3. Re: Fritz's comment: Of course, the advice might not be "Only apply to the top 30 departments." It might be, "Only apply to MA and PhD granting programs, since that is the best/only way to get to the top 30 departments."

  4. I very much doubt if top candidates are being advised to not apply to very good jobs at places that do not offer the PhD. I really doubt many advisors are so concerned for their own schools reputation that they self-interested advise their better students to do what is good for that rep rather than for the student. But suppose I am wrong about that. Surely it would still be wise to advise the student to apply to the good liberal arts schools and then turn down those jobs when the big schools make offers.

  5. I don't think the author of the original post should generalize too far about how top-10 programs in general advise their graduate students. Graduate programs at the top are very happy when they place students in good liberal arts schools. They also work in the interest of maximizing placement for all of their students. When they have excellent students who would do well at good liberal art schools, they try very hard to get them placed there.

    I have encountered very good graduate students at the top programs who are not interested in such schools, and perhaps may be dissuaded from applying from such schools, but for good reasons. Such students tend not to like teaching undergraduates very much, prefer to be at a place which focuses primarily on evaluating faculty quality of research and minimizes the teaching demands of their young faculty. Such students may have little teaching experience, show little teaching interest, and so forth. In any case, such students would probably not do very well interviewing with liberal arts schools, and would not be very happy there anyhow. Some of these students still apply, but pull out quickly when the top-30 come calling. Still, my experience is that placement directors advise applying to as many jobs as possible.

  6. I agree with David Sobel; I expect most academics recognize the appeal of the jobs in question, and would be pleased to place students at such places.

    I have wondered about the reverse: do liberal arts colleges sometimes avoid candidates who have highly aggressive research profiles? I've certainly heard of cases where sought after candidates had no luck in the liberal arts college segment, even in cases where their research was not highly specialized.
    –doris

  7. anonymous please

    I am in a position like the student described above: ABD at a top-10 program, strongly prefer a job at a selective liberal arts school. I have encountered attitudes like the one discussed in two ways.

    First, I've developed the impression, possibly mistaken, that some (not all!) faculty in my department become less interested in my work when they learn about my career preferences. I suppose the assumption is that if I'm not aiming for a primarily research-oriented position, then there is less need to pay attention to my research. Again, this certainly isn't true of all faculty, but it does seem to be true of some, and that is enough to make me careful regarding whom I reveal my career preferences to.

    Second, when I have asked for advice regarding the job market, I have been cautioned against putting much hope on selective liberal arts colleges, for the following reason. I am told that many of these schools will assume that an application from someone at a top-10 program is more or less a back-up plan, in case none of the big research applications succeed. Consequently, selective liberal arts departments will not waste much time considering a candidate who likely won't accept. (In other words, perhaps David Sobel's concluding advice above is widely accepted.) This generates something of a vicious circle: since I'm told that I'm less likely to be seriously considered by the liberal arts schools I'd prefer, I must also apply to the big research programs (as a back-up!). And if word gets around to the liberal arts schools that I've applied to those places, this will just reinforce the perception that I'm really aiming for a research job. Now, perhaps all of this is wrong, but it sounds somewhat plausible, and anyway it apparently represents the beliefs of some faculty in my department (and at other top-10 programs).

    So I've never been explicitly discouraged from applying at a selective liberal arts department. But I have been warned that I perhaps won't be as successful in these applications as I might be for research jobs. And it does, at times, feel like there is something of a stigma attached to aiming for a selective liberal arts job while training in a research department.

  8. That seems like it could be more specific to the institution, or geography, at which this person teaches. I've been on searches for a very high-teaching load, second-tier public university and candidates from the top programs have always applied there. Of course, it was in Los Angeles, so there was a compensatory factor. But not applying to a high-quality small liberal arts college in the woods in Maine, say, could also be a reasonable personal choice for someone who has some confidence in her program's placement power and prefers to live closer to a city, or at least an airport. But I write in ignorance of the original institution to which this post refers…

  9. There is one thing which is being overlooked here: Graduates from top-ten Philosophy programs might not be well-suited for teaching at small liberal arts colleges. Nevertheless, search committees at small liberal arts colleges try to hire graduates of top-ten programs, thinking that it will increase the prestige of their own programs. Why shouldn't small liberal arts colleges hire graduates of state schools and lower-tiered Philosophy grad programs where teaching, not research, is emphasized? Like the research schools (maybe even more so) faculty at small liberal arts colleges want new faculty with excellent pedigree, even if doing so is contrary to the interests of their students (i.e. even if the new faculty are poor teachers).

  10. I think one reason that some PhD students aren't especially interested in jobs at liberal arts colleges is the impression that they are the most demanding, but no more rewarding than other positions. I'm a grad student, and this is the impression I have. It's also the impression that some of my friends have as well. Perhaps it's mistaken though, so I'll share it and allow you correct me if it is terribly exaggerated. Liberal arts colleges seem to me to combine the worst aspects of research jobs and teaching jobs. As far as I'm aware, many of these schools have serious publishing demands, just like departments with graduate programs, but you will obviously teach more classes, a wider variety of classes, and have no teaching assistants at the latter. This seems (partially) confirmed by the original poster: "I can assure you that no candidate who demonstrates a genuine interest in a career at our college would be considered overqualified; indeed, an active and strong research program is now a requirement for tenure at schools like mine." Essentially, you have the same research demands as a large school, but similar teaching demands to a small school, with probably not much greater pay or any other unique benefit. That's not very enticing. I also have the impression that liberal arts colleges are more sensitive to the popularity of their teachers among students, since university funding relies so much on the donations of alumni. This too is unappealing, since teacher popularity is unduly influenced by things like: how easy the teacher is, how funny/entertaining they are, their level of attractiveness, and so on. Despite all that, I will say that I plan to apply to any position for which I am qualified when I enter the job market, including any liberal arts colleges. However, it is not a preference, for the reasons mentioned above. No doubt, these wouldn't bother everyone, since some people excel in all areas: great research, great teaching, charismatic to the student body. For others, its demanding enough to prefer elsewhere. I'm sure there are exceptions, and people will be happy to point them out; I'm not claiming that this is an exceptionless law of nature. However, I worry that it is generally accurate. Thoughts?

  11. Casey O'Callaghan

    Having just spent 5 fantastic years as a faculty member at a small liberal arts college in the woods of Maine, I can report confidently on several things. (1) At my top 10 graduate program I was *never* dissuaded and in fact I was encouraged to apply to all positions with some expectation of a favorable teaching load, research support, and strong students. Indeed, I was encouraged to accept the liberal arts college job over two other offers at research institutions (not top 30 PhD programs). (2) The concern in hiring at the small liberal arts college was always to get the best philosopher possible, with some eye to expectation of success in the classroom, interpreted very broadly. It would not be held against a candidate that they came from a high profile research institution or had less teaching experience (none of the finalists when I was hired had much). On the other hand, a very strong candidate from any institution would receive full consideration, and faculty members had received PhDs from schools at different tiers. A willingness to pay reasonable (modest, in my view) attention to teaching, however, was necessary. It was also entirely expected that it would take some time to develop as a teacher. (3) I can second the original poster's report that the conditions, including support for research in the form of funding and administrative encouragement, teaching load, quality of philosophical work done by colleagues, and quality of students, was superb at another small liberal arts college, in Maine. It even had a nearby airport.

  12. Anonymoust Student

    To follow up on the original questioner, I must say that when I was applying to grad schools, I frequently had the following exchange with professors at top-20 departments:

    Me: I think I might be happier teaching at a liberal arts college than at a research university.
    Professor: Don't let anyone know that.

    To follow up on what Anonymous posted, I have frequently had the following exchange with students at top-20 departments:

    Me: Would you ever consider teaching at a liberal arts college?
    Student: I think my focus has been so research-oriented that I would have to do a lot of catching up to teach something outside my research program.
    OR
    Student': I think my focus has been so research-oriented that I would have difficulty knowing what to do with a high teaching load.

    I think that these are the sorts of exchanges that give the impressions felt by the questioner and Anonymous.

  13. Christopher Hitchcock

    I read this discussion with interest. While Caltech doesn't really count as a liberal arts college, it has much in common with them — it is a small private school (900 undergrads, 7 philosophy faculty) with no graduate program in philosophy, but bright, motivated undergrads. I recently faced a decision of whether to remain or move to a top 20 graduate program at a large state school, and chose the former. I have also taught at a top 50 graduate program where philosophy of science was far from the center of intellectual gravity, and given my interests, I find the undergraduates here more stimulating than the graduates there (with no offense intended to the latter, most of whom excel in other areas of philosophy). I would also add that the relative lack of bureaucracy and the absence of government meddling are real pluses at a small private school.

    It's been 15 years since I was on the job market, so perhaps things have changed. I tried to apply for every job for which I was qualified (and for several for which I was not), including top research programs and small liberal arts colleges. My graduate program exercised some control over who they would sponsor for which positions. In some cases, if student A, who was considered a top prospect and competitive for the most desirable jobs, and student B, who was well-regarded but not considered a top candidate, both wanted to apply to a position at a school that was deemed less desirable, the department would sponsor only student B. The rationale was that A was likely to get a more attractive offer elsewhere, and A's application might undermine B's chances. I don't know to what extent this is still practiced, and if it is, to what extent this might explain the phenomenon described by the author of the post.

    It was also my impression, although perhaps this is just vanity on my part that some liberal arts schools (and some state schools that might be considered less desirable) didn't pursue my candidacy because they thought me overqualified. A number specifically asked me why I was applying to their school when I would probably get an offer from a top research program. I responded truthfully — that while there were obvious attractions to top research programs, there was no guarantee of a job at any school, and that liberal arts colleges had a lot of appealing features (small size, bright, motivated students) — but could not honestly say that I preferred a job at a liberal arts school. While I was invited for campus visits at a number of top research programs with open positions, I was not invited for campus visits at any liberal arts school, even those advertising specifically in my area. I can only think that this was in part because they thought I would be unlikely to accept the job, or to stay for long if I did accept it. I even got a letter from one such school (which was in a location I deemed geographically desirable for family reasons) saying that they were really impressed with my application, and they really wished they could have interviewed me. I don't mean to condemn this practice. The schools in question judged correctly that I would receive another offer that I would find preferable, and their reasons for making these decisions are perfectly understandable. But it does happen.

  14. As a grad student at one of the top schools in the Leiter rankings who plans to go on the job market soon, I would agree with the second point made by "anonymous please." The advice I have been given is that smaller colleges will assume that applicants from my school will be applying to smaller colleges as a backup plan in case we don't get the high-powered jobs we really want. Consequently, smaller colleges will assume that if they give us an offer, it probably won't be accepted, and that even if it is, we will leave as soon as a "better" job comes along. (Without being too specific, let me say I have seen some very compelling evidence that this is good advice.)

    The email in the initial post says:

    "I can assure you that no candidate who demonstrates a genuine interest in a career at our college would be considered overqualified"

    But how does an applicant from a top Leiter department "demonstrate a genuine interest" in a career at a small liberal arts college? You can put together an application which is designed to demonstrate this interest–emphasizing your love of teaching, downplaying research interests, etc. But this means putting together an application which will greatly lower your chances at those few dreams jobs at top research schools which you think you'd at least like to take a shot at. You always could put together two different applications–one which emphasizes your interest in going to a small teaching-oriented college, the other geared for a high-powered research job–but this seems dishonest.

    One more thing: I can only speak for myself, but I have never seen any indication that a faculty member put the placement record of our school above the welfare of a job applicant.

  15. Regarding Anonymous 2's concerns;

    Yes at the top liberal arts schools, Amherst, Swarthmore, Dartmouth, Vassar, etc., research expectations rival good research institutions, though not the top ones, say Princeton or NYU, but then again, who rivals them in terms of research expectations? And yes teaching expectations are very high, though each institution evaluates teaching quality in different ways, so it isn't a safe assumption that easier graders and so forth are seen by the college as better teachers. And no there are no graduate students to help with grading, and grading is a real bitch. Does this mean these are tougher jobs for less benefit? I don't know. You also don't do grad admissions, advising, and placement. You probably do fewer searches for senior and junior faculty, since you don't get as much turnover at these places than at large research institutions. Of course advising graduate students might be a plus, or minus, depending on the graduate program I suppose. I don't imagine people enjoy doing grad admissions every year, and very few people I know like the schmoozing and frantic phone calling involved in placement…but then again I suppose that depends on the grad program.

    Anonymous3: As for job candidates attempting to indicate interest in teaching at these institutions, something in your cover letter is good enough. If you are the kind of candidate where there is even a question as to whether you are "too good a researcher" for one of these places, I assure you that your application will make it to the latter rounds, and carefully scrutinized enough so that even your cover letter will be read.

  16. Gualtiero Piccinini

    I don't think it's dishonest to taylor your application to the job you are applying. If you are genuinely interested in all the jobs you are applying for, you should emphasize your inteterest in research when applying at research institutions and your interest in teaching when applying at teaching institutions. At any rate, that's what I did.

    Nevertheless, my experience supports a point already made by others: many teaching institutions, including many selective liberal arts schools, seem to prefer candidates that are not too "teaching oriented".

    I graduated from Pitt HPS and applied to anything that I was remotely qualified for. I did my best to convey that I would be happy at a teaching institution (which was true). In two rounds on the job market, I got a handful of interviews at liberal arts schools (on the selective end of their scale), but no campus invitations. In the case of my interview with one very good liberal arts college, I heard it through the grapevines that all but one committee members thought I was too "research oriented" for them. In my case they made a good guess: I got offers at several research institutions, which I would have preferred to theirs.

    But I know of several people in my situation who fell through the cracks: they didn't get an offer at researh institutions, perhaps for lack of sufficient pedigree relative to their competition, and they didn't get an offer at a teaching institution, perhaps because they seemed too "research oriented".

  17. Just to throw my hat in the ring as another anonymous grad student ABD at a top 5 Leiter program. I know that this is an oft-discussed topic among my peers, and the consensus as we understand it is that liberal arts programs don't want to hire people from top programs because they fear (sometimes justifiably, it seems) that said hires will use the job as a "springboard" to a more prestigious job.

    Moreover, there is a subtle sense of contempt for those in the profession who value teaching over research (though, of course, not to the exclusion of research), which is what one chooses to do when accepting a job at a teaching-oriented liberal arts program. It's mainly expressed in my experience along the lines of "Why anyone would want to teach undergrads at the expense of their research is beyond me" or just blanket statements about "the best jobs" or "most desirable jobs" which are always at Rutgers or Harvard or Princeton, never Amherst or Oberlin or Smith.

    I certainly don't tell people that I'd much prefer a teaching-oriented job with good undergrads to a job at a big research Uni.

  18. As a member a philosophy department at a top rated liberal arts college (Amherst), I can assure all of you that we don't feel that any of you is over-qualified to teach here (we, too, have high expectations for research), and we don't fear that any of you will use our department as a stepping stone. With only one exception (PhD, Yale), in the nineteen years that I've been at Amherst, none of our hires (PhDs from Harvard, Cornell, Michigan, and Yale) has chosen to leave the department (except for a couple one-year visiting positions at top-rated research institutions).

  19. I was lucky enough to have a one year position at one of the top liberal arts colleges, and since then I have always recommended to everyone that they strongly consider such jobs. Although I had always thought of myself as a researcher first and a teacher a distant second, I found the teaching experience to be immensely rewarding – infinitely better than at the large research universities I have taught at. The course load was not high, and classes were small, so, although I was expected to pay much closer attention to each student than at a large state university, the teaching load overall was not overly high. Many of the faculty had very active research careers, although this was not as significant a tenure consideration as at other institutions. The pay and benefits were fabulous, and the general work environment far more personal and supportive. I would have happily made a career at this college.

    Unfortunately, I believe that I had no chance of getting a tenure track job at this college, no matter how good my teaching or research, for one simple reason: I did not have a PhD from an ivy league (or other highly prestigious) university. I know of others with PhDs from top ten Philosophy departments, who the philosophy faculty at this college would have loved to hire, but were passed over because their PhD was from a state university. The explanation I was offered was that it was considered vitally important that the faculty list contain PhDs which parents of prospective students would recognise as from excellent universities. So, a good candidate from, say, Yale would always beat out an excellent candidate from, say, Pittsburgh. (Parents don't read the Leiter Report!)

    I don't know if this knid of thing happens elsewhere (and it may not even still be the case at the college I was at), but candidates would do well to investigate this srt of thing for themselves.

  20. For a slightly different perspective, I'm a PhD candidate at a top 30 department. I've noticed some of the sentiments expressed here by other grad students, and have discussed them with fellow students who have noticed them as well. I guess it's slightly different at my institution, in that the sentiments probably don't extend up to elite liberal arts schools, but only to their less elite kin and below. But nevertheless the sentiment seems to me much the same. This is of course even more odd at a school like ours, where only once in a great while will a graduate land a job at a mid-level or higher research institution, and where most people end up at small colleges, state teaching colleges or community colleges, at least initially. It's actually been perhaps my biggest frustration in an otherwise wonderful graduate student experience.

    The sentiments I've encountered have been complex. The real issue, I think, is that the vast majority of our faculty (and, I suspect, faculty at other institutions at or above our rank on the Gourmet) operate with a fairly univocal vision of what constitutes success in a philosophical career. In this vision, career success is achieved at least in large part by landing a job at an institution focused on research, and conducting a successful research program that achieves recognition by both one's institution (tenure) and peers (publication, etc.). This vision is of course reinforced by the structure of the profession, the principal reward mechanisms (financial and other), and the fact that almost none of the faculty at our institution come from anything below a top 10 Gourmet-ranked school themselves.

    Now, there's nothing wrong with this vision in itself. Certainly this is a plausible (partial) picture of career success. The problem comes from the inability of many of my faculty to understand and accept that someone might have a very different vision of career success, one that involves a principal focus on close interaction with students at the undergraduate level, mentoring relationships with these students, the various other benefits that exist at a smaller institution, etc. This has been my vision from a very early stage in my philosophical career, based principally on the experiences at my small undergraduate institution, and the influence that a few professors there had on me. I enjoy research, and want to pursue it. It's just not quite as important to me as the things just mentioned. I also love the experience of awakening philosophical interest within slumbering minds, the kind of thing that often only happens in Intro classes. While some of the faculty at my institution understand these sorts of things, I think even those that do understand these interests don't think of them as quite as important as the components of the research vision (hence their own career choices).

    All this creates something of a disconnect. I've never had a faculty member tell me not to apply to any institution. Nevertheless, I've gotten the impression that they see such goals as something of a disappointment. This inevitably weighs on the mind of a graduate student. I think that all the faculty here (especially our placement director)recognize the reality of the prospects of most graduates exiting our program. Nevertheless, I think they see this principally as a situation to be remedied. In one sense, of course it is. It would be wonderful if our institution could raise its profile to the point where excellent graduates from our program could expect consideration from top research schools (which presently is unrealistic in almost every case, no matter how good the applicant). But even were we to achieve this, and even at schools where they have achieved this, I think it would be of benefit if more faculty understood, embraced and supported a broader vision of what one can reasonably want out of philosophy as a profession and a calling.

  21. My undergraduate is from a small liberal arts college in Michigan (Calvin College), which has a good, though not mind blowing, reputation. Our faculty, however, are represented by some of the best schools in the country as ranked on the PGR (Princeton, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame and Cornell). Looking up another school with a comparable reputation (Seattle Pacific) I see representation from schools such as UCLA, Notre Dame and Brown. While Calvin and Seattle Pacific do not rank up with Vassar, or Swarthmore, or other similarly prestigious liberal arts schools in terms of reputation, they are still capable of attracting, without fear it seems, philosophers of the highest order (at least as evidenced from the CV's).

  22. As an undergrad at an unranked philosophy program who is in the process of preparing graduate school applications, I've followed this thread with considerable interest; before choosing to commit 5+ years to a graduate program in order to enter a job market as tight as that of academic philosophy, I figure it's probably a good idea to investigate how the whole thing works once you get out.

    While the issue of "top ranked" PHD graduates applying to "top ranked" elite liberal arts schools is no doubt an important dynamic at the upper echelons of the field, I am curious, given that not all PHD graduates, or even that many from what I can tell (http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/perspective.asp) manage to land these positions, as to whether or not the whole debate between the desirability of teaching vs research oriented departments is, or ought to be, somewhat less important to the average ABD or graduate (even from top programs!) than the matter of obtaining a (hopefully tenure-track) position to begin with.

    My favorite professor in our department taught at places like Princeton and Columbia before coming to a tiny experimental public college in a seaside town on the West Coast, something like 30 years ago. It doesn't seem to have hurt his well-regarded research any (although I have never explicitly asked him if this is the case), and he has been deeply involved in the History of Consciousness program for years, mentoring grad students long before our fledging Philosophy PHD had even started.

    Of course UCSC is a weird/unique school in a lot of ways, but the folks who bought their houses here for $30,000 back in the day are sitting on property worth well over 1mil now, even with the current housing crisis. I guess it seems to me (although this is just a 24 year old transfer-student talking) that there are other pressing considerations for ABDs and new PHDs besides the relative prestige associated with working at a primarily research or teaching oriented institution. Things like "Can I buy a house?" (At NYU, Stanford or Pomona College, probably not without an inheritance) and "Do I like small towns full of white people?" (Dartmouth, Colby, Cornell).

    I'd like to think that the best research will rise to the top eventually, regardless of the institution it comes from; great philosophy has been produced under much more trying conditions than those experienced by Assistant Professors at state colleges, let alone tenure-track instructors at "elite" liberal arts schools. The idea that a mentor at a top-tier research university would somehow look down on a student for wishing to apply to a given school (for that student's own damn reasons!) is to me patently absurd. But then again I could just be ignorant and naive.

  23. In numerous job searches at Williams for tenure track positions, there has absolutely never been a discussion among my colleagues around the concern that a candidate is overqualified for the job. I'd like to think that our recent hires are evidence of this attitude, as the last four have come from Chicago, Notre Dame, Pitt, and Cornell.

    Sure, as a consequence we take our knocks in the sense that, in a given search cycle, we'll bring four candidates to campus and, inevitably, some or all of them will withdraw with other offers that they prefer. And, yes, young faculty sometimes use Williams as a stop on the way to a research department. My view is that that's a small price to pay for hiring philosophers who are doing promising research. While they are here they contribute to the community and I am glad to know that their work can be supported.

    Publishing demands for tenure at Williams are substantial, though not, of course, what they would be at demanding graduate departments. It is also true that success in the classroom is crucial for earning tenure. Is this the worst of all worlds? I should hope not, but I can understand how it might appear that way. We make a serious effort to make sure that being successful on these two fronts is within reach. Ours is a 2/2 teaching load, and it is a rare semester when I am teaching more than 30 students in my two classes combined. Leaves are automatic and generous, as are research and travel funds. I feel a bit here as if I'm writing an advertisement. I don't mean to be. There are undeniable substantial downsides including not usually having many colleagues in your AOS, not usually having a vibrant visitor series (undergraduates, even the best ones, usually don't so much care), and not having challenging interactions with great graduate students. Most of all there's the sense that you're not at the center of things in the profession. If you're lazy, that makes it easy to drift away from the kinds of professional activities that would otherwise keep you in touch with the cutting edge.

    I do think that my colleagues and I show a bias toward candidates in one respect. If a candidate herself went to a LAC (perceived ranking or quality doesn't much matter), then we figure that she gets what we're hoping for and that's an immediate advantage. An all other things equal candidate who was an undergraduate at, say, Indiana (without a doubt in my mind, a place where one can get a top rate undergraduate education) and who got her PhD at UCLA would set off some mild alarm bells for us. This is not because we'd worry that she was overqualified, but rather because we'd be worried about her limited experience in (patience with?) a liberal arts environment. Some of my colleagues cynically think of the challenges as akin to those one might face baby-sitting. There's a certain evocative similarity, to be sure, but I'd put it this way: If someone doesn't really like hanging out — in the office, in the dining hall, at the coffee shop, at the intramural soccer game — with 20-year-olds who are full of half-baked ideas and expect you to enthusiastically and tirelessly engage them, she's not going to like the teaching component of being at a liberal arts college. Candidates who themselves went to a LAC might well remember their own (possibly irrational) expectations in this regard, and this, we surmise, gives them some insight into what will be expected of them.

    That said, off the top of my head, only roughly half of my department colleagues themselves went to liberal arts colleges.

    How might a top candidate signal her enthusiasm for teaching at a liberal arts college? At least here, nothing special is necessary at the level of the dossier. You've applied to our job ad and in the cover letter you've expressed a knowledge that this is a liberal arts college and that you would be happy to teach here. We take that in good faith. Indeed, there are some things that might be done with good intentions, but that would be counterproductive. For instance, listing an implausibly wide range of AOC's (with the thought that it would show versatility) would not be helpful. Teaching at a liberal arts college will likely demand that you offer low level courses outside of your AOS. We, at least, just assume that a top grad student can teach a 100 level introduction to moral philosophy course that includes The Republic, even if her dissertation was on fictionalism. But don't claim moral philosophy or ancient greek as an AOC just to reassure us.

    A lot can go wrong during an interview or campus visit, though. I'd hazard that nine out of ten of our campus visitors give the same exact job talk to us that they give for their campus visit to a top grad department. This is completely understandable, as it presumably is their best, most polished, most vetted work. Still, think about it for second: the audience in the room is four or five philosophers (probably none of whom have the same AOS as the candidate), maybe a cognitive neuroscientist who was intrigued by the title, two retirees who live in town and seemingly go to every campus talk, and twenty five undergrads, many of whom have as the entirety of their philosophical background a couple of intro classes and maybe a survey seminar or two in philosophy of mind or in existentialism. This is a recipe for bewildered looks, massive exodus before q&a, and us having to wonder whether the candidate can make philosophical material intelligible to people who haven't spent the last three years reading that precise literature. On the other hand, the talk can't be condescending or simplistic, nor would it be adequate to come in and teach a pretend meeting of an introductory class. This is probably a difficult challenge to meet, but aiming to meet it, and making the extra effort will go a long way in persuading a department that a candidate is serious about teaching at a liberal arts college.

    More broadly, we'll pay close attention to how the candidate interacts with undergraduates. Patience, enthusiasm, and a gentle conversational touch (but not condescendingly watered down!) will send the message that the candidate has a serious interest in teaching at this kind of place.

    If you're wondering when during your visit you'll be able to show your chops, we hope that that opportunity comes. That's why we take the candidate out to dinner.

    * * *

    As a graduate student, I don't ever recall encountering explicit discouragement from applying to LACs. One of my graduate mentors persists in describing LAC jobs as jobs at "teaching colleges," with the sarcastic implication that we don't do anything scholarly. (Irritating? Only a little. He's a dear friend and I just tease back for his Department of Defense funding. Moreover, I should think that it's irritating to folks at big universities to have what they do described in such a way to obscure their teaching and advising.) But I heard the same advice indicated by several folks above, namely that under no circumstances in applying to research jobs should I let it be revealed that I am open to and might even slightly prefer a job at a LAC.

  24. Blue-Collar Philosopher

    "More Anonymity" writes:

    "Moreover, there is a subtle sense of contempt for those in the profession who value teaching over research (though, of course, not to the exclusion of research), which is what one chooses to do when accepting a job at a teaching-oriented liberal arts program. It's mainly expressed in my experience along the lines of "Why anyone would want to teach undergrads at the expense of their research is beyond me" or just blanket statements about "the best jobs" or "most desirable jobs" which are always at Rutgers or Harvard or Princeton, never Amherst or Oberlin or Smith."

    I've always had this feeling myself – the feeling that there is, as More Anonymity put it, a "subtle feeling of contempt." I'm wondering if anyone else, specifically Professors, can confirm this. Perhaps you've experienced it, or perhaps you feel the contempt yourself.

Designed with WordPress