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. Jason Stanley's avatar
  2. Daniel Greco's avatar
  3. Nobody's avatar
  4. Roger of Invisible America's avatar
  5. Santa Monica's avatar
  6. Optimistic about LLM's avatar
  7. Ben M-Y's avatar

“Should I go to graduate school in philosophy?”

Brian Leiter

Eric Chwang (Colorado) calls to my attention this site created by his colleague Michael Huemer.  It's certainly quite opinionated, but of course we like that!  I think I mostly agree with what he says, though perhaps at points it's a bit too negative (e.g., is it really true that an undergrad who needs paper ideas is unlikely to become a good researcher?  surely many students develop these skills over time).  But without saying more about my own reactions to the advice, let me invite readers to post their reactions to Professor Huemer's advice.  Signed comments will, as usual, be very strongly preferred.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

50 responses to ““Should I go to graduate school in philosophy?””

  1. John Doris

    The discouraging upshot of Prof. Huemer's piece is sensible, but I'm uncertain about numerous factual claims. It would be very good to see evidence on these, one way or another:

    1. "The research positions are the ones almost everyone wants."

    My impression is that many of my graduate student colleagues were keen on teaching jobs, and I also have this impression from talking to other grads. Of course, there is a wide range of teaching jobs — and also a wide range of applicant preferences.

    2."Once you've received your PhD from somewhere other than a top-twenty school, it is extremely difficult to advance in the field."

    It is obviously an advantage to have come from a "name" school, esp. for first time job seekers with limited records, but my informal impression is that there are lots of people with desirable jobs (both teaching and research) with degrees from outside the "top 20." Quite possible (though tedious) to survey faculty lists from 100 or so "good" jobs.

    3."once you have taken a position other than a top fifty school, it is nearly impossible to advance in the field."

    Seems to me that lots of people "trade up." Again, some tedious surveying — this time of faculty CVs at "top" places — would illuminate the issue. Barring that effort, readers might see how long it takes then to think of such cases. For me, not very long.

    4. "Cleverness. This is one necessary condition on success in the field."

    Maybe. Some programs place primary emphasis on being "quick-witted" (whatever exactly that is), but others emphasize concrete qualifications like publications. I suspect that in most cases hard work is a major factor in determining outcome, and the student who succeeds is the student with "drive" and a strong measure of "professionalism."

    Most people should run screaming from attempting a career in philosophy — or any academic career; the prospects of success are fairly grim, and the rewards for success can be underwhelming (perhaps like some other competitive fields). But maybe it's not quite so bad for *driven* students who *really* like thinking about what(ever it is) professional philosophers think about.

    –doris

    Reply
  2. Marta

    I agree with most of this, but not the idea that a teaching-intensive load has to be the "plan B" job. I personally quite like teaching, at least at the proportions I am able to do as a Ph.D. student, even more than doing my own research. While I am sure that there is a real difference between teaching 1-2 classes and teaching four, I also think there are many philosophers like myself, who get real satisfaction in introducing others to the subject material. (Yes, even freshmen!)

    Reply
  3. Blake Taylor

    Would it be practical for some schools to begin offering Ph.d's on a part time basis? In many other countries this is not uncommon, and while it can lead to greater numbers not finishing and taking massive amounts of time to finish it seems worth discussion. If academic careers are hard to get/low paying/require massive time commitments would it not be a good idea for people to be working on a possible alternate career in the meantime?

    Obviously a Ph.d is a huge time commitment and would ideally be a full-time undertaking, but I don't see why it couldn't be undertaken two or three days a week. It seems like many of the biggest problems with going to graduate school, especially at a less prestigious program, and being trained for one very specific task could in this way be mitigated.

    Reply
  4. Tim O'Keefe

    I agree with John Doris. Claims (1)-(3) stood out as quite dubious, particularly when phrased as strongly as they are (e.g., to say that it's "nearly impossible" to advance in the field once you take a job outside a top-fifty research school). John Doris is right that a survey of faculty lists would be needed, but even just here are Georgia State, we have TT faculty who came here from jobs at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, the University of Minnesota – Morris, James Madison University, George Washington University, and Loyola University Maryland.

    The claim that "the research positions are the ones almost everyone wants" is false; lots of people like more teaching-focused positions. The overall tone of the article makes teaching-focused positions highly undesirable, whereas many people find it satisfying to teach e.g., at small liberal arts colleges. (I used to teach at such a place and liked it, although for various reasons I did move to Georgia State.) Furthermore, I found the following characterization of the field simplistic and misleading:

    "There are two kinds of philosophy departments: teaching-oriented, and research-oriented.

    The research positions are the ones almost everyone wants. Professors typically teach two courses per term, and are expected to publish in recognized journals (one or two articles a year is usually acceptable). You will probably not get one of these positions.

    The overwhelming majority of philosophy positions are teaching-oriented. One teaches at least three or four courses per term. The overwhelming majority of people with these teaching loads do little to no research. If you think you are going to do research despite teaching four courses per term, you are almost certainly mistaken."

    First of all, there is more of a continuum from research-focused to teaching-focused positions, rather than there being two categories, with schools falling into one or the other. I used to teach at the University of Minnesota – Morris, and I have a friend who teaches at Agnes Scott College — both of them small liberal arts colleges that focus on teaching, and which expect professors to be heavily involved in campus life too. At the same time, both schools have a 3/2 teaching load, do give time for research, and do have pretty significant publication requirements for tenure. And even most branch campuses of state schools with 3/3 or 4/4 teaching loads expect some publication record, and I know of lots of people in such places who continue to be active professionally.

    Reply
  5. Brian Leiter

    Regarding the upward mobility issue: on this point, I take it Huemer is correct. Certainly there are folks who spend 1-3 years in a non-research department, before landing a job in a research-oriented department (that's the GSU story, reference by Tim O'Keefe), but it is much more rare for folks to earn tenure at a non-research oriented department to end up in top 50 PhD programs, which I take it was Huemer's point. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one example: Helen Longino, who started her career at Mills College, and is now at Stanford. You could add a few more cases if one counted the University of Vermont, though I would describe them as a research-oriented department, reflected in a long track record of excellent hiring of productive philosophers (e.g., the Kitchers, George Sher, David Christensen, Derk Pereboom, Hilary Kornblith, all of whom are now tenured at "top 50" departments). An overwhelming majority of tenured faculty at the top 50 programs held their first tenured position in a research department.

    Reply
  6. Steven Hales

    I think Huemer's remarks are sensible ones, and that the real facts about the profession can't be overemphasized to undergraduates enough. I don't really agree with John Doris– thinking of a few exceptions does not undermine Huemer's negative but rather accurate generalizations. *I'm* an exception to his comment that "If you think you are going to do research despite teaching four courses per term, you are almost certainly mistaken," since I teach 4-4 and keep up a vigorous research agenda. But Huemer's general observation is still true. While John's right that a few people trade up, it is a small fraction of tenure-track faculty who do so. And the number is even smaller after tenure. Horse-trading mostly goes on, as Huemer correctly notes, among the research schools. People who start at Podunk College teaching 4-4 to undergrads very, very rarely ascend to teach 2-2 at a PhD-granting university.

    I often think that professional philosophy is like professional sports. It's a terrific job if you make it, but it is incredibly hard to do so, no matter how great you were as an undergrad. The university's star linebacker is still probably not good enough for the NFL; we do a disservice to students to pretend otherwise.

    Reply
  7. Doug Portmore

    I agree with Doris and O'Keefe that many of Huemer's factual claims are dubious. Here's another dubious one that they don't mention:

    "If you think you are going to do research despite teaching four courses per term, you are almost certainly mistaken."

    I'll speak from my own personal experience. I taught at Cal State Northridge where the standard teaching load is 4/4. While it's true that there is some opportunity at Northridge for a course reduction here and there, I do know of a number of people who did research while teaching four courses per term. Indeed, you'll find that many of the people at Northridge have significant on-going research projects.

    And although what Leiter says is almost certainly true (that is, "An overwhelming majority of tenured faculty at the top 50 programs held their first tenured position in a research department"), I wonder whether this is fair given that we're supposed to be assessing Huemer's claim that "once you have taken a position other than a top fifty school [n.b. he say's nothing about being tenured], it is nearly impossible to advance in the field.". I suspect that Leiter's claim is true, because many of the really good people leave their tenure-track jobs for better jobs BEFORE getting tenure. I certainly know of more than just of handful of people who have advanced (if this includes getting a much better tenure-track job with a lighter teaching load and the opportunity to teach graduate students) after taking a position at a teaching institution. Take Dave Shoemaker and myself. We both "advanced" in the field (in the sense of moving on to schools that put a greater emphasis on research and had a much lighter teaching load). And even if "advanced" in the field means going on to a school that's ranked in the Leiter top fifty, then I'm one example of someone who has done what Huemer claims is nearly impossible. ASU was in the Leiter top-fifty when I first took a job here.

    Reply
  8. John Doris

    Unsurprisingly, there's diversity of opinion regards the anecdotal evidence, which is why it would be interesting to have more systematic observation of the sort I suggested. — doris

    BL COMMENT: I take it there's no diversity of opinion about the claim that the overwhelming majority of tenured faculty at 'top 50' programs held their first tenured post in a research department. Huemer might need to modify his text, per Doug Portmore's suggestion.

    Reply
  9. Richard Baron

    Michael Huemer's gloomy assessment may well be correct. But the reader who really cares about philosophy (the discipline, not the profession) need not be dispirited. One option is to choose a career that is well-paid, then once you are established, pursue it part-time, live modestly so that you earn enough from part-time work, and return to philosophical research. Your work may or may not be read, but as Michael Huemer makes clear, you may be no worse of in that regard than someone who does have an academic job. You are not under pressure to build up the right kind of CV to advance an academic career. And you can easily keep in contact with academia and with current thinking by attending seminars and conferences. At least this is so in the UK, where it is common to throw seminars open to anyone who is interested (apart from seminars that form parts of courses).

    Yes, I do speak from experience. Two days a week of work in tax policy funds a perfectly comfortable philosophical life. But I was aged 47 when I made this move back to philosophy, and I only formulated the plan a couple of years before then.

    Reply
  10. Michelle Saint

    This is only a minor part of the entire FAQ, but I find the note to #7 frustrating. I understand why it's there: women are statistically more likely to undervalue their talents than men (or at least I have seen research supporting this claim), and it may very well be easier to get interviews as a woman than as a man. (Have there been any studies on the second point?) However, it's extraordinarily hard to express those claims without making it sound like you're saying, "All those women are clogging up the profession! How dare they!" There must be a better way to word it so that individuals from underrepresented groups may actually feel somewhat welcome, rather than blamed for the horrible state of the job market.

    It also doesn't help to make it addressed to "females" as opposed to "women." If I were reading that as an undergraduate, it would make me feel more like a scientific sample under a microscope rather than a potential colleague.

    Reply
  11. Eddy Nahmias

    Though many of Huemer's claims convey useful information, I worry about their tone (it's a worry I have about my own tone when I advise students about whether they should try to enter PhD programs). The worry is that they will scare off students who (a) don't already know how to do hard-core philosophy really well and (b) don't already know that they are absolutely committed to dedicating their life to doing hard-core philosophy. I worry because a and b did not apply to my former self (coming out with an undergrad minor in philosophy at a continental program with little professional advising–and pre-Leiter report!). And I suspect there are other students who *should* go into philosophy grad programs even though a and b do not apply to them (perhaps a disproportionate amount of these students are women and minorities). I don't think we should scare them off.

    Of course, the downside is that some (perhaps most) of them should be scared off. But I think we should temper Huemer's tone with more info about (1) the joys of *teaching* philosophy, (2) the possibility of becoming a very good philosopher, even if you are not currently able as an undergrad to read the hardest phil journals or spit out a 15 page original argument, and (3) the possibility of coming to philosophy from other backgrounds; and (4) we should try to create a culture where we treat more of the students who do 2-4 years of a PhD before realizing (or being forced to realize) they will not finish as a success rather than a failure–sure, they used up a 'precious spot', but they still got to study philosophy for a few years and they will in many cases use that training for good in their other pursuits.

    Reply
  12. John Schwenkler

    Re: BL's response to John Doris, even if it's true that nearly all tenured faculty at "top 50" institutions started off in research departments, this could easily be a selection effect rather than evidence for a causal claim. It certainly wouldn't show that *all else being equal* having one's first tenure-track position be in a research-oriented department makes a significant difference in the long term; and even if this *were* shown there would remain the fact that many of those who remain in teaching-oriented positions might decline to "trade up" simply because they like it where they are.

    BL COMMENT: I know of no evidence, even anecdotal, that would support that interpretation as likely to be true.

    Reply
  13. Mark van Roojen

    I suspect that John Doris and Doug Portmore are right when they suggest that Mike Huemer is too pessimistic about people's prospects for moving up either from less attractive first jobs or less prestigious grad programs. And I think that this may stem from Huemer's set-up. He says, "There are two kinds of philosophy departments: teaching-oriented, and research-oriented."

    But in fact this is too coarse grained since there are lots of departments that are both. Doug's examples highlight one sort of department, one that you find in the Cal State system. As I understand them, they do have higher teaching loads than those at Research Universities, and they earn their keep by teaching large numbers of students. But they also seem to care a good bit about research. That's why these schools have hired all sorts of good young people over the last decade or so. And those people continue to publish enough to be noticed by folks at other schools. And those like Doug who are willing to move away from California can get more research oriented jobs from there. (To be fair to Mike Huemer, he may have thought of these places as research departments, but they don't seem to fit the two/two courseload profile.)

    There are also small liberal arts colleges, such as SMU, Grinnell, and Reed, to name just three from which I can name people who went on to much more purely research oriented things. When I was at Reed George Bealer and David Reeve were on the faculty and they stayed there for many years before moving away for different reasons. They did (highly visible) research when they were there and it was part of their job to do good research of the sort that "research" departments require of philosophers. There are dozens of places like these and they hire a good number of people into their first jobs.

    I think similar cases can be made with respect to well-regarded researchers coming from less prestigious grad programs. But I may have an axe to grind since we always seem to be in competition for 51st place in the Leiter rankings. So I'll leave that argument to others. In any case the structure of that argument would be a bit different given that the failure to look for departments that don't fit the either research or teaching dichotomy plays a big role in my argument about the claim about moving up from first jobs.

    So to repeat my main point: taking into account departments that don't fit into the dichotomy complicates the picture with respect to moving up in the research hierarchy.

    BL COMMENT: Just to be clear, I think many of the top liberal arts colleges have research-oriented departments, reflected both in their teaching loads and their research output.

    Reply
  14. Lucas Thorpe

    It seems to me that Michael Huemer's advice is too America-centric. I got my phd. in the States and am now teaching at Bogazici University in Istanbul. I have a 2/2 teaching load, good grad-students, I live in great city with a beautiful view over the Bosporus, and we have a stream of interesting philosophers passing through and a very active, and growing, English language philosophy community. There are many other similar places. So, even for those interested in research jobs, there are lot of options outside the to 50 U.S. departments

    The philosophy job market in the UK and in the States is in pretty bad shape. In countries like Turkey, however, higher education is going through a boom. Demand for university places far outstrips supply and so new universities are starting every year, and many are starting philosophy departments and hiring people with American phds. In some of these countries where higher education is going through a boom most of the new higher education institutions are teaching primarily or exclusively in English. So now in Turkey, for example, many of the new universities teach exclusively in English and there are now at least 6 English language philosophy departments and I know of 3-4 more that look like they will start in the next few years. I believe that similar things are going on in other countries. There is also a growth of English language philosophy in continental Europe. My prediction is that the major growth area in English language philosophy jobs, and departments, over the next 20 years will be in countries like Turkey. I guess that the strength of this growth will depend on how the economies in these countries develop.

    Such jobs are not for everyone, and there is already strong competition for jobs in good departments here. But for people who are attracted to the idea of teaching and working outside of the U.S. there are quite a few attractive options out there. And it is often easier to get spousal hires in such positions. And it is exciting to be part of something that is going through rapid expansion. My prediction is that over the coming years the number of such options will grow and become more attractive, because that there are many countries going through a similar rapid expansion of higher education and many students in these countries want to receive an education in English rather than their native language because graduating from an English language university often makes students more attractive to employees. In some countries that are going through such an expansion such jobs are not always very well advertised.

    In many countries there are now one or two English language universities. I suspect that for English language philosophy to flourish in a particular county there probably has to be a critical mass of such departments, and I suspect that in Turkey, for example, we are approaching such a critical mass of decent English language philosophy departments. I suspect there are other countries where this is also true (or might be true in 10 years time). My hope is that in 20 years time Turkey will be a major centre for English language philosophy, and I guess that such a hope is not totally unreasonable. Who knows what the future will hold. But it’s fun to live and work somewhere where one can help build new philosophical institutions and have such hopes.

    Anyway – for those students who are thinking of going to grad school in philosophy who are not committed to living in the States and are not strongly risk adverse [this is important – getting involved in a fairly new institution in a foreign country will always be a bit of a gamble] there are a whole world of potentially attractive (and in my mind exciting) options out there. At the very least, it’s important to keep in mind that you don’t need to be at a top 50 school in the U.S. in order to have a nice research position.

    Reply
  15. Mike Austin

    It is possible to pursue research while also teaching a 4/4 load, though it is more difficult, takes more discipline, and necessitates overcoming additional challenges. However, Huemer did say "almost certainly mistaken" when making his claim about the belief that you can do research with a heavy teaching load. It would be interesting to look at the publication records of those with 4/4 loads and see how many people are actively engaged and productive with respect to research.

    Reply
  16. Doug Parvin

    Sensible advice for the most part. However, Huemer's suggestion that affirmative action suffices to make the job market kinder to women than to men is empirically unfounded. The proportion of TT jobs recently filled by women is about the same as the proportion of PhDs recently granted to women. (http://www.apaonline.org/governance/committees/women/0708EmploymentStudy.aspx)

    Reply
  17. John Schwenkler

    If it's anecdotes that we need, I can think offhand of two philosophers who began their careers in my own department (at a SLAC if ever there was one) and are now at departments with very strong research pedigrees (one of them in the PGR "top 40"), plus several current colleagues who'll tell you that they would have little desire to move to a research-oriented department even if the possibility arose, as they much prefer to be at a smaller institution that puts a strong emphasis on undergraduate teaching. Of course these cases may be exceptional, but that just highlights the difficulty in generalizing from one's own experience, or even from a careful survey of CV's, due to the simply overwhelming possibility of sampling bias.

    BL COMMENT: I don't think we should belabor this further, but let me observe that the *relevant* anecdotes (that would support the selection effect hypothesis) would concern faculty at, e.g., a SLAC who actually has the option to move to a research-oriented department, but declines to do so. But since this really is orthogonal to the main discussion, I'm calling an end to this side-debate. Thanks.

    Reply
  18. current MA student

    I think what would be especially helpful for me would be a discussion of the actual differences in the "research" vs. "teaching" track — one that *doesn't* presume that "everybody" wishes they were on the research track (thus relegating teaching to a sort of consolation prize at best), and which takes an honest look at what people find gratifying or disheartening about both. Students, for the most part, really don't have much of an idea of what goes on in philosophy as a profession, but a lot of the information given to us about it presumes that we've oriented ourselves with respect to it in a certain way (Of course you want to be a researcher, 4/4 teaching loads suck!).

    In my admittedly anecdotal experience, this sometimes ends up conditioning students to think they want a certain thing that in fact they don't really know anything about (yet) — or even just giving them the impression that anyone who is really any good at philosophy is going to:

    (1) get into a Leiter-ranked top 20 PhD program, and then
    (2) immediately get a TT research-oriented job at a similarly highly ranked department, and
    (3) if either 1 or 2 is not met, then you weren't really any good at philosophy anyway and you should probably just quit.

    Some of us don't actually know precisely what shape we hope for our careers to take just yet, beyond the certainty that we would be overjoyed to be paid to talk about philosophy (see Huemer's #12), and are still in the process of figuring out how our talents would be best put to use. I think getting clear on what philosophy is actually like as a job in the everyday sense, completely setting aside any particular undergrad-type myths you would wish to dispel, ought to do a lot of work towards making sure that the people applying to grad school know what they're getting into, and it would give us (the students) a lot more to work with than all the "Your naive belief about philosophy is naive" type blog posts.

    Reply
  19. Satisfied Phd Student

    I've been in philosophy graduate programs (first an MA and now a 30s-40s leiter Report-ranked PhD program) for six years now and it will probably be another year or two before I finish. I hope to secure a job at a university teaching philosophy. And, of course, it would be great to have the time to do some research.

    In the last few months, however, I've come to realize that it is very possible that I not find a tenure track job when I finish. (It is even less possible if I add any kind of requirements for the types of places I would accept a position at: e.g., maximum 3-2 teaching load,in the Northeast, in a city I would like to live in, etc). So, I've started to entertain the idea of not pursuing a job in academics when I finish the PhD.

    Nonetheless, I don't regret the path I've taken. I see it like this: I will have gotten paid to read and learn about stuff that I am very interested in for 7 or 8 years. Yes, I've had to do some teaching to get paid but I actually enjoy teaching and it has helped me develop a very useful skill set that can be employed in other professions. Furthermore, I have even taken out a small amount of loans. I don't regret this either. Worse case scenario I get started a bit later than most people in some other non-academic profession and I have to pay a small amount every month to pay off some loans that will not start gathering interest until after I finish the PhD.

    As far as I can tell, for me, doing the PhD in philosophy is a win-win situation. Of course, this is probably because I really like doing philosophy. People with different attitudes would, perhaps, find my situation horrible. But, given the job market and the fact that so many PhDs in philosophy are awarded every year, it seems likely that many people may be facing a situation similar to mine.

    Finally, I'm not sure that my situation is really that bad. For me, it's fine. And, for the department I was at it also seems a good deal–they get to have a TA do work for relatively little pay. And, for the profession in general it seems good–we get to continue having a large number of people do philosophy at an advanced level (so we have graduate programs that are thriving), if some people do not pursue a career in academics we have less of a problem with so many people being on the job market, and people can carry philosophy into the professiosn they do pursue–in particular, elementary, middle school, and high school teaching jobs– potentially raising public interest in philosophy and illustrating that philosophers can get jobs (I HOPE!!!).

    Perhaps others can weigh in on the idea of doing a PhD in philosophy and then not going into academics. Is it good for departments? For the profession?

    Reply
  20. John Turri

    Thanks to Michael Huemer for providing this candid and thoughtful assessment.

    Sure, there are exceptions to a lot of what Mike says. But I have three points to make in his defense on this score.

    First, he is careful to couch most of the claims probabilistically, so exceptions aren't apt to disprove what he says.

    Second, he states that his goal is to provide a "more realistic picture" than what students tend to have when contemplating graduate school in philosophy. I'm certain that he has accomplished this, even if his generalizations are a bit too pessimistic and thus somewhat inaccurate, because students tend to be considerably more inaccurate.

    Third, when it comes to advising young adults — which, I take it, is the primary audience that the advice is directed at — it's better to be short, clear and unambiguous, even if this inevitably distorts matters somewhat.

    Finally, when it comes to pursuing graduate studies in philosophy *with the intent to make a career of it*, it's worse to _pursue it when you shouldn't_ than to _not pursue it when you should_. Add to that the fact that — anecdotally! — students in the former category outnumber students in the latter, and it starts to look like an overly negative assessment is preferable to an objectively accurate one. (Of course, this assumes that negative advice will not have a disproportionate effect on students who should go; I'm less confident of this than I used to be.)

    Reply
  21. Rob Rupert

    I wrote my first five published papers while teaching, on average, eighty credits per year — four, five-credit courses per quarter, four quarters per year. And these papers were published, on average, in highly selective journals; so, I'm not sure Mike H. fully appreciates what can be done while teaching a heavy load. His basic message is sound, though, and student-readers should not assume that they'll be exceptions to Mike's general (and generally true) claims.

    Reply
  22. Jeff Wisdom

    As some of the previous comments indicate, the predominant view in the guild seems to be something like the following: the most desirable jobs in philosophy are research jobs; ideally at a ranked Ph.D. program, or at a prestigious M.A.-granting program. From there, the next best thing is a job at a prestigious liberal arts college. Further down the pecking order is any job at a four-year college; preferably one with a major in philosophy. Community college professors and long-term adjuncts constitute the eminently forgettable also-rans, and God help the newly-minted Ph.D. who has to join the “unwashed masses” and take a job outside of academia.

    Intended or not, graduate students often imbibe this view in graduate school. Then, when it comes time to go on the market, they proceed as though landing a research job at a ranked institution is the gold standard of success *as a philosopher*. Anything less constitutes, to varying degrees, reason to be disappointed, grounds for self-loathing, evidence that one has wasted one’s time in graduate school, etc. I'll leave an evaluation of this view for another time, but suffice it to say that when you combine the predominant view with the harsh realities of the current job market, you've got a whole lot of unhappy young philosophers on your hands.

    My question is, have the realities of the job market changed the way faculty members of Ph.D.-granting institutions counsel their graduate students about what it is to succeed on the market, or what it is to succeed as a philosopher?

    Reply
  23. Ian

    I want to add a note of agreement to the sentiments of "Satisfied PhD student". I'm 29 years old, I have an MA in philosophy of religion (from an Ivy League school) and am about to begin my PhD dissertation (albeit at program that has more truck w/ the SPEP crowd than the PGR crowd) and I would definitely do it all over again. I have long been aware of the dim tenure-track job prospects, especially since I've chosen to write on aesthetics and philosophy of religion, hardly high-demand specialties. But here’s how the second half of my twenties has panned out: I’ve been paid a modest but livable wage to pursue questions of great personal import in considerable depth, read books I love, travel, talk with interesting people, become more learned, articulate and cultured.

    In the mean time I've carefully, diligently laid the groundwork for a career outside of the academy. Largely as a result of my attachment to elite academic institutions, I’ve frequently had the chance to spend time with successful intellectuals, writers, artists and even some government officials, businessmen, lawyers, etc. and I can say that the training I’ve received as a graduate student in philosophy has enabled me to think and speak with them as an equal, and in the process, I’ve made valuable career contacts. It is true that my department gets an incredible amount of cheap labor from me and my colleagues, and if I were counting on a TT teaching job, I’d be living in a state of acute anxiety, but for me at least, graduate study in philosophy has been an incredible boon.

    I will say, however, that the majority of philosophy grad students I know are not so clear-eyed about the difficulty of the TT job market, and very few departments do much of anything to prepare their grad students for life outside of the academy. I actually think that the current model of graduate education could be sustained if departments were to help their students to see a graduate philosophy education as a liberal arts degree, not a professional one. Medical school is about becoming a doctor. Does philosophy grad school need to be about becoming a professor?

    Reply
  24. Sabrina Bano Jamil

    I find it quite surprising that no one has yet taken issue with the claim that:

    "#2. What can I do with a philosophy degree?

    Whereas an undergraduate degree in philosophy can prepare you for law school and hence for enormous financial opportunities, a graduate degree in philosophy can prepare you for only one thing (besides understanding your place in the world better): being a professor of philosophy."

    I think many folks have successfully pursued careers outside of philosophy after completing a graduate degree successfully. Many people I know with MAs or PhDs in Philosophy (including myself) have been well-prepared for work in a number of other fields, where our analytical, argumentative, and writing skills are in high demand. I know people who have finished graduate degrees in Philosophy and secured jobs in Publishing/Editing, Higher Education Administration, Civil Service, etc.

    Although I ultimately returned to a college teaching career, I have held jobs outside of philosophy in Copy Writing & Editing, Banking, and Higher Education Administration (the last one at CU Boulder, actually), and it was because of my graduate degree I was able to get interviews for these jobs.

    There are a lot of ways to procure the skills necessary for those fields; pursuing a philosophy degree at the graduate level is one excellent way of acquiring and refining them. Paired with a sensible understanding of the non-academic job market, I believe graduate students do indeed learn skills via their training as philosophers that uniquely qualify them to pursue many non-faculty positions.

    It's true that many of these positions don't require a graduate degree; my job at CU Boulder required only a HS Diploma and some job experience. However, the folk who interviewed and ultimately hired me wanted someone far more educated, because that meant the employee would have a range of skills important to interacting with students and higher-ups, and an understanding of the academy, that someone without a graduate degree might not posess.

    Beyond that, those outside jobs played a crucial role in my ultimately getting a TT Faculty (of the apparently less lovely "teaching" sort). My experiences help me work with and relate to our student population.

    My guess is that most students who can't find academic jobs hesitate to seek academic jobs, mostly because they believe what Huemer says here — that graduate degrees only prepare you for being a professor. Thus, students not only have no inkling that they might be able to find jobs in some other way, but no idea of how to apply, interview, and generally market themselves for those jobs.

    Reply
  25. John W. Komdat

    As an undergraduate (presumably someone Professor Huemer intended to reach), I wish he would have entertained some other motivations for entering graduate school. While a PhD in philosophy may qualify one for being a professor of philosophy, that is clearly not the only job someone with a PhD can get. Can't someone pursue a PhD in philosophy so that she can spend a hectic couple of years completely devoting her life to philosophy? And does earning a PhD in philosophy put her at that great a disadvantage in the non-academic world? I would certainly rather do something I enjoy and be poor than go to law school and be wealthy. Is graduate school such a bad idea (assuming it's something I'd enjoy)?

    I think our (young philosophers', under the guidance of real philosophers) efforts should be spent discovering ways to survive happily with a philosophically enriched life. We don't all want to become professors.

    Reply
  26. Owen Flanagan

    Here are some more examples of people who moved after tenure to PhD granting institutions: Bill Bechtel from GSU to WashU to UCSD, Ken Winkler from Wellesley to Yale, David B. Wong, Brandeis to Duke, and Owen Flanagan from Wellesley to Duke. Long ago, Richard Rorty moved pre-tenure from Wellesley to Princeton.

    BL COMMENT: I'm not quite sure the relevance of this–all these folks came from research-oriented departments. And prior to the big expansion of higher education in the 1960s, it was extremely common for leading researchers (like Rorty, who by the way moved pre-tenure) to move from liberal arts colleges to research universities.

    Reply
  27. Anon

    I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff Wisdom. At my grad program, many of the professors never missed an opportunity to badmouth teaching jobs, and — even though I did my undergrad at a small non-research school where the teachers where treated like demi-gods — eventually I adopted their view myself. When my first job turned out to be a teaching one, I spent the first year or two suffering from this attitude: I was very dissatisfied with my lot in life, and kept thinking about how I could move up. Eventually, because of my undergrad background perhaps, I was able to get over it, and start to enjoy what has turned out to be a pretty great place. My conclusions: (1) you gradually adopt the priorities of the place you've been at for several years, to the exclusion of all else: you may imbibe the research-oriented attitude at your graduate school, but at a teaching school you might in fact gradually take on a completely different outlook; and (2) be skeptical of the portrait of teaching jobs given by those who have spent their whole careers at research institutions.

    Reply
  28. Job-seeker

    @John W. Komdat: I used to think like you, until reality crept in during my final couple of years of graduate study culminating in my going on the market this year. My admittedly cynical but sober advice is to stay away from this profession.

    Reply
  29. Christian Michel

    What Prof. Huemer describes looks pretty much like career dynamics in investment banking or management consulting. It is interesting (but not surprising) that a profession like philosophy is not exempted from profane competitiveness. Prof. Huemer is right to make this aspect of the sociology of academic philosophy clear to prospective PhDs.

    On the other hand, the range of motivations to study a PhD is indeed much broader than Prof. Huemer suggests; this has already been mentioned in previous comments. But let me also draw your attention to a number of mature students known to me in the UK going for a PhD (in top ranked schools), simply because they are highly enthusiastic about philosophy and want to do research.

    To relief a bit the pressure from those students that desire to do serious philosophical research, wouldn't it be good and enriching for the profession to foster and support more independent scholarship? (I haven't seen many independent scholars being published in top journals. But maybe this is because they are few or because they produce nothing worthwhile?

    Reply
  30. A grad who prefers anonymity

    Given the scarcity of and competition for places in graduate program, I don't know that a more relaxed attitude about graduate students discovering themselves is called for. If there weren't dozens of students of who desperately wanted that slot, maybe we could be more relaxed about students just learning some more philosophy and going on their merry way. And there isn't a parallel here to larger selective institutions, because we're dealing with such small numbers.

    Reply
  31. John W. Komdat

    @Job-seeker: What changed when reality crept in? Are you still pursuing philosophy as a profession? Does staying away from that profession entail not attending graduate school?

    Reply
  32. Satisfied Phd Student

    RE a grad who prefers anonymity
    Even though there are just a very few that can go to PhD programs given most class size the reality is that there are probably more people getting PhDs in philosophy than there are jobs. In fact, I take it that part of the reason (but certainly not the only one) that there are so few slots is because of the low number of jobs in academics. If more people pursued the PhD understanding that they may not go into academics, then it would probably be okay to have larger class sizes.

    BL COMMENT: This particular exchange is at an end, thanks.

    Reply
  33. Job-seeker

    @John W. Komdat: I am still pursuing philosophy, and I hope to get a tenure track job, though given how bad things are I am also pursuing non-academic options. Part of what changed were my life preferences along the way. It turns out I really do want a family, and that my significant other really can't (very easily) just travel across the country with me from VAP to VAP (assuming I can even land those) before landing permanently in some undesirable location. It also turns out I'd like to live close to my immediate family so my parents can enjoy spending time with their grandchildren, and their grandchildren can enjoy spending time with them. I have no money. I'm 30. My friends have all spent the last decade attainting some measure of financial security. I don't know if I'd say I have regrets, but I am quite ambivalent about my situation. My advice is not to go to graduate school unless you get into a top 10 Leiter program and don't have the preferences I have right now. Of course, if you're like me, your preferences may change. Good luck.

    Reply
  34. Charles Pigden

    Nobody so far has commented on the most depressing of Professor Huemer's observations – that your insightful articles will not change the face of philosophy because the chances are that nobody will read them. Are there any statistics on the average readership or the average citation rate of journal articles in philosophy after ten or twenty years?

    Reply
  35. 3rd yr grad student

    Huemer's q&a, as well as several comments in this and previous threads, suggest that many philosophy graduate students expect to be content only with "the best", or a research position at a prestigious school. Now there are certainly advantages to such a position: time to write, early career mentorship from excellent philosophers, stimulating grad students and alert undergrads. I am a graduate student myself and I only have experience at departments like this, so I can't claim to know first hand whether it would be disappointing to work at a school that did not provide much time to write, mentorship, etc.

    I do desire a job with these benefits, but I can certainly image a happy life in philosophy without such a job.

    Two questions. (1) I'd like to ask early career philosophers at non-research universities, does your job provide opportunities to do philosophy in a satisfying way? (2) And to senior philosophers with experience mentoring graduate students and undergrads planning to go on in philosophy, do your students really have this "the best or bust" approach to their futures?

    Reply
  36. Wes McMichael

    I take it that I'm Professor Huemer's worst-case-scenario, but it really doesn't feel like that to me.

    I'm really glad I didn't have Professor Huemer advise me when I began my PhD program. I did everything wrong, according to conventional wisdom. I went to an unranked PhD program (i.e. because it was the only one that accepted me) without funding and took out monster-loans my first year before getting funded. I'm so glad I did.

    It took me only a few weeks to figure out that I would never be like my professors, no matter how hard I tried. They were all freakishly intelligent, elite among elite. I just loved studying philosophy within my own intellectual limitations. I loved how studying it changed me. I can analyze arguments, recognize flaws and fallacies, formulate strong arguments for my own positions, etc. I feel that I'm a better person for having studied philosophy.

    Last year, I accepted a tenure-track position teaching humanities at a small community college in a small town (what many would consider the worst of the worst, I guess). Finishing my dissertation will be a challenge, given my 5-5 load, but I'm still excited about it.

    Would I love to be a professor at a prestigious research university instead of teaching at a community college? If I was someone else, sure. If I was as clever and original as the philosophers I admire, I probably wouldn't be satisfied with my position. But, I'm not, and I'm okay with that. I know I don't have what it takes to publish in top journals and have a lot of people interested in what I say. I would be miserable if I tried it (and would fail).

    But, I can teach philosophy. I get to read all of you research folk and learn more about the field. I talk about your work in my classes (sometimes just to say, "Now, I've simplified things a little here, Professor X at University Y actually has a really cool new theory that concludes Z, but that's something you can pursue if you transfer somewhere else and take an upper division class in this stuff"). I can't do what many of you do, but I really love talking about philosophy, and I'm a good teacher! I can turn my students onto philosophy, and they can transfer to your schools and learn from you. I'm not a researcher, but I feel that I have a role to play in the field. I'm not you, but I admire you, and I can get bright students interested in your work.

    I hate that positions like mine are not valued. Those of us plugging away in community colleges and teaching schools contribute to our discipline in important ways unconnected to research. One of my own professors was introduced to philosophy at a community college and went on to get his PhD from a top-10 program and has made important research contributions. It was someone like me, though, who got him interested in the first place, and that's valuable too, right?

    It's disappointing when I hear people I admire speak so disparagingly of those of us who simply aren't suited for research positions but can add to the field in different ways. I couldn't stop smiling my first three weeks of classes at my new job, but I would have been embarrassed to list it on this blog's tenure-track hires (are people even allowed to list community college jobs?) because of the comments I've seen here.

    Maybe there is a better way to advise students in this area, one that doesn't discredit the contributions of those not suited for research but who are valuable in other ways.

    Reply
  37. Keith DeRose

    The terminology of "research" vs. "teaching" positions may be a bit misleading to those who don't yet have the relevant experience. "Research" positions — at least any you're at all likely to land right out of graduate school; or, really, just about any tenure-track or tenured position you're likely to ever have — include about as much teaching as just about anybody wants to do. I think there are very few, even among those who most love teaching, who would want to teach more than 2 courses per term — who would, for instance, turn down a reduction to that load if they were scheduled to do more than that. (Love of teaching seldom manifests itself in a desire for a quantity of teaching-at-a-time greater than that. Better to do less, but be able to pour more energy into each class one does teach.) So if you love to teach philosophy, don't think ill of "research" jobs because the name makes you think you'll be missing out on teaching. And many who have "research" jobs love the (plenty substantial enough) teaching aspect of what they do. What makes some jobs better for those whose real love is just teaching is not a heavier teaching load per se, but what often accompanies it: lower expectations for what research one will get done. "Research" jobs with 2/2 or 2/3 loads usually come with very heavy research expectations, which could prevent some from putting the energy they'd like to into their teaching. So such candidates might prefer jobs that have have slightly higher teaching loads, along with lower research expectations. In fact, some 3/3 jobs might be very well suited to some who *do* put a high priority on doing research. Many (most, maybe almost all, right?) 2/2 research jobs are at departments that have PhD programs, and administering a full-service PhD program brings along with it a lot of work for the faculty. This is work with PhD students that most at such jobs find very rewarding, but it does often take a lot of time. Some might have *more* time to do their own research at a job with a somewhat higher teaching load, but no PhD program.

    Reply
  38. Pete

    @Wes McMichael. You do not represent the worst-case scenario. You have a job.

    Reply
  39. Mark Couch

    Wes,

    I think your work is quite valuable. I too know of several people who started taking classes at a community college, and went on to other highly rated programs (e.g., Berkeley, Columbia, etc.). But this is not even the main thing. If you enjoy teaching philosophy then I would think you have an excellent job for that. And notice that, in some ways, you can have more impact than someone who teaches classes to only a few students a year at a research-oriented job; the larger number of students you teach means you are reaching a larger number of people and exposing them to the ideas of philosophy. You can also still publish a little, do book reviews, serve on curriculum committees, defend the value of the liberal arts, etc. There are lots of ways to make a contribution to the field.

    Reply
  40. V. Alan White

    Professor Huemer has done us a great service by giving voice to the present state of the profession in terms of how prospective grad students should form realistic expectations about their futures. (And Professor Leiter deserves credit as well for publicizing it.) But perhaps of greater value he has given us a chance to review possible futures of the profession in a more critical light.

    He is obviously right to point out that today most philosophers will not garner heavy research positions with light teaching loads, and those that do will not teach many students in very specialized grad seminars.

    He is obviously right that almost all the work of researchers will lapse into the dust-bin of history. For all the explosion of the profession beginning in the mid-20th century, who among us since then will be remembered as making a significant contribution to philosophy a 100 years from now? A handful at best.

    In light of these (I think) indisputable facts, the question arises–how best will the profession be served in the long run, especially given the prospect of extended economic pressures on institutions of higher learning?

    As indicated in some of the comments above, I think the answer is obvious: at all graduate school levels promote the prestige of high-quality teaching as much as the prestige of high-quality research that has been more traditionally valued. In purely utilitarian terms, the more undergrads who become excited about critically thinking through things in their philosophy courses will not only better represent the profession's commitment to the values of reason and argument to society, but they will also just make society better through the sheer increase of their numbers. But ANON 4:41 has a cautionary tale for us: how many capable philosophers who might have otherwise excelled in the classroom miserably flailed among their undergrad charges because they had been sold the research-is-everything bill of goods about worthiness as a philosopher? If we build into most graduate students the belief that getting a TT 4/4 schedule is tantamount to having failed in the profession, we will have stunted the real contribution that solid, committed teaching professors might have made with instilled pride and encouragement in what they do. There is indeed at present a form of trickle-down professional hubris that research trumps all-and Huemer is wise to remind us that that hubris is baseless in real life as far as numbers are concerned. So why not let real life facts adjust our collective attitudes about the value of teaching?

    I know that all this may be just wishful thinking given how greed-driven media forces have marginalized anything like real reflection in the public sphere-but I suppose I'm idealistic enough to think that we ought to press for greater appreciation for what we have to contribute. Civil and rational public discourse is worth fighting for. Who better than philosophers to be on the front lines?

    And yes, I know the problems of implementing such changes. The APA, for example, would itself have to change pretty radically, highlighting excellence in teaching a lot more than it presently does. Prevalent attitudes in the profession about the value of research as somehow opposed to pedagogy would have to change too, and ultimately I suppose that would mean generational change (Kuhn might be wrong on lots of things–but not that sociological fact). Given that the current K-12 preparation of students for reflective college-level work is so downright appalling also makes the practicalities of getting anyone like today's average frosh to become a convert to the joys of philosophy quite a challenge to say the least.

    But if we do not collectively try to make more people see that what we do is one of the most important of human activities, then our profession will itself be remaindered for lack of interest just as surely as are most philosophical monographs.

    Reply
  41. Matthew Kramer

    In light of his question, Charles Pigden may be pleased to learn that I profited greatly 2-3 years ago from reading his excellent 1989 article on "Logic and the Autonomy of Ethics." (I discuss that article in the first chapter of my 2009 book on moral realism.)

    Similarly, Wes McMichael may be pleased to learn that just last week I defended community colleges along the lines that he suggests. When my interlocutor disparaged the American system of higher education for containing such a long tail of lackluster institutions, I replied that it's a mistake to think of those institutions as aspiring research universities that have miserably fallen short of achieving their ambitions. Their aims are quite different. Many of my contemporaries from my home town would never have benefited from attending Harvard or Princeton or Oxbridge, but they became intellectually richer through their attendance at community colleges. Institutions that produce such results shouldn't be denigrated. (I'm not suggesting that Michael Huemer was denigrating them; his amusing comments don't strike me as derogatory at all.)

    Reply
  42. John Schwenkler

    To "3rd yr grad student" at 2:19, let me echo some of what's just been said by answering yes, yes, by all means yes to your first question. Teaching undergraduates, when approached not as a distraction from the "real" work of philosophy but rather as an important philosophical task in itself, can be immensely rewarding and intellectually stimulating, even when a significant proportion of your students come in disengaged and intellectually unprepared for the kind of work you want to demand of them. Good teaching demands the very same levels of thoughtfulness and creativity as good philosophical writing, but it is done less in solitude and with the effects more immediately apparent. Plus, at least unless your load is greater than 4/4 or your classes especially huge, there is nearly always time left over to do significant philosophical writing, so long as that's something that really matters to you.

    Reply
  43. Michael Vogel

    Somewhat removed from the main topic at hand, I would expand on other non-academic careers besides law for young graduates. I've seen former philosophy students prosper in business consulting, finance, education, media… basically any field that does not require specific vocational training such as engineering or medicine. They often bring a big picture view and a clear sense of consequences to the professional world. Please, let's stop encouring law school as the only option for liberal arts majors.

    Reply
  44. Junior Undergraduate

    Wow, reading this article has virtually ruined my night. My future, or at least my vaguely imagined future, seems to be as dim as ever. Having been cursed with an undying love for philosophy, I cannot see myself anywhere else but academia (an attitude which I am told is self-destructive, but nonetheless have little control over). The author's remarks have made me seriously question my ability as a philosopher, my ability to get into a good graduate program, and my ability to achieve my professional goals. While I get excellent grades in all my philosophy courses, I still wonder if I have the philosophical chops to thrive in graduate school and also get where I want professionally. It's all just terribly discouraging and only increases my anxiety about applying to graduate programs as where I am accepted would seem to determine my entire professional career. Any words of encouragement or advice for a naive and anxious mind? Is my best bet getting into a top ranked program at all costs?

    BL COMMENT: Bear in mind that, as I and others have noted, Professor Huemer's spin on various things may be excessively negative. Getting into a strong and reputable program is, of course, the best bet for professional prospects down the line. But you should also discuss the possibilities and prospects with those who know you best, your teachers.

    Reply
  45. another undergrad

    Contrary to the other undergraduate, reading this hasn't ruined my night. At the end of the faq, Huemer makes the remark that if you find the idea of getting paid to talk about philosophy amazing, then you might do well in the profession of philosophy. For me, I already spend a great deal of my time boring my friends talking about logic or questioning their assumptions, and I can't think of anything I'd rather do than talk about philosophy.

    Like Wes McMichael seemed to talk about, it doesn't matter where I go to graduate school or where I end up teaching, as long as I get to talk about philosophy. Of course I want to go to the best graduate program and teach at a top 20 school, but to me at least, that is nowhere near as important as being able to talk about philosophy! I remember my first philosophy professor in community college, who came from a now top 10 school – He was the happiest and best professor I had there, and is one of the reasons I decided to pursue philosophy as my major when I transferred. There is a lot of good to be found in places like this, and I don't think I would find teaching community college any less enjoyable than at prestigious research university.

    The love of wisdom should be more important than my own ego. Isn't there more to the profession than the best? That faq doesn't detour me at all in my quest to go to grad school for philosophy.

    Reply
  46. Benj Hellie

    Lots of claims like 'you are very unlikely to A'. Big reference-class problem here: yeah, undergraduates as a whole are very unlikely to A, so if all we are willing to presuppose about S is that they are an undergraduate student, we should judge S very unlikely to A.

    But why isn't it OK to presuppose more about S? Maybe S is a philosophy and physics double major doing very well at Yale; maybe S is less technically capable and in a less connected institution with less talented teachers and a less stimulating educational environment. While perhaps the latter student would be well served by Huemer's judgements of probability, the former surely would not.

    Reply
  47. Anon job seeker

    @Junior undergraduate: It's much better to find this out now than after devoting 6-8 years of your life working your tail off and pouring your heart and soul into philosophy. From my experience, your take on this is roughly correct: do whatever you can to get into a top 10 or maybe 15 program, or at least a program that is top 5-10 in your specialty. This is the deal breaker. If neither of these happens, don't go to grad school unless you are willing to accept the strong possibility that you won't get a job in academia.

    As someone is sure to point out, of course there are exceptions to this rule. The question is whether you're willing to stake the next 6 or so years of your life on the possibility that you might happen to be an exception to the rule. Prestige of Ph.D-granting institution and letter writers seems to count for nearly everything these days–far more than even publications, as Huemer correctly points out.

    @Another undergrad: I admire your love of philosophy and teaching. But you need to consider the possibility that you won't get any kind of job–not even a 5-5 load at a community college. Many extremely good philosophers–including some that are outstanding teachers and have won awards–are coming away without any interviews this year. Outstanding teaching at the graduate level, and genuine concern for one's undergraduates, is not a sufficient condition for getting a job, or even an interview. This is the case not only at large research universities, but also at a lot of smaller colleges as well.

    Reply
  48. Anon job seeker

    Clarification: I should have said "outstanding teaching as a graduate student" in the last sentence.

    Reply
  49. Dru S

    As a second year graduate student, I'm familiar with the sentiment of Huemer's piece. However I have a a complaint which I haven't seen mentioned above.

    The idea that one could claim to want to become a professor but not want to be paid primarily to teach seems to me a performative contradiction. Certainly having as much time to work on research has appeal, I'm not contesting this. However, philosophy professorships only exist because of their teaching component. Unlike other programs, our PhD's are only provide one service for non-philosophers. That service is teaching intro philosophy courses to people who will grow up to ignore most of what was said in ethics 101.

    I take this as support for Huemer's claim that an undergrad is terrible confused if they expect to be at the "top" of the field in terms of research. However, it should be pointed out that the tone of these sorts of lectures also has a background assumption that one must be terribly confused if they don't want a research position. That is, these things always leave me feeling as if the profession assumes that wanting to work at a university to teach classes at that university is both naive and illogical. Most professors I've spoken to about careers treat the phrase "4-4" almost as a slur.

    I think it would be productive for these type of lectures to make a distinction between well-recognized authors in philosophy and good professional academics. The first is certainly a subset of the second, but (as Huemer argues) a necessarily small one. It seems like these speeches only discuss that "top" small percent. For those of us aspiring to the profession, it would be useful not just to hear about the likelihood of not making that top, but also to hear about how things really are for the other 90-something percent of professional academic philosophers.

    This especially applies to people such as myself, who are interested in teaching. In regards to teaching philosophy, the most common advice I receive from philosophers is "Don't tell anyone you want to teach, if you want to get a job as a philosopher. They only hire researchers."

    Reply
  50. John Schwenkler

    @ Dru S: The advice you're receiving isn't very good. There are many places where excellence in teaching is regarded as vastly more important than excellence in research, and where hearing that a candidate wants to teach is an essentially non-negotiable prerequisite for that candidate's being hired.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress