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. Claudio's avatar

    I teach both large courses, like Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thinking (a.k.a Legal Argumentation), and small seminar-based courses at Edinburgh…

  2. Charles Pigden's avatar

    Surely there is an answer to the problem of AI cheating which averts the existential threat. . It’s not great,…

  3. Mark's avatar

    I’d like to pose a question. Let’s be pessimistic for the moment, and assume AI *does* destroy the university, at…

  4. A in the UK's avatar
  5. Jonathan Turner's avatar

    I agree with all of this. The threat is really that stark. The only solution is indeed in-class essay exams,…

  6. Craig Duncan's avatar
  7. Ludovic's avatar

    My big problem with LLMs at the present time, apart from being potentially the epitome of Foucault’s panopticon & Big…

Master’s Degrees, Postdocs, and the Hyperprofessionalization of Philosophy (Kukla)

Rkukla

Hi everyone!  I am
grateful to Brian for giving me the honor of guest-blogging here again. It’s
been about a year and a half since my last stint, and there have been all sorts
of vigorous and controversial discussions going on in the discipline since
then; I hope to touch on several of them over the next week.

In the mean time I will start with something seasonally
appropriate, as this year’s job market starts to wind down just as the Amazing
Graduate Admissions Race hurdles towards its April 15th climax.

I’ve been on the graduate admissions committee at Georgetown
for the last several years. It is striking to me what a hefty – and I think
growing – percentage of the students we admit are coming out of terminal MA
programs, or in some cases other sorts of graduate programs. The large majority
of the people we admitted this year had some graduate training already. My informal
sense is that it’s getting hard for undergraduates to compete for spots in PhD programs. And
while I have no numbers, I know it’s not just us, because top-ranked programs
like Pitt, Stanford, and NYU keep scooping our admits (curses!). A quick glance
at the placement records of good terminal MA programs like Georgia State and Tufts reaffirms that students with MAs are nabbing top PhD spots, although that’s not
comparative data obviously.

Anyhow all this seems to me to be a sea-change. Doing a
terminal MA in the US was quite uncommon back when I was a grad student, and it
certainly wasn’t any kind of prerequisite for getting into a good PhD program, to understate the point.

Meanwhile, though again I have no systematic data, clearly
more people are doing postdocs before they settle into tenure track jobs.  There are 29 postdocs listed so far on this Brian’s
annual list of hires and I suspect there will be many more to come. This too is a sea change.

It’s unclear to me what is driving all this. Why are people doing terminal MAs? Why are people funding philosophy
postdocs? (It’s not mysterious why people are taking them.) 

It seems to me that one clear co-traveling phenomenon is a
sharp increase in professionalization among young philosophers. I am certainly
blown away by how professionalized the PhD applications are from the top people
coming out of MA programs; these people have mastered the form and tone of
professional philosophical writing and often have several conference presentations
and even publications. I can’t tell how much is cause and how much is effect
here, although surely the causality goes both ways. (Students need MAs to be professionalized enough
to compete, partly because so many of their competitors have MAs…) And on the
other end, people coming out of postdocs and into tenure-track jobs have
mind-blowingly impressive cvs. The post-doc model is clearly pushing us more in
the direction of the sciences, which traditionally have a different publication
rhythm than we do.

My question is, what should we make of all this? What are the
upsides and downsides of this kind of professionalization and this new and
increasingly routine trajectory? How if at all is it changing our evaluative standards? What are the consequences for people’s lives
of extending the whole path to a secure job at both ends? We might think about
two sorts of questions here:

  • Does this all make for better or worse
    philosophy getting done, in the end? Or neither?
  • If a terminal MA and a postdoc become standard
    parts of the career path, might this create disadvantages (or advantages) for
    already-vulnerable would-be philosophers, such as people from working class
    backgrounds, or people with family responsibilities?

My own tentative view is that things cut both ways on both sets of questions. Anyhow, thoughts? I’d love to hear from anyone, but it would be
especially interesting to hear from people who have recently chosen to do MAs and/or postdocs.

UPDATE: Some people are posting anonymous comments using fake email addresses. I am not going to post those. Some of these seem to me to be completely reasonable comments, and I encourage people to re-post using a real email address (and ideally your name, but that's not necessarily a deal breaker). 

UPDATE: See above update.

Leave a Reply to Jasper Cancel reply

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

50 responses to “Master’s Degrees, Postdocs, and the Hyperprofessionalization of Philosophy (Kukla)”

  1. Anon future MA student

    As someone who is currently choosing between terminal MA programs, the biggest issue–in my mind–is the limited funding options that many such programs offer (Georgia State being a prime exception). In their current state, most MA programs are quite expensive. Because I've already been offered some funding packages, I can thankfully say that getting an MA won't push me (deep) into debt and will hopefully allow me to go to a school strong in my specialty down the line, but I imagine that most people applying to such programs aren't as lucky, either because the funding packages aren't as generous or because they aren't able to choose between different programs.

    Reply
  2. Ant Eagle

    "Why are people funding philosophy postdocs?"

    In Europe (inc. UK) and Australia, at least, the pressure within universities for researchers to apply for competitive external research funding, coupled with the fact that the external funding schemes on offer are modelled on (or, in Australia's case, are the same scheme as) funding schemes for the sciences. It's easier to get funding for a post-doc in association with a big research project in Australia than it is to get a year of externally funded teaching relief. I think the pressure that everyone apply for external funding is less in the US, but the writing is surely on the wall. From the perspective of the PI on the grant, too, there's lots of reason to ask for funding for a post-doc if you can: it's always good to have smart recent grads around, working on the same sort of thing as you, and the administrative downside to having one around is generally small.

    I don't think it's particularly healthy for the discipline. (I don't think it's healthy in the sciences, which exhibits many sad cases of mid-career post-docs, who've survived a decade or more on post-docs, who find themselves suddenly without a job and without any clear alternative career when the funding dries up.) We know there aren't enough permanent jobs for all the PhDs being produced; there aren't enough permanent jobs to employ all the post-docs we're now creating. But we are encouraging more people into thinking that a permanent career in philosophy might await them, if not after this post-doc, then after the next one… And this seems to me a recipe for unnecessary disappointment and resentment, even if sometimes it all ends happily. And unlike the sciences, who need lots of bodies in the lab to actually share in the collaborative work, it's not clear to me that philosophy research proposals wouldn't succeed in their stated aims even without a post-doc attached.

    And of course this is closely linked to the other issue Rebecca mentions in closing: post-docs enshrine a further period of insecurity and impermanence after grad school, at a time when a bit more certainty is to be welcomed for anyone who has or wishes to have a family.

    Reply
  3. AnonUG1

    Hi, I'm a philosophy undergraduate at a relatively unrecognized state school in the U.S. I'm writing with the second question in mind.

    My response to this trend is rather mixed. First off, I plan on pursuing my Ph.D. and have been doing what I've been told is necessary to get there (built relationships with professors, been a research assistant, going to conferences, TAing, and will hopefully have a publication soon). While working with professors I've been told that given the status of our university that most students coming out of our program go to terminal MA programs, and that is where my focus should go. However, given that I've also been told that it looks better to go straight into a Ph.D. program out of your undergrad I've been working primarily with that aim in mind.

    This trend that you've noted gives me some fear that not only due to the status of my school but also competing with those who have MAs already, that my chances of going straight into a Ph.D. program are decreasing. The upside being that having an MA from a different school than a Ph.D. may not act against me when looking for a job after all. Though there is another concern given that I have a serious girlfriend who will be applying to med school soon, and possible living problems this could create with her given the geographical distance between a good MA school (like Tufts) and say a high valued Ph.D. school (like UNC).

    As someone who is planning on applying to grad school in the next year or two, this trend generally makes me feel uneasy about how my future will be playing out weighing social factors with career options, especially since I am a minority first generation college student, and I've been told that my options will likely be few.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous Grad Student

    One thing to note is that some of the advice undergraduates are getting from established philosophers is woefully out of date. It's a common story among other grad students my age that their undergraduate adviser recommended applying to five or six graduate programs, when in reality applying to fifteen or more is far more standard nowadays. Similarly, advisers often suggest going straight for good PhD programs that undergrads don't stand much chance of getting into without an MA (especially if their undergraduate institution is lesser-known). It's hard for undergrads to judge whether their expectations are realistic or not, and advice from older philosophers isn't *always* the most accurate.

    Whether this trend is good or bad, many sleepless nights could be avoided by getting undergraduates in contact with newly-admitted graduate students some time before November, when they are finalizing their lists of prospective schools and starting applications. They know better than anyone the tribulations of the admissions process.

    Reply
  5. Landon Schurtz

    I don't know much about the terminal MA programs, but to the extent that they are non- or minimally-funded AND also offer an advantage in admission to PhD programs, there will be a definite negative effect on students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, which I think would tend to negatively affect the diversity of the discipline. I know that at many points during my grad school education I was in dire financial straits, only barely managing to scrape by with help from my family; I also know that even though my family isn't wealthy, there are plenty of students whose family situations are far less salubrious than my own. If terminal MA programs are non- or minimally-funded, they'll have much the same effect as prestigious but unpaid internships do in the business world – creating an "inside track" to better jobs (ceteris paribus) that can only be taken advantage of by those who are already affluent.

    Reply
  6. Fritz Allhoff

    At Western Michigan University, we have a strong M.A. program and have been averaging around six or so placements into ranked Ph.D. programs for several years. As to why people come to our program, there are generally two reasons. First, some people went to very small schools–e.g., places that many of us career academics haven't heard of–and don't have the training, faculty, or brand recognition to compete straight into Ph.D. programs. Second, some people went to big name schools and did poorly; whether for personal reasons, bad decisions, or whatever. (The placement for the latter group is, in my view, substantially stronger than for the former group.) Much less common than either of these scenarios is a student who got into a Ph.D. program out of undergrad and just wanted to upgrade; this does happen from time to time, but not often.

    So my sense is that the M.A. programs–or at least ours–are boosting the competitiveness of non-competitive students. One question for the profession might be whether we need more competitive students, or whether the added cohort ends up sustaining unranked programs, unemployed philosophers, etc. My personal view is that the problem isn't there being too many M.A. programs, but rather there being too many Ph.D. programs: the top 50 programs have a hard enough job placing students, so what's the point of the rest? Just large-university economics (i.e., graduate students are cheaper than faculty)? I think that helps to answer the post-doc question as well (i.e., post-docs are cheaper than faculty, though obviously the former don't always have to teach). But, for the M.A. programs, a big part of the answer is that they're helping to level a playing field and to bring up students that wouldn't otherwise be getting in.

    Reply
  7. Joe Rouse

    I have seen this pattern from the other side, counseling undergraduates considering graduate school, and it looks like a robust phenomenon, manifest from that direction also. There are already many barriers or hurdles confronting those considering academic careers, and this will certainly increase them if it becomes part of the standard route into the profession. It certainly complicates two-body (or 2+-body) problems for those seeking to conjoin relationships with an academic career. In addition to the very good issues Rebecca raises, there is also the question of what effect such changes might have on the kinds of research that people undertake. Will it lead to more narrow specialization? Will it encourage the kinds of broader background knowledge that might set sophisticated technical work in a larger philosophical context? I don't know the answer to those questions, either, but it would be worth finding out.

    Reply
  8. David Chalmers

    I'll hazard an answer the first question: it makes for more good philosophy and less great philosophy.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    I think the most important issue here is the second one Prof. Kukla mentions. Getting an MA in philosophy is something very few people can afford. Many MA programs offer no funding at all. At their most generous, they give students a stipend of a few thousand dollars a year. In both cases, students will need to put many thousands of dollars (sometimes tens of thousands) towards either tuition, living expenses, or both before they can complete the degree. It goes without saying that few people have such resources, especially among recent college graduates, who tend to have very little money of their own, and often have tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt already. From what I can tell, there is no external funding available for students pursuing an MA in philosophy. The upshot is that MA students will largely be (with, I'm certain, countless exceptions) ones who have access to financial resources that few people have. As a result, the greater the extent to which an MA is a precondition for entry into strong philosophy programs, the greater the extent to which such programs will be exclusive of people who, to put it bluntly, aren't rich, or at least not rich enough to put down tens of thousands of dollars on the wager that an MA will be a ticket into a strong PhD program.

    Philosophy has begun to make serious efforts to be less exclusive of women and people of color – or, at least, the discipline has increasingly given lip service to the idea that such efforts are necessary. If the current trend persists, however, there will be a very wide demographic of people who are barred from the profession, not simply by insensitivity, bias and neglect, but because they simply cannot pay the cost of entry. I'm very glad to hear someone call attention to this, but saddened by the fact that it's the first time I've heard anyone do so.

    Reply
  10. Anonymous grad

    The old saw about MA programs being prohibitively expensive needs to be buried as soon as possible. I know myself from having been in such a program and from receiving financial offers from four or five of the better ones. In general, most programs give you free tuition, possibly insurance, and maybe 10k/year (in exchange for teaching). Tufts makes you pay something like 15k total and you can partially recoup this in the approx 15k one makes in TAships over the year. So that's not great, but it's not even CLOSE to the cost of even a year of undergraduate tuition at most state schools. For my part, anyone willing to spend two years of their life in this endeavor is seriously lacking in commitment or resourcefulness if like 15k in debt (worst case scenario) is an overwhelming burden. In all likelihood you'll have much less debt than that or none.

    Far worse than any up front cost is the opportunity cost if you fail to get into PhD or don't like it. And this happens frequently. From the looks of things, maybe a bit less than 50% of most cohorts at top MAs move to PhD and about half of those people place at "destination" schools (2-3/year out of 10-12). While having a 25% or less chance at your risk "paying off" is not great, it's not obviously different from the situation with PhD. In fact, it could be thought to be much LESS risky because it's only two years and not 5-6. So, if you're going to complain about MA being expensive, consider making 30k/year over 5-6 years instead of 50-60k/year, which one could outside academe if you have any kind of marketable skill. Even if I only made 40k/year on the outside, I still lose out on 50k over the five years. And, moreover, for PhD the academic and job "pay-out" rate is even WORSE than MA—it's much harder to get a job at a "destination school" than to get into a PhD program at such an institution, for instance.

    Quickly summing up: I'm claiming that the overall financial disincentives of doing an MA, even at schools with relatively shitty funding, are not obviously worse than those of PhD.

    Reply
  11. Bence

    You're asking: "Why are people funding philosophy postdocs?"
    I'm not sure how serious this question is supposed to be, but here is my answer:

    1. Because it's very good for young philosophers to be able to spend a couple of years doing research only and building up a publication record before snowed under all kinds of teaching and admin duties.

    2. Because, like it or not (well, like it!), philosophy is moving closer and closer to the model that natural sciences are following – and there it is incredibly important for a young researcher to familiarize herself with different research environments. So a postdoc position between the PhD and the first job means that the researcher learns yet another way of conducting research. So there is more chance that the prejudices that are there in every PhD program will be counteracted by different prejudices at the place where one does one's postdoc. The same goes for philosophy.

    3. Because, given how awful the job market is, this is a way in which we can support young philosophers – by offering them some funding until they find a permanent position. So the real question should be: why people/departments who are in the position to do so are NOT funding postdocs?

    Reply
  12. European postdoc

    I am a postdoc at a European university outside of the UK. In Europe it is indeed increasingly the norm to have postdocs, often multiple postdocs, before landing the tenured position. As Dr Eagle remarked, this is in part due to the structuring of research around grants, but also due to the extreme scarcity of full time tenured jobs (most positions in continental Europe are still permanent, or open-ended, without a tenure track phase). Let me focus on the disadvantages:
    1. It is not uncommon for European (such as German, Dutch etc) philosophers to be on several short-term postdoc positions for anywhere between 3 and 12 years. I've seen several people at the end of the line in their late 30s, early 40s. By then, their PhD has gone stale (it takes a bit longer than in the US, but the staleness issue plays) to get a permanent job, and by then they are often also perceived too senior to be considered for other postdoc positions. Project directors prefer people fresh out of grad school, or with max 1-3 years postdoc experience. I've known people who were given the advice "not to apply for postdocs anymore" by the SC, given that they were +3 years out of grad school. When a postdoc reaches this point, she is overspecialized and often cannot find a satisfactory job outside academia.
    2. Most postdocs are in projects funded by grants, and young postdocs are required to work on very specific topics. Often these topics tend to be those that non-philosophers can see the immediate relevance of, such as applied ethics. As a result, we've now got massive amounts of people specializing in some fields, often interdisciplinary (e.g., applied ethics, neurophilosophy) but other fields get little or no funding, such as metaphysics or medieval philosophy. While I think more interdisciplinarity is a good thing for philosophy, I worry that this leads to neglect of some philosophical topics. I especially worry that continental philosophy is hard hit by this – in continental Europe with its long tradition in CP, this is a pity.
    3. Worrisomely, I notice in some grant-based projects that the PI puts him/herself on every publication that comes out of the project. I've known cases where the PI actively collaborates with postdocs, so that is definitely warranted. But I've known other cases where the PI does nothing, lets the postdocs do all the work, adds a comma and a full stop at the finished manuscript, and then adds their name. They justify this by saying "That way I can get more funding and keep you on for a few more years on a different project". So the postdoc, in a vulnerable position, lets the PI get away with this.
    I know that in physics and other sciences it is common for a project director to do this, but in philosophy we still believe that a co-author has made a substantial contribution to the research. I think this hurts the postdocs' future chances of permanent employment, especially if their best publications tend to be co-authored with a famous PI.

    Reply
  13. Rkukla

    Bence: I am not sure which country you are writing from, but in the US, the 'people' funding postdocs are not typically individual professors who are able to be so directly altruistic. I was wondering why schools and foundations were moving towards funding postdocs in an age when other forms of university funding are contracting. And I intended no implicature that it was a bad thing; I just really wonder! (Though it is not nearly so obvious to me that moving towards a natural science model is all good.)

    Others: So far I've posted a bunch of anonymous comments because their anonymity seems harmless, but if there's no good reason to stay anonymous please don't, k?

    Reply
  14. Richie Whitehead

    To be totally honest, this bums me out: the "hyperprofessionalization" of philosophy.

    I come from a poor working class background. I got into philosophy by stumbling upon Nietzsche's books, then Spinoza. I enrolled in a state undergraduate program, and have enjoyed it. I'm now finishing up my senior year.

    I'm going to continue to read the books that have brought me so much joy and grounds for thinking. But as far as continuing my education on a post-graduate level? It feels more like jockeying for position at social clubs than anything else.

    The thing is, I've put my heart and soul into this degree and have no idea what to do with it, because unless I do saddle up to jockey for position with everyone else, there's really no other option. And law school, these days, seems like a terrible idea, too. I'm told that basically anything I want to do is a bad idea.

    My time machine isn't running yet, but when it does, I'm tempted to tell my old self to stay out of bookstores.

    Reply
  15. John Schwenkler

    I want to second what Dave Chalmers says in #8 above: Increased professionalization tends to lead to lots of good, "safe" philosophy that makes short-term progress within dominant paradigms, but is less likely to encourage philosophy that challenges those paradigms, and whose contribution to philosophy will be seen only in the longer term. Whether one thinks this is a positive development is likely to depend on the extent to which one thinks the dominant paradigms are mostly healthy.

    Reply
  16. Erin T.

    It seems to me that Anonymous grad @ 10 is being far too hasty in dismissing the financial costs of an MA. As they describe it, BEST case scenario involves living on 10K a year, or in the case of Tufts, coming out of TAing with no income beyond that which one owes for tuition. This is, indeed, decidedly "not great," and–this is important, given the increasing prevalence of MA degrees that Rebecca notes–many MA programs do not offer even situations this good. Even taking this best-case scenario description, though, I don't see how we can dismiss how difficult living on such a meager income (often in very expensive cities) is for anyone but people who already have access to significant financial resources–or, how significantly this situation contributes to the problem of crippling student debt. And frankly, I really don't see how we can refer to people who, for whatever reason, can't undertake such a serious financial burden as "seriously lacking in commitment or resourcefulness." This outlook presumes that everyone has a familial safety net, or can get access to thousands of dollars in loans, and doesn't have responsibilities to support children, etc.

    Moreover, I don't think we can ignore the fact that, as the structure of higher education changes, it's likely that more and more people who have spent the money (or incurred the debt) to get MAs, then PhDs (and maybe then post-docs) will never get anything beyond low-paying contingent labor. How can we, in good conscience, expect people to spend even more money or (more often in my experience) accrue thousands of dollars in debt, when we know that it is increasingly likely that this financial burden will not pay off in the long run?

    It may be that MAs are academically worthwhile, and it may be that they are increasing the quality of academic philosophy. But they can also be truly financially disastrous (I say with first-hand experience) or, even in best-case scenarios, cost-prohibitive.

    Reply
  17. Tim O'Keefe

    Anon @9 above writes that "At their most generous, [MA programs] give students a stipend of a few thousand dollars a year.[…] The upshot is that MA students will largely be (with, I'm certain, countless exceptions) ones who have access to financial resources that few people have."

    The first claim isn't true. Georgia State, at its most generous, gives 4 incoming students each year stipends of $15,000 a year for 2 years. And lots of other terminal MA programs in the US, at their most generous, give 2-year packages with stipends above $10K. Now, it's true that most U.S. terminal MA programs admit some people without funding. We don't do that at GSU, but I do think it'd be fair to characterize our standard 1st-year funding of $5000 as "a few thousand dollars," while our standard 2nd-year funding ($10,000) is a bit better than that.

    And while we have a few students from privileged backgrounds, my sense is that that's by far the exception and not the norm (take a look at http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwphi/13046.html for a list of where our grad students received their undergrad degrees). Far from being a way of helping privileged folks who can afford it gain an extra leg up, I think that terminal MA programs largely serve an egalitarian function within philosophy. To the extent that well-regarded PhD programs are status-conscious and risk-averse, good terminal MA programs can help out accomplished students from Southeast Midwest State Tech (Tinytown Campus) get their foot in the door.

    Reply
  18. Matt Drabek

    I think over-professionalism in philosophy has to be connected to broader over-professionalization among young people who are leaving high school and progressing through college. For those of us who haven't applied to undergrad in ages (or even those like me who started 12 years ago), the process looks much, much different now than it once did. Students are over-tested. Their education is now over-standardized. They're filling out college applications that require them to jump through hoops that didn't exist even a decade ago. Far more colleges require admissions essays (I filled out no damn admissions essays 12 years ago, and I was accepted to what I consider to be a very good public university – Indiana University in Bloomington). Far more colleges look for intangibles that are basically code words for "hyper-professional" ("well-rounded applicants," volunteer work, public service, etc.).

    All these things are probably the result of more competition, but the end result is hyper-professionalization. To me, this just means that student are already primed to go into hyper-professionalization overdrive when it comes time to apply to graduate programs in philosophy or whatever else.

    Reply
  19. Anonymous

    When I wrote my comment, Georgia State was actually what I had in mind as the most generous MA I knew. The funding package is incomparably better than any I've seen offered from another MA program. However, $15,000 over two years is still far less than what I would expect anyone apart from a Cynic to have to spend on living expenses, particularly in a major city. You're right that MA programs enable students with otherwise unexceptional academic backgrounds to have a chance at admission to top graduate programs. However, I simply do not see how, without access to money very few recent college graduates could have made on their own, an MA student could possibly make up the gap between whatever money they earn from working while in the program (supposing they earn any at all) and whatever they need to pay in tuition, rent, and so on while attending. This gap will certainly be smaller at Georgia State or a program with similar funding, but I have a hard time imagining that there is any MA program where it is absent or insignificant.

    RK NOTES: This is anonymous from 12:41 am. If people are going to be anonymous please make this kind of tracking easy for readers.

    Reply
  20. Patrick Mayer

    I don't have any data to support this, but here is a possible explanation of an increase in student's seeking terminal MA's. Because of persistent high unemployment and underemployment competition for jobs goes up and people with BA's in philosophy are likely to lose out to those with more vocationally oriented majors, so the job prospects for college graduates from philosophy and fields like philosophy have gotten significantly worse. In such a situation extending your education (which for many of them will mean delaying the date they have to start paying back their loans) is an attractive option in both the near and long term. But the number of spots available in PhD programs that anyone should want to join is not going up. It seems like it is actually going down, and for very good reason (we are producing PhD philosophers like we are a country still experiencing massive growth in the numbers of new universities and undergraduates.) That leaves MA programs, which may not be subject to the same financial limitations that face PhD programs, because the MA students usually have to pay thousands to the university for the right to sit in what would otherwise be an empty chair in the seminar room and to check out books that would otherwise be collecting dust.

    If an increase in demand tied to high unemployment is a significant part of the explanation for the increase in terminal MAs, then I think it needn't mean anything long term for the profession. Over time either unemployment will go down, or the depressed state of the economy for middle class will reduce the number of people getting BAs. As for whether it is good or bad for the profession, it probably improves the preparedness of incoming PhD students, on average, but I have no idea what effect that has on the preparedness of those receiving their PhDs. I think anything that encourages grad students to attempt to publish is a very bad thing for the profession. If I am right about the link between reduced job prospects and the increase in terminal MAs, then I don't think it is obvious that this change will reduce the percentage of poor and middle class students entering PhD programs. Those from well off families do not face the same reduction in job prospects as those from poor or middle class families, so they are less likely to cling to higher education as a life raft. It would be nice if the APA kept track of this kind of data.

    Reply
  21. Jesse Summers

    Here's my longer-winded way of saying what David Chalmers may have been saying above.

    One effect of having more levels that are each of shorter duration–undergrad, terminal MA, PhD, post-doc (visiting position? adjunct?), pre-tenure–is that one has fewer opportunities to let thoughts percolate and develop before moving to the next level. If one must publish or at least present in order to advance to the next level, and you don't have time to develop deep thoughts on a new topic, the most common options seem to be (1) work on making a straightforward point about a standard problem on a new topic, or (2) continue to work on the same topics you've always worked on in your educational career, since you'll have spent the most time already on those. If that's right, the multi-level system will push us towards (1) lots of straightforward points about standard problems, and (2) fewer developed and interesting thoughts by people who arrived at them over time, particularly those who arrived at those thoughts in indirect or even multidisciplinary ways, e.g., bringing insights from different areas of philosophy together, or noticing a larger pattern to apparently disparate problems.

    Reply
  22. Jasper

    I agree with David Chalmers and Jesse Summers (if they agree with each other). Two cents more: the key thing about hyper-professionalization is that it selects for a certain kind of person. There will be far fewer true dissidents, rebels, eccentrics, social misfits, etc. There will be a lot more GOOD STUDENTS, people with the very special psychological profile needed to jump through hoop and hoop after hoop. So the whole system will tend to select for traits like conscientiousness, deference to authority, good manners and political correctness more than some other traits that might be as likely (or more likely) to make for really interesting and original philosophy.

    Reply
  23. Mark Alfano

    Thanks for raising these interesting and troubling questions, Rebecca. I'm in the middle of my second year of post-doc-hood. I also took a couple of grad seminars through a continuing education program before applying to graduate school, so I guess you're basically writing about me.

    On question 1: it's hard to say whether the new state of affairs makes for better philosophy getting done. I'm fairly confident that my research has improved from year to year (certainly my publications-per-year has gone up), but presumably that would have happened whether I was doing a post-doc or starting an assistant professorship. The main difference is that, if one has a research post-doc, one has more time to devote to reading, thinking, and writing, so there's a prima facie case that post-docs have more of a chance to improve their research chops.

    On question 2: as you mention, there's no mystery to people's taking post-docs when they're offered. My first year on the market (2010-11), I applied to 200 positions (!), had a number of interviews, a few fly-outs, and exactly one offer: a post-doc at Notre Dame. If I hadn't received that offer, I would be in a different career right now. The second year on the market was better: I accepted a TT position at the University of Oregon, which I deferred for a year (with their generous permission) to do a post-doc at Princeton. It should be no surprise that these were a stressful couple of years. Something that's sometimes remarked on, but probably not given enough emphasis, is how much of one's time and energy go into getting a job. If one has to do this several years in a row, it really cuts into one's ability to research (and, presumably, the quality of one's teaching). Many (most?) grad students are also under-funded and many have children, this is even more of a problem for them. I know of two couples who put off having kids because the philosopher was in a precarious job situation.

    If I were to make recommendations (who's listening?…), I would argue that the main things that can be done to blunt the precariousness of many would-be philosophers' situations are:
    a) don't allow un-funded or under-funded terminal MA programs to get started at your university
    b) fully-fund your PhD programs, if at all possible
    c) try to offer multi-year post-docs, if at all possible (if the post-doc is only one year, then the person will spend half of her time frantically going back on the market rather than doing the research she's been hired to do)

    Reply
  24. Lisa Shapiro

    I want to say a few things about MA funding and the MA students we get at Simon Fraser, even though it is a Canadian institution, and historically, it has been much more common for Canadian undergrads to go get an MA before pursuing a PhD (though as Rebecca herself is aware there are plenty of exceptions to this).
    1. Funding: While our students due have to pay tuition, this is because of the way the university works and not up to us. The tuition is about $5000/year (paid per term), and we admit no students without some support. TAs are supported at about $5500/term (maybe a little more). Grad Studies has mechanisms in place to top up funding through various entrance awards, and we are also able to offer grad fellowships and RAships on a term by term basis. These top ups, fellowships, RAships are competitive, so not everyone gets one, but we do try to distribute the wealth as it were. No one is going to save money as an MA student, but we try to arrange it so that it is possible to avoid accruing debt. Housing in Greater Vancouver is not cheap, so this can be a struggle. Canadian students are eligible for SSHRC MAs and we encourage them to apply to free up resources.
    2. The students we are seeing are a real range:
    (a) Canadian students from smaller institutions or who haven't had the opportunity as undergrads to do much independent work, and so who are less competitive for PhD programs.
    (b) Canadian and US students who came to Philosophy relatively late, or who have had a somewhat checkered undergrad as they figured out what they wanted to do with their lives, or who have a relatively narrow philosophical background. They need to add breadth to their philosophical background, work on their philosophical writing, and in particular on their ability to write a longer focused seminar style paper. They also need to make sure that Philosophy is actually what they want to pursue.
    (c) International students (Chinese, Persian, Turkish, to name a few) who want to get a foot into North America, firm up their background in analytic philosophy, work on their written English.

    My experience has been that the MA does what it is supposed to do: it helps students figure out whether they do want to pursue philosophy, it ensures that students who do decide to pursue a PhD are well-prepared. Along the way, it gives some underrepresented groups the opportunity to pursue philosophy further (we don't always have a large percentage of female students, but we often do).

    We are starting to think about ways in which we can help both undergraduates and grads who decide not to pursue philosophy further 'market' the value of their degree. To that end there is this on our website: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/undergrad/career_advice.html

    Reply
  25. Wesley Buckwalter

    As one of the 29 mentioned above on this year’s hire list, it’s difficult for me to view the post-docs (at this stage of them, at least) as anything but positive. In my case, I chose to do a multiple year post doc to work with a PI (and colleagues) who are truly exceptional, as well as for the opportunity to focus time and attention directly on research questions that are important to me right out of graduating without the other things that typically accompany some other sorts of first year positions. It also allowed me to continue in philosophy while moving to a new city where my spouse was offered a competitive academic job.

    Perhaps one could speculate about negative downstream consequences. But I think Mark Alfano makes some good points about the current state (I for one am very glad they existed and this made it more likely that he would continue in philosophy). The other thing is that there could be a big difference between what counts as a post doc between various instances (some seem more like VAPs, or directed research, while others lean towards completely open research opportunities) so caution may be required when generalizing.

    Reply
  26. Anon1956

    I too would like to address this notion concerning the prohibitive costs of an MA, particularly what seems to me this single-minded attentiveness to Georgia State's MA program.

    People need to realize that there are other MA programs out there that fund more than GSU, and some I might argue place better.
    – GSU funds $15,000 over two years.
    – NIU $22,600 over two years.
    – Western Michigan $23,160 over two years
    – Milwaukee at Wisconsin $15,404 over two years.
    – Texas A&M $21,000 over two years.
    – Texas Tech $24,000 over two years.
    – University of Houston $22,400 over two years.
    – University of Wyoming $22,700 over two years.
    – I don't know the raw stipend for Virginia Tech, but I have been told it is more than enough to live on in Blacksburg, VA.
    – And of course, given that MA's are very common for Canadian students, there are a host of programs up there that accept and fund international students.
    The figures above are all stipend amounts. Each stipend also comes with a tuition waiver.

    The only back argument I have been given, is that GSU funds every student they admit. But of course, this is just a semantic difference. If GSU decides not to fund you, they will not admit you. If these schools do not fund you, they MAY admit you, but in that case, you are free to decline attending (which you should, given that one generally should not go into debt for graduate school).

    This is not different among the PhD's. Some will admit you without funding, others wont. In either case, you do not attend those that are not willing to fund you.

    Please do not take offense to my post in regards to GSU. I know my tone may be rather short. GSU is a very grand program, funds a lot of students, and places very well, but it has become a thorn in my side that GSU and Tufts seem to be the only programs people ever mention. And yet, these two programs seem to me to be some of the most financially difficult to manage compared to other MA programs.

    I have some thoughts on the hyperprofessionalization on philosophy, but they seem to cut against the grain here, so I will refrain from commenting. I do not want to detract from what I feel the more important message that I wish to get across here, which has to do with MA programs.

    Reply
  27. Matt DeStefano

    I'm in my first year of an MA program at University of Missouri, St. Louis. I know that, for my own sake and many of the others in my cohort, the MA program serves as a way of helping those coming from smaller, lesser known programs in preparation for applying to PhD programs. Without going into specifics, the funding that I get is roughly equivalent to the figures mentioned by Anon1956.

    One other reason for the many MA students is that it serves as a "test-run" of life as a PhD student. A PhD takes considerably longer to complete than an MA, and for those who are unsure about whether or not they would like to do this for a living (not me, but explains some others in my cohort), an MA was a good way of gauging their level of interest in continuing on.

    Reply
  28. Late Bloomer

    Thanks to Anon1956 for posting this data; I was about to do the same. Let me add one more point as a former MA student now thriving (I think) in a top-20. I applied to PhD programs twice: the first time to about 6 programs, all top 20, and got one unfunded offer. The second time I applied to the same PhD programs plus 6 MA's, and went 0/6 and 5/6, respectively. I applied again after my MA (one which 1956 listed), and hit about 10/12 for PhD acceptances. I absolutely would not have made it into a PhD program without the MA. And I am a paradigmatic poor student at a bad school.

    Not only did the MA serve to help equalize the built-in advantages that many undergrads have applying from better institutions, it also allowed me to do so without taking any debt. In addition to the stipend, there were extra scholarships and summer teaching opportunities (to be fair, I also had a part-time job tutoring). Whenever I'm asked for advice, I always counsel applying to a handful of MA programs first.

    But the professionalization that occurs in an MA program is, to my mind, a very good thing. I got to spend 2 years focusing almost exclusively on how to be a real, grown-up philosopher (a very different enterprise from what the Nietzsche-reading freshman does). This allowed me to focus just on doing solid work once I got to my PhD, and it also let my program outsource the quality control to another institution. I think this is good all around. As much as it sounds bad that philosophers are all coming out of school with the same skill sets, I think its a good thing. Even if there were a game-changing eccentric out there, no one would listen unless he knew how to talk the talk.

    Reply
  29. John Schwenkler

    I share Rebecca's worry that these trends are bad for students with less disposable wealth or family support, and also those with family responsibilities (which fall disproportionately on women).

    Also, I'm with Dave Chalmers concerning the likely consequences of all of this on the quality of philosophy that will be done. The philosophical writing that we are likely to see produced in a hyperprofessionalized environment will be good, "safe" philosophy that has a familiar feel and makes progress within dominant paradigms. Whether you think this is a positive development depends on what you think of those paradigms.

    Reply
  30. Bharath Vallabha

    The hyperprofessionalization of philosophy is one of the reasons I left the profession. I had a tenure-track job, and I left it because I found myself pretty much alienated and bored by seeking to publish, going to conferences, etc. The idea that for the next 30-40 years I had to "keep up" with the latest journal articles made me question whether this was why I got into philosophy.

    In my experience there is a pervasive idea in academic philosophy that anyone who leaves the profession must be either not good enough, or gotten burnt out, or lost self-confidence (because of implicit sexism, racism, etc.)or become spiteful due to lack of productivity. In effect, the idea is that anyone who leaves the profession must have done so for non-philosophical reasons. In my own case, I think this was not true. Leaving academia can itself be a move within a broader philosophical conversation.

    The problem with the profesionalization of philosophy is that philosophy pulls towards questioning any and all assumptions, whereas professionalization pulls towards the reification of some assumptions as obviously true (those assumptions which are so central to the practices of the profession that they effectively become hidden from view from those very practicioners). The idea of such hiddenness of assumptions is not strange. It happens with physicists, biologists, psychologists, literary critics, etc. — which is why there are fields like phil of physics, phil of psychology, etc. in order to bring to light those hidden assumptions and through that process enable conceptual change. So how then can the hidden assumptions of the philosophy profession be questioned? The going rhetoric in the profession is: "Well, by the philosophy professors themselves, since philosophy teaches us to question everything!" This response in effect treats the academic philosophy infrastructure as somehow magical, because it is presumed to be able to become self-critical in a way that others disciplines and structures cannot. In fact, I suspect that it is in the rhetoric of being able to question everything that many of the blind spots of the profession can be found. To better understand those blind spots it can be very helpful to be out of the profession, and away from worries of one's own progression in the professional hierarchy.

    What Richie Whitehead said above resonates with me. With one twist. My suggestion would be to not be "bummed out" by the professionalization of philosophy. Spinoza and Nietzsche suggest that looking at the world head on can only be empowering. In my own experience when I was an academic, the source of becoming disheartened was because I falsely assumed that being an academic philosopher is the only way to do philosophy. But there is much philosophy to be done outside of academic philosophy, in part by challenging academic philosophy from outside of it. I am not suggesting that the only philosophical project is outside academia. Good philosophy can happen both inside and outside academia. Though part of the problem with academic philosophy is that from within the profession it is very hard, if not impossible, to make such a claim about how good philosophy is not limited to the boundaries of academia. For if academic philosophy can admit that, it can seem to undermine its own claim to expertise. That is something to think about.

    Reply
  31. Tim O'Keefe

    A quick reply to Anon1956 above: it's true that you can get OK funding packages at lots of different terminal MA programs, as I noted above at comment #9. So as far as pushing back against the notion that terminal MA degrees have to be financially ruinous unless you're independently wealthy, it's good to note the information you note.

    But I don't at all think that is only a "semantic difference" between bringing in people without funding and offering funding to every student you admit. There is a huge non-semantic difference. Consider the following two options:

    Option A: bring in X people with lots of money and Y people with no funding. X + Y = Z
    Option B: bring in Z people with Z funding where Z funding < X funding.

    (That is, in Option A you fund some people at a higher level and other people get nothing at all, whereas in Option B you make sure that everybody gets some funding, but where the standard level is a bit lower because you're dividing the pie among more people.)

    It is true, as Anon1956 says, that the Y people admitted in Option A could turn down the offer. But a department can't run that way (X people being too few to get a decent cohort) so the department in Option A brings in lots of folks and asks them to run up more debt. I agree with Anon1956 that it's a bad idea to take on lots of debt to attend philosophy graduate school, and that's one reason we decided several ago to stop admitting people without funding. (It's a decision I'm extremely happy we made.)

    I don't want this thread to get sidetracked into long discussions of GSU on particular–I agree that there are lots of good MA programs. And finances being what they are, it's not as if every place can just wave a wand and fund every incoming student. I'm sure that many places face significant obstacles to doing so. But funding everybody vs. admitting non-funded students is an important difference.

    Reply
  32. retired faculty member

    In the discussion of post-docs and why institutions award them, please remember the huge debt the profession owes to the Mellon Foundation for its post-doc program in the humanities. This was initiated in 1974 by Nathan Pusey (who had previously served as President of Harvard). The explanation for the program appears about half-way down in this report from 1975:

    http://www.mellon.org/news_publications/annual-reports-essays/presidents-reports/1975

    "Abrupt contraction of funding and of career opportunities threatens the continuing flow, even on a much reduced scale, of the ablest young talent into humanistic fields. In an effort to lessen that loss, the Foundation has directed nearly $10 million this year toward providing rotating opportunities for post-doctoral or other junior faculty appointments at leading universities."

    Things aren't much better now than they were four decades ago. Note that they expected to end the program, but (obviously) never have.

    Reply
  33. Thornton Lockwood

    Several commentators have likened post-docs in philosophy to post-docs in the sciences. In my experience, that's misleading. I've seen post-docs advertised in JFP that are basically one or two year visiting assistant professor positions: the position is described as including a substantial teaching load (often 3/3 or more). The institutions may know that these positions are in a sense permanent–they need the post-docs to fill teaching spots–but that they don't want to create an additional underclass of adjunct faculty, hence the one or two year non-renewable "post-doc." One would have to survey all the "post-doc" job listings in JFP to see the extent to which teaching loads are 1/1 or 1/0 (like in the science) or more like the 3/3 that I've seen. But my experience tends towards the latter being the case. If that is in fact the case, the "post-doc" phenomenon has nothing to do with the professionalization of the discipline, but rather with the marketing of non-tenured labor.

    Reply
  34. Sean

    To those worried about the proliferation of 'safe,' 'just good not great,' philosophy:

    It seems to me that your claim rests on the assumption that those who do not pursue an MA and go straight into a PhD. program after undergrad are the ones that are going to produce the better philosophy. As if attending a terminal MA program, in which you attend a couple conferences, perhaps publish a piece in an okay or specialty journal, is a deterrent to writing great philosophy. This just seems bogus. As if those 'rebels' who are harvesting the big ideas that cut against the main stream trends can't have an MA first. I find the 'hyper-professionalization' to be rampant in all graduate programs, regardless of whether or not you are pursuing an MA or a PhD. I do not agree that those who professionalize early are unable to concoct big ideas over long periods of time because of pressure to publish. It seems that Chalmers and Jaspers are talking more about hyper-publishing than hyper-professionalization. For the record, I am an American attending a European University for my MA with the intention of returning to the U.S. for my phd. I was told from the get-go, by friends in top phd programs and caring professors alike, that I should professionalize early. I should be conferencing, publishing, networking, etc from day one. And none of their advice seemed embedded with the claim that approaching graduate school in this way meant that I would be producing only 'good' and not 'great' philosophy because I'd only be publishing or talking about familiar ideas that I had not thought deeply enough about. Perhaps I am naive.

    Reply
  35. Andrew M. Bailey

    I’m unsure whether the rise of postdocs is, all-things-considered, good for the philosophy profession. But it was good for me (I completed a postdoc before taking a TT position).

    Graduate students from certain privileged backgrounds (those who study at Ivy League schools, schools near the top of the Leiter rankings, etc.) can often secure TT jobs straight out of graduate school and without publishing. Graduate students from certain less-privileged backgrounds (those who study at non-Ivy League schools, religious schools, schools that aren’t near the top of the Leiter rankings, etc.) often cannot count on that. Many candidates in this latter category need to have publications and Ph.D. in hand before they’ll even get interviews (much less flyouts and offers). For such candidates, postdocs are a boon. They’re a chance to apply with Ph.D. in hand and with a few more pubs on the CV.

    This may not be a *decisive* reason to, say, support the funding of postdocs within one's department. But it is a strong one, I think, especially for those of us who think about pedigree, privilege, and their role in philosophy. And it is, of course, a strong reason for a candidate (especially of that latter kind) to try to get a postdoc.

    Reply
  36. Eddy Nahmias

    I'd like to mention one unmentioned advantage of people getting an MA before PhD: exposure to another group of professors and peers. With that exposure likely comes more reading, more ways of thinking about and doing philosophy, more feedback on writing, and (best of all) more philosophical friends. These advantages will apply to most post-docs too. Certainly one should avoid paying for MA (and PhD!) if at all possible, but from my current perspective, the idea of getting to spend an extra couple of years taking classes and doing philosophy sounds quite attractive (especially with the increased demands to produce philosophy and finish PhD expeditiously).

    Reply
  37. Lewis Powell

    One thing that might be worth finding out, for this discussion, is the proportion of post-docs which go to people who have also secured tenure-track offers. I haven't looked carefully at the numbers, but I get the impression that a lot of the folks who are able to get low teaching load, research-oriented post-docs are also finding success at securing tenure-track jobs (which they defer for a year or so to take the post-doc). This is a big contrast, I think, from the sorts of VAPs or fixed-term instructor positions that require someone to be teaching full time while going back on the job market pretty much immediately.

    Reply
  38. John Schwenkler

    Sorry if my comment was unclear, but I certainly didn't mean to be endorsing the kind of position that Sean is responding to in #33. I think MA programs can be terrific, and I think the same of "good but not great" philosophy. All I was saying is that to the extent that the (apparent) increase in professional philosophers going through MA programs and postdocs is a symptom — and, perhaps, a very partial cause — of what Rebecca calls hyperprofessionalization, which involves not just lots of publishing but also, as Sean says, lots of "conferencing, … networking, etc from day one", much of it centering on work that safely mirrors philosophical trends so as to advance one's trajectory, this trend is worrisome, as it encourages habits that will keep talented philosophers from doing paradigm-shifting work. And of course receiving an MA or pursuing a postdoc isn't necessary (or sufficient) to encourage these habits: they're everywhere, and we're all affected by them.

    Reply
  39. Cassie

    I wonder how this trend is impacting how new philosophers are evaluated comparatively. One strand of conventional wisdom seems to be that it's *better* to go straight into a PhD program, or straight to a TT job ('better' in the sense that it in some way reflects on the quality of the philosopher). So sometimes it is taken to reflect poorly on the philosopher who first gets a MA or first does a postdoc. But at the same time, the folks who do these things often have significantly more years of doing philosophy under their belts by the time they land a TT job and, at least in some cases, this can be a giant leg up. In my program, I've noticed that people who come in with MAs often have a better sense of their interests and are able to use coursework to develop their projects rather than spending the first few years *finding* their projects. Having a MA and a postdoc during which to develop these projects before the tenure clock starts seems like it could be really helpful. But I would imagine this might make it more difficult to compare young philosophers with one another — what is 'on track' when we have multiple possible tracks a person might have taken? Or is there still a 'right track' that philosophers ought to be aiming for? Given these conflicting desiderata (being evaluated positively v. having more tome to develop one's work) what ought young philosophers be aiming for?

    Reply
  40. Cassie

    I'm also curious about how these new trends are impacting philosophers with families. If people are moving around the country more, MA-> PhD -> postdoc -> TT job (hopefully!) this can be an incredible burden. Uprooting children and/or finding a job for a spouse (which he or she may only be able to commit to for a year or two) is difficult. Add to that what we already know about women being more likely (for a multitude of reasons) to give up their careers, which is compounded by philosophy's chilly climate for women. People have already raised concerns about unfunded MA programs reinforcing financial disadvantage; it seems well worth looking at whether these new trends lead to other sorts of disadvantage as well.

    Reply
  41. Anon

    Just a correction on Anon1956's comment above: GSU provides 4 incoming students (those who receive the fellowships) with $30,000 over two years ($15,000 per year), not 15,000 over two years.

    RK NOTES: This is the last comment I am going to publish on the details about particular MA programs.

    Reply
  42. Aaron

    As to reasons for doing a terminal MA. I recently completed an MA in HPS at my undergrad institution in the UK (I am American), and will be starting my PhD at a (low) Leiter-ranked school in the fall. I decided to pursue the MA because a) I my Bsc was a joint degree and I felt I needed more depth in philosophy; b) I wanted to be entirely certain that I wanted to spend the rest of my life doing philosophy (I do); and c) my undergrad grades were lower, for various reasons, than I thought I was capable of. Although it was a struggle financially, I believe it was the right decision. During and after my MA I was able to attend and present at numerous conferences and meet well-known philosophers outside of my institution, rather than narrowing my philosophical perspective, the MA had the opposite affect: I was able to develop new interests at a depth that wasn't possible as an undergrad.

    Reply
  43. Adam Hogan

    Rebecca, while I see that some have started giving their names, and not remaining anonymous (add me to that list), anonymity is just another result of hyperprofessionalization – most students trying to get into a program (or perhaps anything related to the discipline) are scared that attaching their identity to their real feelings or questions could hurt them more than help them. God forbid a young person interested in philosophy asks a dumb question, or says something that indicates they lack some knowledge…

    Does this all make for better or worse philosophy getting done, in the end? Or neither? – I agree with David (8) that more 'good' than 'great' philosophy will be the result, but I think that's in the short term. The long-term is of greater concern. I think, as the more married philosophy becomes to other disciplines (like the natural sciences), the more it will have to face the challenges faced by those disciplines – what do bio-ethics look like when funded by pharma? philosophy of technology by tech companies? It seems to me that these are the sorts of questions philosophers need to answer before funding for the discipline becomes too entrenched with interests that 'should' be antithetical to its aim. (AND – I should not be understood here as favoring intuitionism over scientism. Rather, there is a balance to be struck).

    To the second question: I'm in a good MA program, and they are funding me well. If I had not received funding, I would not have gone into the program. Further, I come from a low-income family, and am the first generation to go to college. My sense is that anyone with my background should not go into a program unfunded; I feel it sets a bad precedent for someone looking to advance in the discipline.
    Also, I went to work for six years so I could put my wife through her graduate program. This time off, coupled with other factors (I didn't have a perfect GRE or GPA) made a terminal MA my only option – and that's fine with me. However, I cannot see doing a post-doc unless I'm hired into a TT position and allowed to defer in order to do it, or some similar situation.

    Hope this helps continue the thread, and that it doesn't eliminate me from too many future PhD. admittances.

    Reply
  44. Elizabeth Harman

    Several people have commented that they think the greater professionalization of graduate students is bad for the profession. I'd like to offer some thoughts on the other side.

    When I was a graduate student, I was aware of two different styles of graduate study:
    — a graduate student perceives herself as a *student* of philosophy, takes her professors to be authorities, and feels not yet "entitled to speak" herself, without more study
    — a graduate student perceives herself as a *philosopher*, takes herself to be entitled to evaluate arguments on their merits, and considers herself ready to submit papers to journals and to give talks at professional conferences

    The first category is described a bit extremely, but I have seen students and professors who favored that approach to graduate study.

    The first approach to graduate study is a bad one. In particular, it can lead to students' simply carrying along their professors' projects. The second approach to graduate study is good, and it can lead to more independence of mind. Yet those who take the second approach have a more "professionalized" attitude at an earlier stage.

    Reply
  45. Jasper

    Sean,
    I can't speak for Chalmers, but I certainly didn't mean to say that those who go straight into PhD programs are more likely to be great philosophers. On the contrary, I suspect that a lot of people who might well be very good, or even possibly great, are dissuaded from doing more than an MA — or doing that, even — by the hyper-professionalization we're talking about. There are many good things about the system that now exists, but in my opinion one of its negatives is that it tends to select for personality traits that lots of really great philosophers (and certainly many Great Philosophers) are not so likely to have, and which very good but maybe not great (or Great) philosophers do tend to have. I didn't really give an argument for that, because it just seems fairly obvious to me that it's one of the effects of hyper-professionalization in philosophy (as it would be in art). Anyway, I definitely wasn't suggesting that the Great people are those who go to top-ranked programs or straight into PhDs, or whatever. On the contrary, I suspect many of those people are "good but not great" precisely because they are products of the current system.

    Reply
  46. Angel Pinillos

    Certain undergraduate students come from backgrounds where the study of philosophy is not encouraged or even discouraged. For example, due to financial hardship, a student may be pressured to pursue more practical fields where they can be sure to earn an income right away. If some of those students discover philosophy as their calling, it may be too late for them to have a strong PhD application by the fall of their senior year. For those people, a terminal MA program is the only solution. So contrary to what some people have been suggesting, M.A. programs can benefit those that come form working class backgrounds or backgrounds where philosophy is not encouraged.

    Reply
  47. Brandon N. Towl

    One quick comment on post docs. True, they are probably a good thing overall. But rampant post-docs, and the expectation that many young scholars will cut their teeth on them (or a good VAP) puts some folks at a disadvantage.

    Because I have a kid in school, a mortgage, and a wife with her own home business (which has done the lion's share of supporting us up through and after getting my PhD), we decided as a family that ditching everything and moving for a 1-2 year position (only to do it all over again afterwards) was just not feasible. So, for several years in a row, I did not apply to Post-docs or VAPs.

    In retrospect, though, I think this really hurt my trajectory, especially when I compare it to that of my peers… To be more to the point: it wasn't just that I was applying to fewer jobs. I really do think I missed out on what is coming to be seen as a necessary step for all but those top few PhD candidates in a given year. I really do feel that, were I single and moveable, I could have done a post-doc or two and clawed my way into a TT. Being neither, I did not have that chance.

    Just something further to ponder.

    Reply
  48. Mark Lovas

    Reading E. Harman's contribution suggests to me that philosophy is increasingly a sport for the privileged. Conversational styles are acquired at home and in school. Lenghty digressive styles are more popular in some cultures than others. The confidence it takes to disagree with a teacher or authority is most likely to be found among the privileged. So, Philosophy, the profession, comes to mirror the society of the USA—with its increasing inequality.

    Reply
  49. Matt Drabek

    To come to the defense of E. Harman a bit: I'm not sure the connection between philosophical style and privilege is so direct. I think working-class folks react to academia in very different sorts of ways, and I think there's scant evidence that philosophy is more a playground for the privileged now than it was a few decades ago. If anything, I imagine philosophy is more open to working-class people now, especially given that working-class people are now far more likely to attend college and earn a BA than they used to be. This does not mean that philosophy isn't full of privilege (it is), just that it was probably even more full of privilege in 1970.

    Personally, as a first-generation student from a rural/working-class background, I'd divide what E. Harman and M. Lovas are talking about into multiple parts. I was a bit more shy than other students and I'm probably a bit more reluctant than some people to send stuff off to journals or take up a faculty member's time. I was (and still am) uncomfortable with many of the more formal social settings involved in academia. In other words, the culture seems weird and sometimes off-putting. That said, I'm actually far less likely to treat faculty members as authorities or reverently, and I think quite a bit more likely to disagree with them. I've never placed faculty members on the social pedestal that perhaps those with a more privileged background would place them. Adding "Ph.D." after your name doesn't particularly impress me. So, I don't think you can equate the cultural issues with the substantive/philosophical ones.

    Reply
  50. anon

    I just wanted to call attention to Bharath Vallabha's thoughtful post since it brought out an interesting point that has otherwise not been mentioned. It may be reasonable to expect that at least -some- of the most exciting philosophy that will be done over the next few decades will emerge from outside of academia. There is obviously a large group of extraordinarily talented people with phds in philosophy who are being driven out of the field due to the lack of jobs. At least in my personal experience, the most exciting philosophers have not always been those able to publish immediately after grad school, but often…perhaps usually…those who require several more years or even decades of contemplation and struggle. Kant, recall, was 56 or so when the first Critique was published. So it may be the case that some of the best young philosophers will not land employment in academia.

    Unlike most sciences, philosophy really doesn't require much funding. So long as the philosopher has, say, a stable corporate job and a genuine passion for the subject, there's no reason why over the slow course of decades she might write a few papers purely as a labor of love…as a way to keep intellectually engaged or to live a fulfilling life. And if there's no pressure to publish or perish, there's no need to focus on small disputes or "safe progress" in normal paradigms. I personally find this refreshing. Even if philosophy departments become even more hyperprofessionalized (and if that's a bad thing), then there's probably not much reason to fear for philosophy as a mode of inquiry during any of our lives.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress