759

Good advice. I just assumed everyone was already doing your first bullet point, I think.

Isn't there anyway to mitigate such "cascade" effects? Would it make sense to start a thread where everyone posts their current situation/ideal outcome? I know this process isn't so straightforward that two people could simply "swap" by declining each other's preferred school...but something approaching this must be possible? Seems too bleak to think things must necessarily play out this way...

There are two things being disputed: 1.) Whether or not exclusively analytic philosophers are suited to many of the jobs listed in the link (which you simply posted without context or commentary), and 2.) Whether or not the volume of jobs directly correlates to a better chance of getting a job. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that you have a better chance of getting one of a fewer number of jobs, if you are more distinguishable within that subfield. Simplified: There may only be two job openings for y, but if there are only ten people who fit the description, then this is a better scenario than one hundred jobs for x, and one thousand people qualified for x. And this is incredibly simplified, and doesn't take into consideration another debate entirely: whether or not the continental philosopher is versatile enough to teach in an interdisciplinary or "humanities" department broadly construed, and so on. Also, we're talking as if one is making a choice between which sort of philosophy to study. Clearly the applicant already knows what they want to study, unless they are so cynical that they're willing to make the choice of what interests them based on job market concerns. If it's a question of whether or not to go into philosophy at all, given one's interests (which, as I said, are not open to the influence of market forces lol), then these are questions one will be asking oneself no matter what their philosophical persuasion, and it seems incredible to think that someone who prefers continental philosophy should be more disinclined to enter the profession. As for being misleading and irresponsible, this doesn't concern me at all. I'm a guy on a forum, and I don't seriously think I'm influencing anyone's life long decisions. If anyone feels emboldened by what I've said, then I advise them to be as circumspect as possible and consider all of the evidence, for Prose's sake.

A greater raw number of jobs of type x does not mean a greater chance of getting a job in x, especially if the vast majority of people in the field are trained in x. The only way this could possibly be the case would be if jobs were produced apace demand, which they are not. EDIT: You seem to forget that I never claimed that there were more continental jobs; of course that would be incorrect. My original point, which you haven't addressed as far as I'm concerned, was about the relative difficulty of getting a job.

I'm not at all sure what this is supposed to prove. Obviously, no one should be shocked that there are very few jobs out there literally called "continental", many continentally trained philosophers specialize, and even a quick glance at the "raw breakdown" of jobs shows at least 100 openings that a continental philosopher might pursue. Value theory, the AOS with highest representation, is practiced by many in the continental tradition, and the report says nothing about the approach to value theory desired in each case (since that would require reporting the school). Also, "open AOS" is a wild card, and while I agree that there is something to the assumption that it goes to metaphysics and epistemology, this is by no means a stable assumption, and the author made no attempt to determine who actually got these jobs. For example, "open AOS" at a catholic university probably would go to a continental scholar. EDIT: Also, it is worthwhile to read the comments on the post you shared; some are quite illuminating and in any case provide some critique and commentary. I don't see how simply looking at these numbers without any context is able to satisfy...

I feel that I have to provide something of a counter-point to this idea that "it is more difficult to get a job as a continentally-trained philosopher", because it isn't clear at all that this is the case. The claim seems to be the result of correlating two pretty general intuitions: 1.) US departments are over-whelming-ly analytic, 2.) If a department is over-whelming-ly analytic, then they will only hire, or show a preference in all cases, for an analytic job candidate over a continental one. I would argue that it is much more of a challenge to find a niche for oneself as one of the two million candidates who's AOI is "philosophy of language/meta-ethics/epistemology", not to knock these at all, of course. If you are continentally trained, then there is probably an era/school of philosophy that you can market yourself as being an expert in, and I have to imagine that there are fewer people competing for jobs in history of philosophy than the aforementioned subfields. Could be wrong. Also, the claim that continentally trained philosophers have a more difficult time finding a job is much too general of a claim to make when all philosophers are struggling to find a job; one would like to see the data on such a claim (and not just an argument proceeding from the correlation of intuitions (1.) and (2.)). After all, many of the top "continental" programs have amazing job placement, even when compared to many programs actually ranked on the PGR. Granted many of their job placements are not at big name research universities (many continental scholars find success at private and catholic universities), but getting a job at a lesser known (or unknown) school is probably fate for most of us if we're lucky. This doesn't even take into account PGR ranked programs that are considered continental in many ways (like UCR, Georgetown, UBoston, UChicago, Columbia) that often place their students in good jobs (one should also keep in mind the perhaps singular successes of UChicahgo's Robert Pippin (Penn State PhD), Georgetown's Terry Pinkard (Stony Brook PhD) and, for a more recent example Harvard's Samantha Matherne (UCR PhD)). Finally, it should be recognized that many of the top unranked continental programs (Oregon, Stony Brook, Emory, Temple, Fordham, Duquesne, Villanova, DePaul, and so on) simply trade around their PhDs for jobs, so if you look at the faculty at any one of these schools you will see PhDs from the others. That's not a bad situation at all. For analytic philosophers, for whom there is no niche set of schools, they are competing with everyone everywhere, and like I said the bleakness is somewhat exacerbated by everyone being an "expert" in like the same four things.

I think your choice is well reasoned and I can't find anything in particular to object to.

I think this question also depends on what you mean by continental. I attended an MA program which is typically thought of as being pretty analytic, and yet we still have 4+ professors who each deal extensively with a handful of continental figures/engaged in some form of history of philosophy. However, if your sample is on some later-20th century figure like Deleuze, Lacan, Derrida or someone like that I could imagine my supervisors raising an eyebrow. At the same time, my department offered regular courses on Nietzsche, Foucault, Hegel, Heidegger, Gadamer, etc. This post probably wasn't too helpful. I suppose my point is that what continental figures are deemed "legitimate" at a primarily analytic school varies from program to program, and you really just have to spend the time researching the professors and what courses they typically teach, and then assess if that's good enough to satisfy your continentally-oriented research.

Given everything I said in my earlier post, I would say that 30k is a very livable stipend for Berkeley. I spent years making less than that living in SF, which (I think) is a bit more expensive. Then again, I respect the fact that not everyone is a minimalist hermit like me lol.

I don't know what Berkeley's stipend is, but I can assure you that whatever it is living in the Bay isn't easy. Rent aside, absolutely everything is more expensive than it is anywhere else (in my experience). I've lived there on and off for the better part of the last decade and I've watched it become virtually unlivable for most people. For example, I lived in SF with 5 others, paid $1,100/month for my own bedroom, and this was considered much cheaper than average (single rooms in my neighborhood typically went for $1,800). Honestly, the best attitude is perhaps counter-intuitively not to worry about it at all. So long as you can pay for rent and food (which bare minimum seems to be implied in the concept of a "stipend", although maybe I'm being optimistic) focus on your studies and try to be content. If you're the going-out type things get precarious rather quickly...

I recently received my MA from a terminal-MA program. Stats: 4.0 GPA (grad), GRE 168/156/4.5, BA in Philosophy and Linguistics, GPA 3.75, from a school unranked in philosophy, but very highly ranked in Linguistics. My thesis was on Kant's theory of empirical concept acquisition. My writing sample defends Hegel's critique of Kant by means of defending Hegel against specific charges made by Karl Ameriks. My research interests include Kant, post-Kantian German philosophy (esp. Hegel), and Wilfrid Sellars. Ideally, I would like to go to either Pittsburgh, Columbia, UChicago, or Georgetown. Feel mostly depressed and dispirited regarding my chances of getting into one of these schools, but I'm trying not to think about it too much.

Unfortunately, their website isn't very informative re application requirements. Specifically, I am wondering what the upper limit is on the writing sample. I know that a safe bet is to submit a paper in the 15-25pg range, but some programs (like UChicago) allow applicants to submit a master's thesis of around 50+ pages if they consider it their best work. I have two potential writing samples, one a 20-something page paper, and the other my master's thesis which is exactly 50 pages. I would say that my master's thesis is definitely the better researched, more impressive piece, and so I'd probably prefer to send it if possible. I know some people recommend sending long samples with "instructions" re which pages to read, totaling 20-something, but this seems impractical. My thesis is 50 pages long because it needs to be...if I could have written it in 25 I sure as hell would have haha! Thanks.

Here's the situation. I'm currently in the final semester of my MA, writing my thesis, and I plan to apply to PhD programs in the fall of 2018. My plan, originally, was to use an edited-down version of my thesis as my writing sample. When I mentioned this plan to one of my thesis advisors he thought it was a pretty bad idea. Basically, he thinks that my thesis---considered as a thesis and nothing more---is solid (even "very rich" to quote him), but as a writing sample has a number of limitations. My thesis defends a pretty fringe interpretation of Kant and further claims that this interpretation solves a number of classic problems in making Kant's theoretical philosophy consistent. My professor thinks that a thesis like this would make a poor writing sample for three reasons: 1.) It limits me to schools that have a significant number of Kant scholars (since schools with only one Kant scholar might not think my interests are sufficiently wide enough), 2.) While German philosophy (from Kant to Heidegger) constitutes one part of my AOS (along with American pragmatism and epistemology/metaphysics), I have no plans of pigeon-holing myself as a Kant scholar. So I would be misrepresenting myself. and 3.) A good writing sample, even if it includes exegesis of a historical figure, should address a more general/accessible topic; so, if you're writing about Kant, it should be with the aim of giving a new perspective on a more or less current problem in metaphysics/epistemology/what have you. This is all about appearing open to new influences/teachable, etc. As evidence for this, my professor rattled off a pretty long list of former MA students who submitted writing samples on a historical figure and were either only accepted into one school (never even near their top choice) or were shut out completely. Is this a legitimate worry? It's too late for me to begin work on a new thesis, so if the consensus is that my professor is correct here, then I also need to write something completely new over the summer.

I'm still on a wait list, too. The DGS said that they'll go to the wait list 'only if all of [their] remaining offers are declined', which only really makes sense if there are more people admitted than there are spots...which seems like a dangerous game to play lol. In any case, I probably won't be admitted. (If anyone has another interpretation of what he meant, I'd love to hear it)

heh oh man, that's just as bleak