Some Questions from a Phil Outsider

[Theoryboi]

Hey all!

So I've been meandering about the Phil forum for a few weeks now as my luck on my politics PhDs seems to be running dry. I am reasonably well-read in some philosophy topics (mostly Nietzsche and the Post-Modernists), though I don't have a lot of experience in 'proper' Phil departments. I have a background in Political Theory and International Relations, and the short version of what I am interested in is ethics and moral claims in IR, specifically using a post-structuralist frame of reference. My question is: is this at all an area discussed in Continental Phil departments or am I theorist barking up the wrong tree? I appreciate any insight you fine folks can offer. I am considering shooting an app to Loyola Marymount to broaden my ethics base; does anyone have any thoughts on their program? Thanks!

[in praxis]

What thinkers are you referring to when you say "the Post-Modernists"?

[Prose]

People on this forum are exceedingly nice, so nice that they don't always tell you the whole truth, but I'm going to say what anyone with a clue about what academic philosophy is like should be obliged to say to hopeful applicants:

Do not saunter into academic philosophy because you got turned down at whatever you wanted to do and are looking for some other degree. Do not do this, especially, if you're looking at continental (already horrible prospects get that much worse). Starting the process this way really won't do you any favor in either IR (which is better suited by analytic  content anyways) or philosophy.

Unless you don't really care, and you just want something to do that isn't working a job. Then go for it I guess, though I know nothing of Loyola.

[lanabanana]

@Theoryboi Prose is a good example of the kind of person you'll encounter who is happy to denigrate continental philosophy. There are a lot of people like that, and analytic philosophy departments do seem to encourage that kind of attitude. Not everyone is like that, but a lot of people are.

Admissions are rough across the board in philosophy. 100-200+ applications for 5-6 spots. And that's just as true for continental programs. It is exceedingly difficult to get in, and having an application that reads like philosophy is your second choice is going to get you tossed in the reject pile straightaway.

If you're interested in postmodern philosophy and IR, I think Penn State, Emory, Oregon, and Villanova would all have something to offer you. At those places you won't have to study liberalism or realism. You can find more suggestions by looking up the pluralist's guide to philosophy.

Job prospects are rough no matter what. Penn State has a good track record lately, if you can make it in the door there.

[Prose]

31 minutes ago, notaphilosobro1k90 said:

@Theoryboi Prose is a good example of the kind of person you'll encounter who is happy to denigrate continental philosophy. There are a lot of people like that, and analytic philosophy departments do seem to encourage that kind of attitude. Not everyone is like that, but a lot of people are.

Admissions are rough across the board in philosophy. 100-200+ applications for 5-6 spots. And that's just as true for continental programs. It is exceedingly difficult to get in, and having an application that reads like philosophy is your second choice is going to get you tossed in the reject pile straightaway.

If you're interested in postmodern philosophy and IR, I think Penn State, Emory, Oregon, and Villanova would all have something to offer you. At those places you won't have to study liberalism or realism. You can find more suggestions by looking up the pluralist's guide to philosophy.

Job prospects are rough no matter what. Penn State has a good track record lately, if you can make it in the door there.

Actually rather enjoy things outside of traditionally analytic content, and lots of people will tell you the distinction isn't so stark as it used to be, though it's still there - I understand your chosen track gets lots of criticism, some rightful ones included, but don't be so wounded that you read animosity (wrongly) into things. 

Stating that continental philosophy makes bad job prospects even more bleak isn't an attack, and you're doing applicants a disservice if you don't admit that outright. You might also try addressing people directly, rather than referring to them in third person, when you think they've said something you disagree with.

Edited February 23, 2019 by Prose

[759]

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.     

Edited February 23, 2019 by 759

[Prose]

https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2018/02/where-the-jobs-werent-in-2017-by-aos.html

[759]

16 minutes ago, Prose said:

https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2018/02/where-the-jobs-werent-in-2017-by-aos.html

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...

Edited February 23, 2019 by 759

[Prose]

2 minutes ago, 759 said:

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.

"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."

 

There's no niche because the vast majority of jobs available are analytic. 

[759]

7 minutes ago, Prose said:

"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."

 

There's no niche because the vast majority of jobs available are analytic. 

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.

Edited February 23, 2019 by 759

[Prose]

11 minutes ago, 759 said:

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. 

Right, a vast majority of people in the field are trained in analytic philosophy. Meaning the vast majority of training going on is in analytic philosophy. Meaning that the vast majority of opportunities available are in analytic philosophy, or being scouted for by analytic-identifying philosophers and departments. Point is, the analytic applicant's always going to have more options. I don't think anyone disputes this, unless you'd like to. You also can't argue without data of your own, as you started suggesting towards the end of your first post, that continental philosophy might actually have it better than analytic when it comes to job prospects - again, misleading and irresponsible. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Prose

[759]

1 minute ago, Prose said:

Right, a vast majority of people in the field are trained in analytic philosophy. Meaning the vast majority of training going on is in analytic philosophy. Meaning that the vast majority of opportunities available are in analytic philosophy, or being scouted for by analytic-identifying philosophers and departments. Point is, the analytic applicant's always going to have more options. I don't think anyone disputes this, unless you'd like to. You also can't argue as you started suggesting towards the end of your first post that continental philosophy might actually have it better than analytic when it comes to job prospects - again, misleading and irresponsible. 

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. 

[hector549]

15 hours ago, Theoryboi said:

Hey all!

So I've been meandering about the Phil forum for a few weeks now as my luck on my politics PhDs seems to be running dry. I am reasonably well-read in some philosophy topics (mostly Nietzsche and the Post-Modernists), though I don't have a lot of experience in 'proper' Phil departments. I have a background in Political Theory and International Relations, and the short version of what I am interested in is ethics and moral claims in IR, specifically using a post-structuralist frame of reference. My question is: is this at all an area discussed in Continental Phil departments or am I theorist barking up the wrong tree? I appreciate any insight you fine folks can offer. I am considering shooting an app to Loyola Marymount to broaden my ethics base; does anyone have any thoughts on their program? Thanks!

Maybe we can take a step back from debating employability issues with respect to continental vs. analytic departments and see the bigger picture in the OP's question. Or if you want to carry on the debate @Prose @759 start a new thread.

I don't have the expertise in the more niche areas of continental thought to know whether you, @Theoryboi would be able to pursue your interests in one of the more SPEP-oriented continental departments. It may very well be the case, since the most SPEP-oriented continental programs engage heavily with literary theory, post-colonial studies, and so forth. Again, I'll leave that question to someone who knows those areas of continental philosophy to offer you advice.

However, I will say this: you've implied by the post that you're thinking of applying to philosophy programs as a kind of backup, since you've been striking out in political studies. I think rather than blindly applying in the hopes that you might be a fit at Loyola Marymount or the like, it would make more sense for you to take a few philosophy classes somewhere (or just audit them), at a similar sort of department, to see if you actually like philosophy and want to do it. It takes time to develop familiarity with and mastery of a new methodological approach. Even though your current work may very well be adjacent to the work being done in the more continental departments, I don't think that you should rush headlong into philosophy without at least figuring out if you like it and want to work within that methodology or not. Reading some Nietzsche is a start, but it's not a substitute for actually sitting in on a class or two.

Furthermore, I doubt that you'll be able to get into a program if you haven't taken any philosophy courses, even if your work is adjacent. A program like LM is very competitive (as are pretty much all funded programs in philosophy), and it's going to be very difficult/perhaps impossible to get in if you have no philosophy coursework on your transcripts and a sample that may or may not be philosophical.

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by hector549

[Theoryboi]

Hey gang,

 

First, thank you to everyone for the varying perspectives. I value all of your input! 

Second, I am sorry if  I gave off the impression that I have no background in philosophy. @hector549 I have taken some UG courses in Philosophy of Religion, Post-Modernism, and Nietzsche (including having extensively read the vast majority of Nietzsche's written work and translated some fragments from German to English). 

@ProseI don't mean for philosophy to come off as my panic option and I didn't originally clarify that this would be applying to MAs rather than PhDs. I have long held an interest in philosophy and have long felt the distinction between theory/philosophy is trivial. (I understand there are some methodological differences, however, I consider myself adaptable in that regard). My interest in doing an MA in philosophy is to give myself a more formal education in an area that I have long held an affinity for and have already been incorporating in my work to this point. I think its more about broadening than about switching in my mind.

@notaphilosobro1k90 The politics between analytics and continentals is something I have faced in my academic career even in politics. This sort of pettiness is rampant in both departments, creating rigid distinctions where none need exist and propagated by small-minded compartmentalists (yeah, I made that word up). It's so unproductive and so sad. 

@_izzythekid_ I have mostly Foucault and Derrida in mind, though I am interested in Baudrillard and Deleuze (Guattari) as well. I'd particularly like to do work using the genealogical method building off of Foucault and Nietzsche's work on morals as the product of power relations, however specifically applying this to IR and to academic IR Theory.

Anyways, I appreciate the feedback from you all and I am sorry if my desire for interdisciplinarity has offended anyone!

[maxhgns]

The Theory market in PoliSci is not very good at all these days, although it's probably still better than the philosophy market (even in continental/continental SocPot). From what I gather, it's pretty rough out there (in the US market) for PoliSci PhDs who don't have a strong background in quant.

FWIW, I've seen several philosophers move into political science/theory departments (I'm not saying it's easy or likely, just that it's done), but I've not seen the reverse move; I suspect it's practically impossible, due to disciplinary prestige issues (viz., philosophers have little respect for theorists from other disciplines). I don't think a philosophy MA would be any kind of obstacle to pursuing a PhD in polisci afterwards. If anything, it would probably be an asset, but I don't know whether LMU's the place to do it. Honestly, it mostly depends on the funding. You shouldn't be taking on debt for any kind of MA (or PhD, for that matter). If it were me, I'd have a good look at Queen's (Kingston), which is a top philosophy department when it comes to political philosophy and applied ethics, and which, although primarily analytic, recently hired Lisa Guenther. If you can get funding there, you might also gain access to training and opportunities which would be helpful for your move back to Theory, and which might be harder to come by elsewhere. I'd also have a good look at Vanderbilt, and maybe GSU or DePaul. (But I don't know!)

Whatever you do, stay away from the New School. And from what I've heard and seen, if you're not white, Villanova may not be a good place for you.

[shifgrethor]

As someone with a BA in political science (with a focus on IR theory in a continental vein) who is currently a PhD student at a top philosophy department, I’m probably a good person to address your question. (Although I should clarify that I now work mainly in history of philosophy and am no longer specializing in IR theory or continental philosophy.)

An MA is a great choice if you’re open minded and prepared to work hard to a) catch up on common knowledge you lack relative to your classmates, and b) learn the methodology of analytic philosophy (even if you’re goal is to stick to continental philosophizing, it is essential to be conversant in analytic philosophy imo). The first couple of months of my philosophy MA were stressful and busy, because I was doing as much ‘background reading’ as actual class readings. Most good profs will recommend background readings for graduate courses, which I strongly suggest you read if you’re really taking this seriously. 

I think it it can be a great idea to do this, and I wish you luck if it’s your plan. I never took (or audited) a single philosophy course before my MA, so it is not true that you need to do so. But you should be prepared to be a beginner at philosophy, and not assume you already know everything just because you’re fluent in the language of IR theory. Even the overlaps are often approached in radically different ways in the two fields. 

[Rose-Colored Beetle]

Hey @Theoryboi, I'm friends with one of the faculty at LMU. Do you want me to put you in touch?

Specific to my situation, we have people at Fordham who you could easily work with: faculty who work on Derrida and Nietzsche, and come fall we'll probably have hired a Foucauldian. One of my colleagues is really into Deleuze and Guattari, etc. On top of that, we have ethicists who are used to working in a pluralist department, one of whom has shown active interest in Nietzsche.

I also think it's possible to overstate the background knowledge required to succeed in grad school. I'm constantly surprised at the gaps I find in my colleagues' knowledge, and we all get on fine. (I don't mean this arrogantly; I have equally glaring gaps in my knowledge, but by definition I don't find them surprising.) Point is, if you're a sharp person who's eager to learn, I wouldn't worry about it.

Here's one more thought to take or leave: it wouldn't hurt to apply to PhDs. Maybe you'll get in. If you remain set on stopping at the MA, you can just drop out after your second year and take the MA. But if you like it, and you have guaranteed funding... well, you'd be getting paid to research, which isn't a bad gig unless you're worried about delaying your target career by a few years. Plus you'll have a PhD. Just my ruminations.

[Rose-Colored Beetle]

Oh, and as for the analytic/continental distinction, here's my take: analytics are philosophers who deny that there's an analytic/continental distinction. Continentals are those who affirm it.

[redsubywa]

9 hours ago, Rose-Colored Beetle said:

Oh, and as for the analytic/continental distinction, here's my take: analytics are philosophers who deny that there's an analytic/continental distinction. Continentals are those who affirm it.

I don't know, maybe more: "analytics are philosophers who deny that there's an analytic/continental distinction [because they don't think continental philosophy is philosophy at all].

[Prose]

9 minutes ago, redsubywa said:

I don't know, maybe more: "analytics are philosophers who deny that there's an analytic/continental distinction [because they don't think continental philosophy is philosophy at all].

WOW that's a spicy one!

[redsubywa]

7 minutes ago, Prose said:

WOW that's a spicy one!

Only speaking from experience (ie. things analytics have said to me, someone who does continental philosophy)!

Edited February 25, 2019 by redsubywa

[Prose]

Just now, redsubywa said:

Only speaking from experience (as someone who does continental philosophy)!

depends how it's done honestly, I'm at an extremely analytic department and most people don't really have that attitude, they just shun murky writing.

[redsubywa]

Just now, Prose said:

depends how it's done honestly, I'm at an extremely analytic department and most people don't really have that attitude, they just shun murky writing.

Yeah, that's understandable. I'm in a very continental department, and my fellows are usually quite fair to analytics as well - I think the "debate" is significantly less of a thing than it was 10-20 years ago.

[soproperlybasic]

On 2/22/2019 at 11:48 PM, Theoryboi said:

Hey all!

So I've been meandering about the Phil forum for a few weeks now as my luck on my politics PhDs seems to be running dry. I am reasonably well-read in some philosophy topics (mostly Nietzsche and the Post-Modernists), though I don't have a lot of experience in 'proper' Phil departments. I have a background in Political Theory and International Relations, and the short version of what I am interested in is ethics and moral claims in IR, specifically using a post-structuralist frame of reference. My question is: is this at all an area discussed in Continental Phil departments or am I theorist barking up the wrong tree? I appreciate any insight you fine folks can offer. I am considering shooting an app to Loyola Marymount to broaden my ethics base; does anyone have any thoughts on their program? Thanks!

I will second @Rose-Colored Beetle's first comment here (not so sure about the second one regarding the analytic-continental distinction) but it sounds like Fordham could be an option for you. We have a world-famous Nietzsche scholar here who also does work on Heidegger and Gadamer. We also have a number of colleagues interested in Foucault, Deleuze/Guattari, Marx, and others--it seems like Fordham is trying to bring in more people interested in political philosophy and ethics (looking at my own cohort as an example) . We've recently made some great ethics hires to strengthen our department's ethics base too. One last thing I'll say about Fordham: We have a Social and Political Group that meets pretty regularly every semester that brings in guests from all over.

Edited February 26, 2019 by soproperlybasic