How many individuals went on the philosophy job market this previous cycle?
Once again, Charles Lassiter (Gonzaga College), has spent a good period of time gathering and analyzing knowledge concerning the philosophy career. This time, he has centered on the numbers of individuals making use of for philosophy jobs.
(A model of this publish first appeared at Professor Lassiter’s blog.)
[Charles Atlas, “Painting By Numbers” (video still)]
How Many Individuals Are Making use of for Philosophy Jobs?
by Charles Lassiter
Over the course of final semester, I despatched out requests to heads of search committees to fill out a short survey to determine how many individuals have been on the job market this previous cycle.
First, a HUGE due to Gonzaga undergrad Kate Ferrell and Gonzaga philosophy grad scholar Tobias Propst for amassing the names and electronic mail addresses. With out them, this might have taken a lot longer.
I despatched out 239 emails and gathered 79 accomplished responses. Thanks to everybody who stuffed it out! Right here’s the breakdown of responses by Carnegie classification:
Certificates: 1
Bachelors: 25
Masters : 6
Doctorate : 43
I didn’t acquire figuring out details about the establishments or applications. I requested for variety of candidates, AOS, Carnegie classification (R1, R2, MA, BA, certificates), instructing necessities, and a few subjective impressions about quantity of purposes proportion of instructing and analysis.
(Fast observe about terminology: from right here on, I take advantage of “standing” as shorthand for the class of highest diploma awarded. It looks like a neutral-ish and brief time period for the class.)
Okay, so let’s get to it. The massive image: the common for numbers of candidates throughout all responses is 136. Given the responses and the variety of invites despatched out, the margin of error is +/- 9% (with 95% confidence degree). So the common for variety of folks available on the market might be someplace between 125 and 147. That being stated, there’s numerous variation.
The variety of candidates to jobs at doctoral establishments was increased on common than every other, however there was much more unfold round that common. That is clear from the desk, but in addition have a look at the next plots. Variations amongst numbers of candidates to BA-granting establishments are roughly linear. However for PhD-granting establishments, it’s nearer to exponential. (There have been comparatively few MA-granting establishment responses, so I’m hesitant to attract conclusions.)
Now let’s pull collectively a bunch of information about purposes to varied applications: the fewest, common, median, and biggest variety of candidates by program standing.
It seems to be like jobs with PhD applications are getting so much extra purposes than every other. Actually, the values for max and common purposes decreases because the standing of this system goes from PhD to MA to BA. (It’s laborious to attract conclusions about jobs at certificate-granting establishments since there was just one response.) A primary speculation: Candidates preferentially apply for jobs at PhD-granting establishments. Two issues to verify: (i) whether or not the pattern holds for R1 and R2 and (ii) if the values are a results of open-rank hires.
For (i), the pattern doesn’t maintain for variations between R1 and R2 jobs amongst respondents, nevertheless it’s price noting that there have been comparatively few R2 respondents.
For (ii), let’s limit the information to TT jobs solely. That method, our numbers aren’t inflated by open-rank hires.
I believe our preliminary speculation is correct: candidates are biased in direction of making use of for jobs at PhD-granting applications however the knowledge don’t recommend that this bias holds for R1 vs R2 applications.
Let’s have a look at the numbers breaking out by AOS and program standing. An essential caveat: our 9% margin of error was for all responses to all surveys despatched out. As soon as we start dividing up the pool of responses, the margin of error will increase and generally considerably. Suppose that the break up between jobs marketed for BA- and PhD-granting establishments was 50/50. The MoE for the BA-granting common jumps to 17% and for the PhD-granting common to 12%. So as soon as we start parsing into subgroups, I’m saying much less about all jobs for this 12 months and extra concerning the responses. I’ll attempt to be specific about that the place acceptable.
Right here’s the best way to interpret the plot. The vertical gray line is the common for every AOS. The error bars give the minimal and most values for every standing and AOS. The purpose within the error bar is the common for AOS and standing. The tables for these values are here.
This plot pulls collectively numerous what we’ve beforehand talked about. Jobs at PhD-granting establishments are inclined to get extra purposes than elsewhere, notably for open and historical past/custom AOS. The roles that on common had the fewest purposes amongst respondents have been historical past/custom jobs at BA-granting establishments. Actually, in 2 out of 5 instances, the max variety of purposes for BA applications is lower than the common for that AOS.
My interpretation of PhD-programs having extra candidates is a manifestation of two sides of status bias. On one aspect, it’s believable that many candidates need to apply virtually completely to prestigious jobs, the place being a PhD-granting program tracks status. The opposite aspect of the coin is that candidates promote themselves brief, considering that there’s no method they may make it previous the primary spherical at an R1 or R2.
That being stated, if there are different believable interpretations, please be happy to share!
One of many takeaways restricted to the respondents (however is maybe indicative of the broader discipline of candidates and openings) is that in the event you’re making use of to R1’s, you’ll doubtless end up with so much extra competitors relative to MA- and BA-granting applications, notably for open, science/language/math, and historical past/custom AOS’s.
Two extra tables earlier than calling it a day: one about impressions of applicant quantity and one other about time allotment for the job.
In order that’s good to know: usually, committee chairs have first rate expectations for the numbers of candidates. How does this examine to the numbers of purposes obtained?
The “fewer” bar all the way in which to the fitting? That’s 515 purposes for an open AOS, open rank place at an R1. With these parameters, I’d have guessed there can be extra too.
That’s helpful to know: the standard response is that point spent instructing and researching is roughly equal. The breakdown for that quantity is:
BA-granting establishments: 8
MA-granting establishments: 4
PhD-granting establishments: 22
…which I discovered fairly darned attention-grabbing. As you may think, “principally analysis with some instructing,” was largely PhD-granting establishments (12) and “some analysis and principally instructing” was largely BA-granting establishments (10). The lesson, I believe, is that job candidates can’t afford to neglect instructing or analysis of their purposes however must discern which to amplify for the job utilized to. I believe that’s frequent sense, nevertheless it’s good to have some information to assist it.
Should you’d just like the uncooked knowledge and script, you will discover them below the “weblog knowledge” tab.
Effectively, that’s all. If there are every other analyses you’d wish to see, please let me know!
