The Job Market in the Post-APA Eastern Era

The Job Market in the Post-APA Eastern Era


Over the past several years we have seen an increased use of video calls (e.g., Skype) as a replacement for in-person first-round interviews at the Eastern Division meeting of the APA. Though there may be some holdouts (for various reasons), the trend seems likely to continue. What have been the effects of this change, so far, on the job market?  And are they salutary, on their own or all things considered?

For example, some have suggested that departments, freed from the uniform schedule of the past, are advertising earlier, with earlier deadlines, in an attempt to snap up desirable candidates. Are there in fact more ads already, with earlier deadlines? Is this a strategy your department has considered? How are candidates dealing with these changes?

guest
29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Justin C
6 years ago

I noticed a flurry of ads lately and wondered the same thing.

It’s not fun for candidates if this new process will be year round as some have suggested! We will now be filling out apps 24/7 nearly all year long rather than a set few months. This is much more stressful. This new system only serves to make life easier for Universities. Sure, no more in person interviews (thats better for SOME candidates), but at what cost? And, in person interviews were a benefit for some candidates who may have good in-person interviewing skills.Report

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

As a job applicant I am grateful for the move away from interviewing at the APA. In my experience it is unnecessarily expensive for the applicants. For instance, I had one interview at the Eastern a few years back. I didn’t know what day(s) I would have an interview, so I had to book a hotel for all four days. I was contacted for this interview less than two weeks before the APA! Flights were incredibly expensive at that time (didn’t help that the APA falls during prime holiday travel). Even with some funding from my department (a luxury not everyone on the market has), I easily had to spend $1000 of my own money just for that one interview. At the time, I was making less than $20k a year as a grad student.

I am from a middle-class family. My parents chipped in to help with the cost. If I didn’t have that support from my parents (and believe me, asking for even $500 is no small request), that $1000 might have precluded me from attending the interview. I can easily imagine philosophers who are excluded from participating in APA interviews, not because of their merit as philosophers, but because they do not have a strong enough financial support system. If we want philosophy jobs to be open to philosophers from all walks of life, in person APA interviews (as practiced now) are a step in the wrong direction.Report

Justin C
6 years ago

(anonymous at 2)

As someone who is not from a Leiter ranked program, or without the prestige of a top flight university more generally, I can tell you that I would very much like to be interviewed in person rather than some less personal skype interview or no interview at all. If no interview, then employers will be forced to make decisions on the paperwork I send them which has a non-prestigious University attached to them all. If no interview, then employers will be forced to make decisions on the paperwork I send them which has a non-prestigous University attached to them all, clearly we don’t want prestige bias doing ALL the work, do we? Regarding skype interview: well, given that I have NO experience with them, I can’t really say. It seems artificial and probably requires different sorts of skills in order to nail them, at least that’s my worry. Having worked many jobs and been involved with doing and preparing for interviews in the real world for YEARS before entering graduate school, I have fostered pretty good interpersonal skills that could have helped me, or so I think, during the interview process. As someone who was not even fortunate to call themselves “middle-class” I get your financial concerns and they are important! I’ll be in a similar position if I get asked to come to the APA for an interview, though I don’t have the luxury of asking my parents for the help. That said, I will find some sort of way to get there just like I found my way to conferences and to buy a computer that is needed for the types of interviews you speak of in the first place, all expensive stuff. I shouldn’t have to struggle to make this happen but I think that an in person interview is likely to help me rather than hurt me. This is not IDEAL for inclusivity in the discipline for those coming from underprivelged backgrounds, like myself, I get that. But I have no real good ideas on how to both continue an interview process that allows candidates to showcase their interpersonal skills and their enthusiasm for teaching and researching in ways that documents cannot to justice to while also making such interviews financially doable so to speak.

I propose that schools do not do interviews at the APA. That they do on campus interviews instead and pay the candidates to fly in. They won’t be able to conduct as many interviews this way but at least the in-person interview would remain, which I like, and the cost concerns you mention might be thwarted (somewhat, because even with a skype interview in the early stages, many folks will need access to such technology and this will be costly for those who are worse off and may not be affiliated with a University or with consistent access to good internet/camera’s and the like).

FWIW, my mention of the in-person interview was an after thought. The main point I was trying to convey in my initial comment (not that you were addressing me directly) was that a move to year round job postings is a stressful transition from the job season model which usually lasted 5-6 months. The stress to find a ticket to an interview is high, but the stress of applying week in and week out for 52 weeks a year is grueling and seems worse to me! For me, a broke lower-socio economic candidate, I’d rather stress about the one-time flight to the Eastern and have 5-6 months to myself to focus on making myself a better candidate for those jobs rather than take a chunk out of every work week to apply for a new job. But maybe I’m alone on this, it wouldn’t be the first time.Report

ejrd
ejrd
6 years ago

I think that the moral argument against interviewing at the Eastern (or at any conference) is powerful and persuasive. Justin C’s issue seems entirely separable from this in the sense that his main concern has to do with moving from a job season to being perpetually on the market all year. I agree that this too is an injustice to applicants for many of the same reasons.

The solution, however, is NOT to go back to the old system (having been a participant on both ends of that system, it was terrible-at best). What I think we need is a stronger APA that can enforce a set of dates for a job season and (if it comes to it) censure departments who seek to game the system by forcing candidates to apply early in the summer in order to take them out of the market. Seriously folks, if professional sports organizations (bastions of ethics that they are) can work this out, I think philosophers should be able to do so as well.

Having a well-defined (and enforced) hiring season would be maximally beneficial to job candidates (in terms of fairness) and would not hurt departments (even one like mine, which will be hiring this year) to the extent that it would be unfair or immoral.Report

p
p
6 years ago

I think the new system will ultimately heavily weigh in direction of prestige of the department/university and “invisible” connections… there was something quite awful about the Eastern APA, but somehow it was at least there in your face – more out in the open. Like everybody, I like the move to skype because of the cost, but the loss of in-person interviews is mostly regrettable. There was also something really nice about a kind of calendar about it… the year round thing is awful for academics given that we can’t start or leave anytime. It limits choice and further reduces chances for good life…Report

anon female grad student
anon female grad student
6 years ago

I had many interviews last year, and all were via Skype. I did not have to go to the APA. The interviews are always a little bit awkward, but as long as tech doesn’t fail, there are no drawbacks, as far as I can tell. The one thing I think is lost is the standard timeline. One might get an offer before another school schedules their on-campus visit. This was fairly stressful to navigate: do I accept an offer from a school I felt was not right at all, or do I reject and wait for another offer? How long do I leave the first school hanging? I would think it’s not in the best interest of universities or candidates to have people forced by timelines into accepting offers which are unattractive to them.Report

anonymous
anonymous
6 years ago

I don’t really get Justin C’s objection to skype interviews. Yes, we lose the ability to show off (at least some of) our personal charisma or whatever, but one can do some of that over skype, and I’m not getting the reasons for thinking skype *benefits* students from elite programs. If anything it seems like more of an equalizer than in-person interviews are. It’s fairly easy to practice skyping enough to make a decent impression, and I don’t think students from elite programs are more likely to have had practice doing this already? Also, I don’t think having interpersonal skills is *more* of an advantage for people from non-elite programs than it is for students from elite programs, so I doubt that not having in-person interviews is actually going to overall privilege students from elite programs. Am open to being wrong about this. But I guess I am confused since pedigree is probably used to make first cuts in many cases in both situations. I can’t really see skype systematically harming students from non-elite programs, but it is clear to me that APA interviews do systematically harm students from non-elite programs, who, I am fairly confident, are on average less economically privileged in at least three different ways than students from elite programs are: they probably have worse overall funding, they probably have less travel funny/departmental support on the job market, and I suspect they are more likely to have less familial support or other sources of $.Report

Justin C
6 years ago

@anonymous at 7

I didn’t object to skype interviews. I was objecting to the new system forcing candidates to apply year round in the absence of said interviews. This seems to hurt candidates and gives Universities even more power!

I have never had a skype interview so I don’t have much negative to say about them other than I would likely do better in an in-person interview given that I have had LOTS of experience with those. as I mentioned @3 (but again this is just me speculating in the absence of said experience). I’m assuming that this would have put me at an advantage when compared to those economically advantaged students, which BTW, I agree with your assessment of economic privilege and elite programs. So, it’s not that I have a problem with skype per say, only that it seems as though something is lost in the exchange through that medium rather than in person (this is speculation, again I haven’t interviewed in this way). I have kept in touch with friends via skype and I can say it’s not the same! I think that there is something to be said for sharing the same space with others when conversating, but I won’t offer arguments for that here.

My main issue was the one I tried to reiterate @3: “The stress to find a ticket to an interview is high, but the stress of applying week in and week out for 52 weeks a year is grueling and seems worse to me! For me, a broke lower-socio economic candidate, I’d rather stress about the one-time flight to the Eastern and have 5-6 months to focus on making myself a better candidate for those jobs rather than take a chunk out of every work week to apply for a new job. But maybe I’m alone on this, it wouldn’t be the first time.” The skype knock was more of me venting that I will not be able to show some of my strengths if in-person interviews went by the wayside. Given that I need to show as many strengths as possible (because of lack of prestige) I see this as primarily hurting folks like me, but I digress.

@ejrd at 4

I agree! Though I’m not convinced the old way is worse than the new; they both have problems for sure but I think something like your recommendation would be most beneficial to those that ought to be benefited (the candidates and NOT the Universities).Report

Matt
6 years ago

What I think we need is a stronger APA that can enforce a set of dates for a job season and (if it comes to it) censure departments who seek to game the system by forcing candidates to apply early in the summer in order to take them out of the market. Seriously folks, if professional sports organizations (bastions of ethics that they are) can work this out, I think philosophers should be able to do so as well.

People say this sort of thing a lot, and I wonder how they think it would happen. I’m not surprised the details are left vague. (In professional sports, it is usually via contract law. For reasons that should be obvious, that can’t work with philosophy departments and the APA.) One reason why the APA has little power is because of its members. (That is, philosophers.) To make it stronger would require them to do more work, and to give power to groups of people within the APA. There doesn’t seem to be much taste for that (except when people are complaining about how the APA should “do something” about some particular problem), and many actual attempts to give the APA more power have been less than fully happy. But, even if the APA had more power, it could really only have so much. It can’t make universities do anything, and can’t really even make departments do anything. The only way that the APA could “enforce a set of dates” for hiring would be by, say, having the interviews at its sponsored conferences, or adds run in its sponsored paper, but the profession at large has already decided it didn’t like that.Report

anon junior faculty
anon junior faculty
6 years ago

The market does seem to be creeping forward in time. I experienced this personally within the last few years. I applied for a TT job in the US whose deadline was late September. I did a skype interview in October, then an on-campus interview in November. I had an offer from them a few days later. And a two week deadline to accept it or reject it. That meant I had to give them an answer before mid-December — before most departments had even sent out first-round interview invitations. I was being forced to decide without knowing which other options I might have.

And they pressed this advantage. They refused to negotiate any aspect of the salary, teaching load, etc. They even refused to discuss the decision deadline itself. It was very much take it, or leave it and risk the rest of the market.

I didn’t take it. I thought: if they were going to treat me like this when I might have other options, what would it be like once I’d moved there? So, with serious trepidation, I turned it down. It turned out okay for me. I had other offers later in the season and wound up with a job where I’m very happy. But still it was a very stressful choice to make. And I’m sure other departments do the same thing to other candidates. It’s not a kind way to treat human beings. It may also backfire: I had a lot of goodwill for that department after my visit – I liked the people and wanted them as colleagues. But when they put the screws to me in non-negotiation, I lost much of my enthusiasm.Report

Professor Plum
Professor Plum
Reply to  anon junior faculty
6 years ago

Well, I understand your frustration, but I’m sure that policy is coming from higher up the foodchain. Ill will directed toward the department seems misplaced.Report

Sine nomine
Sine nomine
Reply to  Professor Plum
6 years ago

Departments representing different disciplines have quite different hiring calendars. Why would it be coming from higher up?Report

p
p
6 years ago

The APA could issue a non-biding statement which departments could, voluntarily, endorse. Such departments could get highlighted in a variety of ways (say, a “fair-practice” department) or even get discounts for publishing the jobs. Just like APA can do something about discrimination, it can do something about hiring practices.Report

Mike Titelbaum
Mike Titelbaum
6 years ago

I may be entirely wrong about this (I certainly haven’t gone out and double-checked), but my recollection from talking to friends in other disciplines is that Philosophy’s previous lock-step hiring timetable was something of an anomaly in academia. That doesn’t bear any particular normative weight (for instance, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t real harms in going from the old way to the new way), but I wonder if it would be worth calling in some people from other disciplines to discuss how they handle the concerns raised above.Report

Matt
Reply to  Mike Titelbaum
6 years ago

from talking to friends in other disciplines is that Philosophy’s previous lock-step hiring timetable was something of an anomaly in academia.

The only other field I feel sure commenting about is Law. Law schools have (still) and even more lock-step hiring timetable than philosophy. There are some advantages to the law system but some disadvantages, too. But, it’s one a pretty much set schedule because there is a centralized process and a very key hiring convention (always in the same place, even, the Marriott in Washington DC, in the iddle of Oct.) By comparison, Canadian and UK law schools don’t use this system (for obvious reasons) and their hiring is spread out over the entire year, from early fall clear into the early summer. That’s quite possibly philosophy’s future.
(As to voluntary compliance, a parallel with hiring for law clerks for judges might be made. For some time, there was a voluntary plan put in place that set a start to the hiring process for law clerks and had some norms on offers. From the start, not everyone followed it. “Prestigious” judges often opted out first. But then, rationally, others started pulling out. There was social pressure to comply, but this was greatly off-set by other incentives, and once a hand-full of well-known judges said they wouldn’t go along any more, the whole thing fell apart. I strongly suspect this would be what would happen with any voluntary APA code of conduct here. The incentives to comply would be small and those to defect would be high, and once a modest number of departments defected, the norms would lose any force. Now that the ability to use Jobs for Philosophers and the Eastern APA to coordinate behavior is largely gone, we should not expect the old system to come back.)Report

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

I agree that a year long job market is stressful, but I am unconvinced that it is more stressful than the old model. I suspect which model is more stressful will turn on preferences of the applicants. I am sure that some would rather have one to two TERRIBLE months of researching schools, writing cover letters, organizing other documents, etc. But if you are applying to 50 + schools, working on research, teaching, and trying to have a personal life–October and November are going to be just awful. For what it is worth, even on the year long model it can be difficult to manage all the applications that are due November 1st, 15th, 30th, and Dec. 1st. The advantage to this model, of course, is that after Dec. 1st or so you don’t have to worry much about the market (other than preparing for whatever interviews you get). A year long job market spreads the awfulness of October and November out over several months–which some applicants are going to prefer. Unless there is good reason to think that there are MANY more applicants who prefer their awfulness be intense and short, instead of less intense but drawn out, I do not see why we should accept the claim that the year long market is more stressful.

On the other hand, I completely agree that the longer market allows and incentivizes schools to push their deadlines forward to pressure the ‘best’ applicants into accepting a job before they know all their options. This is morally objectionable.

As someone who has yet to be on the hiring side of things, I wonder if someone with experience on this matter could enlighten me as to what advantage there is for schools to push their deadlines up. It seems to me that if your motive is to pressure someone who would not otherwise take a job at your school to do so, you are setting yourself up for losing that person as soon as she can find a ‘better’ job. Perhaps in the next few years, when all those applicants who ‘settled’ for jobs bail out and those schools have to go through the whole interview process again, they will be disincentivized to push the deadline forward again.

This is Anonymous #2 again, for what it is worth.Report

Professor Plum
Professor Plum
Reply to  Anonymous
6 years ago

Obviously schools are attempting to get “top” candidates they wouldn’t ordinarily be able to get. Given the tightness of the job market, many peoples’ reluctance to uproot their families for another tenure track position, and hiring departments’ preferences for “potential” over experience, it isn’t easy to move. Also, by making an early offer, schools don’t have to deal with responding to as many counteroffers.Report

babygirl
babygirl
6 years ago

I think it is worth saying that even schools now on a “standard” timeline will run into this problem, unintentionally, since some schools (for whatever reason) were performing first round interviews in February or even March, around the time that offers were being made. I had to cancel an on-campus and a first round interview when I (happily!) accepted an offer. I was lucky to receive the offer from a university I was ecstatic about, but it would have been a much more difficult decision had I preferred or thought I would prefer the other schools at which I had the upcoming interviews. This was no one’s “fault” or intention, there’s just nothing forcing schools into a timeline anymore, so some get behind.

My general impression, being a candidate last season, was that the standard timeline just didn’t exist anymore. A published, recommended timeline would go a long way. I also found it nice to have something to point to to say (when much earlier, a different school was pressuring me for a decision within a few days) that they weren’t doing things in the standard way, and that this was discouraged by the APA, which recommended 2 weeks. Similarly, if there were some language somewhere like “in the absence of exceptional circumstances, job offers for tenure track positions should be given late-February to late-March” on the APA website, this would help both candidates through the process of schools trying to snap up good candidates, as well as give guidelines to keep well-intentioned universities on the same schedule. Sure, it’s not strictly speaking enforceable in any material sense; nevertheless, shame goes a long way.Report

david chalmers
6 years ago

for what it’s worth, philjobs includes the following recommendation for advertisers, aiming to encourage a relatively uniform timetable for the fall job market. of course we have no power to enforce the recommendation, but perhaps it could be more widely publicized.

“We accept ads year-around. However, it is preferable for the community if departments follow certain conventions. For tenure-track/continuing positions advertised in the second half of the calendar year, we recommend an application deadline of November 1 or later. It is further recommended that postings be submitted at least 30 days prior to the application deadline to ensure that candidates have ample time to apply.”Report

Matt
Reply to  david chalmers
6 years ago

David, quite honestly, how effective do you think that tjat ‘recommending’ will be, if a department thinks (perhaps rightly!) that it conflicts with its self-interest, and that other departments are doing similar things? My own thought is that it would be very naive to think that “tisk tisking” will make any difference in such cases. It doesn’t with other disciplines, or with judges hiring law clerks. I think people are fooling themselves if they think it will make any difference here. (And, that they are fooling themselves if they think it will make any difference if the tisk tisking comes from the APA.)
(Even in “fat” years for candidates, several good but not great law schools such as Florida State were able to punch above their weight in hiring by making very fast exploding offers. This was so even even with the anchor of a hiring conference. It seems very unlikely to me that philosophy departments won’t do the same. There is some evidence of it already, and it’s very likely to become more common, I’d think.)Report

ejrd
ejrd
6 years ago

For the record Matt, I’m suggesting something stronger than mere tisk-tisking on the part of the APA. The APA has a lot of soft-power at it’s disposal that it could use (if the community wanted it to). It could, for example, publicly censure departments who are egregiously flouting market norms, it could recommend potential graduate students to avoid such programs, it could disallow members of such departments from participating in APA committees or even conferences, it could threaten to remove the department from its Guide to Graduate Programs, and so on. Shame can be a useful tool for changing behavior and enforcing norms, especially when it comes with actual suffering. Of course, as has already been noted, we, as APA members, would have to grant our representative body these powers.

Here is a current list of institutions already censured by the APA: CLICK. Will this solve the problem? Surely not, few specific actions solve problems. Will it be better than the current situation, I think so at least.Report

Professor Plum
Professor Plum
6 years ago

Perhaps candidates who find themselves with tempting early offers should accept them but not pull their other applications. After all, it isn’t against the law or clearly morally wrong to be on the job market once one has accepted another position, and if one were to get a more desirable job one could ask to defer for a year or simply renege.

This obviously won’t win the candidate any love, and maybe it is morally wrong since it could adversely affect other candidates , but I suppose one could make the case that, in some cases, these universities are intentionally taking advantage of those with very little power. I’m not sure resisting this would be wrong.Report

Anon7
Anon7
6 years ago

I’m trying hard to see any downside to the change. Some people in the comments seem to feel that the old, rigid timelines should continue to be enforced, but honestly they make zero sense whatsoever. If a job becomes vacant in January, for example, there’s no real reason beyond tradition to wait eight or nine months to place an ad, a year to start initial interviews, and then finally have the new person start nearly 20 months after the job opened up. Someone earlier in the comments compared the old system to pro sports, but if pro sports leagues did hiring even remotely like this, they would go out of business.

And from the perspective of job candidates, the current system is soul crushing in that if a person strikes out in their initial applications, they face another year of no hope before they begin the process again. Imagine a world in which universities with openings filled them as they came up without waiting for an arbitrary, rigid timeline. I went through the old, monstrous system and I for one will be happy when its last vestiges are dead.Report

ejrd
ejrd
6 years ago

So far as I know, the current “old” job season is a roughly 9 month long process with two (and a half) rounds. These rounds roughly followed the release of the (extremely old-school) “Jobs for Philosophers” newspaper.

1. August – December: the vast majority of tenure-track jobs are released and first round interviews for these jobs are conducted. There are also long-term (but non-tenure-track) jobs advertised during this time (those with some security of employment).

2. January – April: two things tend to happen during the winter and early spring. First, flyouts for the jobs that were advertised in the Fall/Winter tend to take place at this stage. Secondly, the vast number of VAP (visiting assistant professor) positions are advertised at this stage and first round interviews for these VAPS are conducted.

3. April – June: three things happen at this stage. Job offers are typically made (some tenure-track offers may be made during phase 2). VAP flyouts and offers also occur at this stage. Lastly, any other ‘jobs of opportunity’ (i.e. adjunct positions, other VAPS, etc.) sometimes pop-up during this stage of the game. *Note that Anon7’s example is already covered by the current system. A job vacated in January would typically be posted at this stage (especially if it isn’t a tenure-track job since those lines take a while for departments to negotiate from their dean’s and provosts).

I like this schedule. It gives job candidates the summer to: 1) rest (if possible) from the market 2) prepare and revise documents over the summer and 3) move to their new jobs (if they were lucky enough to land one). A year-long job season would destabilize department planning in ways that I think would be undesireable. For example, hiring departments would have a massive incentive to game this system by hiring as early as possible in order to give themselves a hiring advantage while keeping the job candidates at a competitive disadvantage (the fewer options candidates have, the better). Note that this is exactly the problem that is the subject of this DN discussion. Candidates would have to constantly be revising documents ‘on-the-fly.’Report

Wesley Buckwalter
6 years ago

On timing: it doesn’t seem like the market season is really changing all THAT much from what was previously the tradition. But to the extent to which it IS broadening, I for one welcome it. I can understand why change is scary to some. But advertising and filling jobs year round is the norm in many more professions than it is not, and this seems particularly well suited for a profession with many many well-qualified unemployed or underemployed philosophers all around the world in all kinds of different situations, rather than making candidates fit a rigid thing. By contrast, concerns about timing related to ‘poaching best candidates’ and ‘enforcing timetables’ strike me as things that ultimately end up benefiting a privileged few candidates.Report

Anon7
Anon7
6 years ago

@24 When I described a job opening in January, I had in mind a tenure-track position, not a VAP. In that case, once approval is gained (which usually takes a single meeting with the Provost here) there’s no real reason why a new tenure-track hire can’t be made by May to start in August except a reflexive clinging to ancient ways. Of course, there is the old slippery slope argument. Once we accept year-round hiring opportunities, what other things will we be forced to accept–horseless carriages and flameless illumination?Report

jaded postdoc
jaded postdoc
6 years ago

How many of you have encountered fake jobs? I’ve been to a few interviews where it became apparent afterwards that I wasn’t being seriously considered for the job. They had already decided ahead of time who to hire. In one case this was the internal candidate.

I find it really annoying wasting time for these fake jobs. It does help me feel less stressed though. No point being stressed when you don’t even know whether you’re really under consideration at the interview. I happened onto this which criticises fake jobs. http://www.oneplusonemagazine.com/you-are-not-a-commodity-on-how-academics-and-other-labourers-should-stand-up-to-capitalist-abuses/Report

Department chair
Department chair
6 years ago

My department will be doing a tenure-track search this year. We will not be doing APA interviews. We will not be able to do on campus interviews in January so we’re wondering if we should do them in the first half of December or the first half of February. We worry December is too early and a bad time for those teaching, but we also worry that February might be too late if timelines are indeed shifting and people are getting offers earlier. What do you all think?Report

Dirk Baltzly
6 years ago

Just an observation — this entire discussion on the timing of the job market betrays a certain borea-centric world view. Southern hemisphere universities advertise both domestically and internationally. Our academic year is a calendar year and so too is our budget year. This means, among other things, that getting budgetary approval from university administration in time for recruiting at the peak season for the northern hemisphere is often problematic. We try, of course, because it strengthens the field of international applicants, but it doesn’t always work out.

If you hate the thought of working in, say, Australia or New Zealand, then don’t respond to our job advertisements. If the timing is inconvenient for you, don’t take the trouble to apply. But the very idea of an APA policy on when departments should seek to hire philosophers seems to me to evince a parochialism at odds with the international character of our discipline.Report