Here’s some sobering advice for philosophy PhD candidates from Michael Huemer at the University of Colorado. The page came to my attention through Leiter Reports.
Philosophers, not to mention philosophy PhD candidates, are prone to delusions of grandeur. So Huemer’s advice, though hard to swallow, is worth reading.
Here’s just a snippet. If you want to read about how to get a job in philosophy, check Huemer’s page. But for anyone who wishes to avoid Huemer’s bitter pill, I’ll stick to the advice that applies only after you have a job in philosophy. So, here’s the answer to question 11, How does one advance in philosophy?
There are some people with great jobs who get a lot of attention in the field. How do they do it? Three main factors matter:
a. Cleverness. This is one necessary condition on success in the field [sic. The ability to proofread must not be necessary [1]]. One must be good at devising clever arguments for surprising conclusions, and one must be quick-witted when defending them.
b. Connections. One must meet and make friends with the right people, i.e., the philosophers who are already established in the field.
c. Luck.
It appears that one must combine the shrewdness and good fortune of Homer’s Odysseus with the networking abilities of professional development guru Tony Robbins to be a top academic philosopher.
While I appreciate the ‘reality check’ and agree that cleverness is, and should be, a necessary condition of success in the field, I’d be disappointed if everyone from AC Grayling to Slavoj Žižek also owes their career to connections and luck — if cream only rises to the top due to good fortune and a knack for establishing friendships of utility.
Notes
[1] Obnoxious Philosophical Practise 1: deliberately quoting a passage with a mistake in it just so you can draw attention to the fact that the quoted philosopher has made a mistake, however trivial. [Back to text]
After reading that article, I am quite glad that I picked Medicine as my primary profession. The field of medicine is very performance based rather than prestige; most hospitals don’t give two-shits where you went to medical school, so long as you did well.
As bad as it sounds, it has damaged my interest to come back to uni and do a PhD in philosophy at some stage.
hasn’t*
Need to learn to proofread better.
It seems that hospitals understand appeals to authority better than philosophy departments.
While it may be true that prestigious university X produces many very good philosophers, that does not imply that any particular student from university X is a very good philosopher. Accordingly, the fact that a philosopher comes from university X is not sufficient reason to believe they are a very good philosopher.
Likewise, while it may be true that ordinary university Y produces many mediocre philosophers, that does not imply that any particular student from university Y is a mediocre philosopher. Accordingly, the fact that a philosopher comes from university Y is not sufficient reason to believe they are a mediocre philosopher
On the balance of probabilities it is more likely that a philosopher from university X will be a very good philosopher than one who comes from university Y. But by no means does the prestige of the university determine the quality of the philosopher.
I hope this consoles you, somewhat.