They have a bunch of senior lecturers. Are they glorified VAPs or tenured?
UChicago junior faculty
-
They have a bunch of senior lecturers. Are they glorified VAPs or tenured?
They're full-time and de facto permanent faculty even if they don't technically have tenure (not positive), it's a sweet gig that's by no means easy to get, what Obama had back in the day. The university has also recently started phasing in the title "Instructional Professor," with associate and full instructional professors having tenure (or tenure-ish). BL in philosophy has that title and is a very productive scholar who would have tenure at the vast majority of schools for example (recent book from HUP, recent articles in JPP, PPR, Philosophers' Imprint).
-
Also in philosophy, BC, who doesn't work on pol phil but has an entertaining gossipy story--he's AC's *ex*-spousal hire, they divorced quite a while ago, but he's since gotten a promotion to full Instructional Prof to keep him there bc they still raise their kids together--with the grad student in the dept she married. All living in the same house. Apparently it actually works great though!
-
The university has also recently started phasing in the title "Instructional Professor," with associate and full instructional professors having tenure (or tenure-ish). BL in philosophy has that title and is a very productive scholar who would have tenure at the vast majority of schools for example (recent book from HUP, recent articles in JPP, PPR, Philosophers' Imprint).
Who is BL? I don’t see a BL in U Chicago’s philosophy dept.
-
If JLW does get tenure, combined with CC who's very much in that lane and SM/JP/etc. who are conversant in it, Chicago will be one of the better places to do analytic stuff.
I’ve always thought of SM and JP as HPT scholars, not analytics. What changed?Nothing, you're correct. People just say silly things here.
-
That’s a lot of theorists. Other subfields may want space to grow. If they don’t get it, Chicago is likely to decline within the discipline as a whole.
What a weird statement. In the last few years, Chicago hired three quant methodologists, two junior Americanists, a senior Americanist, a junior IR scholar, a junior formal theorist, and a senior comparativist.
-
If JLW does get tenure, combined with CC who's very much in that lane and SM/JP/etc. who are conversant in it, Chicago will be one of the better places to do analytic stuff.
I’ve always thought of SM and JP as HPT scholars, not analytics. What changed?Nothing, you're correct. People just say silly things here.
They do HPT but primarily of analytic philosophers, esp SM, who primarily teaches like Kant, Hume, Rousseau, etc. and wouldn’t look out of place in a phil dept. Sub disciplinary boundaries aren’t that hard.
-
They do HPT but primarily of analytic philosophers, esp SM, who primarily teaches like Kant, Hume, Rousseau, etc. and wouldn’t look out of place in a phil dept. Sub disciplinary boundaries aren’t that hard.
This is some real galaxy brain stuff.
Kant and Rousseau are analytic philosophers?
SM could teach in a philosophy department?
Neither of these statements is true. Not even close.
-
They will all get tenure. All four of them: AG, DK, ML, and JLW. They all have books with top presses and articles in top journals. Chicago’s tenure standards are not Yale’s or Harvard’s. They’re more on par with Columbia, Princeton, and Stanford.
DK, ML, and JLW will go up in 2022.
AG won’t go up until 2023.Princeton and Stanford have easier tenure standards than Harvard and Yale? Not really. EB got tenure at Harvard. Standards for tenure are lighter than they used to be twenty years ago across the board at the top places.
Lol is this guy for real? These days, you need a solo-authored APSR and then some to get a TT job. Of course tenure will also be 10x harder than it was 20 years ago. Get with the times, chump.
-
Regarding Theory:
AG and CC are guaranteed to get tenure. AG has already turned down multiple lateral offers and I have to imagine that came with sweeteners. CC clearly has a record that passes the tenure bar.
JLW will likely be partly informed by the wife. Yes he has the book, but not much else.
Not sure about DK and ML. I could envision only one of them getting it given their records, but who knows.
-
...Kant and Rousseau obviously precede the analytic-continental split but both, especially Kant, are heavily studied by analytic philosophers and generally identified with the analytic tradition. Kant is the only philosopher with his own section in the Philosophical Gourmet rankings for best analytic philosophy programs.
-
...Kant and Rousseau obviously precede the analytic-continental split but both, especially Kant, are heavily studied by analytic philosophers and generally identified with the analytic tradition. Kant is the only philosopher with his own section in the Philosophical Gourmet rankings for best analytic philosophy programs.
This is an incoherent standard. Analytic philosophers also study Nietzsche. Does that make Nietzsche an analytic philosopher?
Anyway, back to the point: SM and JP art HPT scholars, not philosophers. As such, neither of them would be allowed to teach in a philosophy department.
And that’s a good thing. Because SM and JP are excellent scholars whose interests are in HPT, not in the dustbin of esoteric nonsense that governs many anglophone philosophy programs.
-
They have a bunch of senior lecturers. Are they glorified VAPs or tenured?
They're full-time and de facto permanent faculty even if they don't technically have tenure (not positive), it's a sweet gig that's by no means easy to get, what Obama had back in the day. The university has also recently started phasing in the title "Instructional Professor," with associate and full instructional professors having tenure (or tenure-ish). BL in philosophy has that title and is a very productive scholar who would have tenure at the vast majority of schools for example (recent book from HUP, recent articles in JPP, PPR, Philosophers' Imprint).
who's BL? no BL listed on their website