|
Post by superawesome on Dec 20, 2008 22:58:44 GMT -5
Also, your field matters. Insofar as open jobs are concerned, committees won't care if you are King sh*t of f**k Mountain in Chinese philosophy, Aesthetics, philosophy of education, or philosophy of sociology, or that you have totally mastered and brutally dominated some obscure area of philosophy of math, philosophy of physics, logic, metaphysics, or the quirky nature of demonstratives in Magyar...
Unless of course you can somehow relate any or all of the above to something Williamson once said, then you are golden.
|
|
|
Post by Medium Hans on Dec 21, 2008 18:25:30 GMT -5
...neither has an APA presentation and there's one publication between the pair. Recent history suggests that nothing can be concluded from that evidence. Last year's "stars" were not heavy publishers. As I recall, there was, at the time, just one publication between the three that ended up getting leiterdicted "stars". And I don't think there were any APA presentations (although my memory's shakier there, since it never occurred to me that those might matter). I heard a prof from one of the star-hunting departments say something like "I don't remember was on their CVs, and I really couldn't care less." Impressive CVs weren't generating stardom. So what was? Amazing writing samples and / or job talks (or so it looked to me).
|
|
|
Post by apdent on Dec 21, 2008 19:01:29 GMT -5
I know some of the past "superstars", and many of them are, at least, very talented and deserving of the best jobs. But, not to put too fine a point on it, some of the "superstars" of the past decade got that status only through connections made at top programs and were barely qualified to teach a 5/5 at a Community College.
[In the interests of full disclosure: Unlike my previous post, this IS a case of "sour grapes".]
|
|
qwert
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by qwert on Dec 22, 2008 13:41:24 GMT -5
I would take an even more cautious attitude towards APA presentations.
The refereeing at the APA is not reliable, and not because it isn't done by quality people, but because they have too many papers and often not even in their areas.
Plus, they require 3000 words submissions (unless you're submitting a Symposium paper). I can hardly spell my name in that word count.
Again, I have several APA presentations, so no jealousy here.
|
|
|
Post by just wondering on Dec 25, 2008 18:49:54 GMT -5
but there is an interesting question here. what counts as a superstar for interviews? I know that this is different the criteria for counting as a superstar in general (namely, a lot of offers from bigname places). but I want to get a sense of what counts as an extraordinary amount of interviews, especially this year when so many places aren't interviewing at APA, or even at all.
|
|
|
Post by superawesome on Dec 27, 2008 9:57:13 GMT -5
Going strictly by number, in previous years, interview "superstars" typically had 15 or more interviews. Note that I know of a few cases of people having 15 or so interviews then only one flyout and people having 15 interviews and 8 or more flyouts.
|
|