A Semi-rational creature confronts a universe of ever expanding fuckedupness
Thursday, February 23, 2012
JFP for February
The February JFP is complete DOOM. 30 listings total (US & outside, any rank, including post-docs and not-strictly-academic stuff). Maybe 4 involve tenure or tenure-track.
Have we hit rock bottom yet?
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I can't get seem to get it from the APA website--despite being logged in and going to the page I've gone to before for the JFP. Can you post the URL for us?
I was on a SC this year and was amazed by some of the shitty letters of recommendation you jerks write. Amazingly some famous philosophers manage to make even letters of recommendation all about themselves. Others seem to think that a dashed off paragraph reflecting on a cadidate's personal characteristics is enough to secure someone a job. I could go on and on but I need to sleep. And edit your long boring description of the candidate's research.
THE ANTHEM FOUNDATION FOR OBJECTIVIST SCHOLARSHIP, IRVINE, CA.
Academic grants and resources from the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship: Are you a professor or graduate student interested in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism? The Anthem Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, provides support for the benefit of academic professionals engaged in serious, scholarly work based on the philosophy and writings of Ayn Rand, and provides resources to others in academia interested in understanding her ideas. Our resources include grants and gifts in support of Rand scholarship, financial assistance for conferences and workshops, connections to speakers and scholars, review copies of Rand works, classroom book sets, sample syllabi, and more. Visit anthemfoundation.org or contact us at info@anthemfoundation.org to learn more.
By the way, to get to the JFP, you need to log in, then click "Membership" on the awful horizontal menu at the top, and then click on the "Member Resources" link which then appears on the vertical side menu.
This year I read a recommendation letter that was 10 lines long. 10. One of the lines was, roughly, "I need not elaborate on this applicant's strengths, as you have his CV and a sample of his writing."
"One of the lines was, roughly, 'I need not elaborate on this applicant's strengths, as you have his CV and a sample of his writing'."
This is extremely reprehensible. Either the writer is a fool, or this is a case of very intentional damning with faint praise.
The letter's wording is very careful not to commit to the view that the applicant *has* strengths upon which the writer might have elaborated, so I assume it's the latter.
In which case this asshole should have declined the request to write a letter in the first place. What an embarrassing profession we're criminal accomplices to.
Observations from an old cranky jerk who happens to be a professional philosopher. Occasionally philosophical, most often just vulgar. Sometimes focused on sober points of logic and issues in political theory, but more frequently fixed on nonsense. Bad metal bands, crappy guitarists, stupid lyrics, celebrities, pop "culture," telemarketers, irrationality, and other annoyances. Always misanthropic. Anti-religious. Not particularly amusing, either. Some might say insulting. Strange mail. Kook magnet. Doom. Comments from other cranky jerks, young and old.
10 comments:
I can't get seem to get it from the APA website--despite being logged in and going to the page I've gone to before for the JFP. Can you post the URL for us?
I was on a SC this year and was amazed by some of the shitty letters of recommendation you jerks write. Amazingly some famous philosophers manage to make even letters of recommendation all about themselves. Others seem to think that a dashed off paragraph reflecting on a cadidate's personal characteristics is enough to secure someone a job. I could go on and on but I need to sleep. And edit your long boring description of the candidate's research.
What makes 30 a disaster? Given all the context, maybe that's actually pretty good. Or is this just another thing to complain about?
What makes 30 a disaster? Given all the context, maybe that's actually pretty good.
Even if 'good' is always relative, it's still hard for it to be good if it's the worst thus far.
But is it? How many were there last year -- I seem to remember one year the Feb issue was just canceled.
The most annoying thing about the complainingness of philosophers is that they even complain about philosophers complaining.
He, he. He said "complainingness." He, he.
Last February's JFP went up to #39.
#22 of the current 30 is this:
THE ANTHEM FOUNDATION FOR
OBJECTIVIST SCHOLARSHIP, IRVINE, CA.
Academic grants and resources from the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship: Are you a
professor or graduate student interested in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism? The Anthem Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, provides support for the benefit of academic professionals engaged in serious, scholarly work based on the philosophy and writings of Ayn Rand, and provides resources to others in academia interested in understanding her ideas. Our
resources include grants and gifts in support of Rand scholarship, financial assistance for conferences and workshops, connections to speakers and scholars, review copies of Rand works, classroom book sets,
sample syllabi, and more. Visit anthemfoundation.org or contact us at info@anthemfoundation.org to
learn more.
By the way, to get to the JFP, you need to log in, then click "Membership" on the awful horizontal menu at the top, and then click on the "Member Resources" link which then appears on the vertical side menu.
1:33,
This year I read a recommendation letter that was 10 lines long. 10. One of the lines was, roughly, "I need not elaborate on this applicant's strengths, as you have his CV and a sample of his writing."
"One of the lines was, roughly, 'I need not elaborate on this applicant's strengths, as you have his CV and a sample of his writing'."
This is extremely reprehensible. Either the writer is a fool, or this is a case of very intentional damning with faint praise.
The letter's wording is very careful not to commit to the view that the applicant *has* strengths upon which the writer might have elaborated, so I assume it's the latter.
In which case this asshole should have declined the request to write a letter in the first place. What an embarrassing profession we're criminal accomplices to.
Post a Comment