Roman asks in the comment section of my post on this year's TT hires if "anyone else thinks it is insane" that nearly half of this year's TT hires so far have been hires of people directly out of grad school (Elisa also finds it insane). I don't really know how to evaluate questions about sanity, but I do know how to think about moral questions, and so I want to spend some time in this post thinking about the morality of the practice.

What I am about to write may appear to have a certain flavor of griping. Truth be told, I do have a horse in this race, and can't claim to be a disinterested party (I've been in a non-TT position for several years now). Be that as it may, I really don't mean to gripe. I accept that life is unfair, and that I, and I alone, am responsible for my professional future.

That being said, I think it may be worthwhile to think about the ethics of hiring people for TT jobs right out of grad school. First, I don't think it's an "open and shut" issue. Second, there are a lot of people out there -- in VAPS, adjunct positions, or worse (having to leave the profession) -- whose lives are profoundly (negatively) affected by practices and norms of hiring people for TT positions straight out of grad school. Third, I hope to be on a search committee some day, and I want to know how I ought to approach the hiring process if I'm ever so lucky to be there. Finally, I also think there are very real and unappreciated questions about whether hiring people for TT jobs directly out of graduate school is harmful to those hired.

I begin by making one big -- but I think rather weak -- assumption: namely, that many people with VAPS, post-docs adjuncting positions, etc., are roughly equally qualified and promising as teachers and philosophers as comparable candidates coming directly out of graduate school.

Two brief remarks about this. First, there are clearly some "stars" in grad school who can stake a legitimate claim to being much more promising than people in non-TT positions. My examination the CV's of people who have received TT positions this year suggests that some such "graduate school superstars" exist. However, my examination also suggests that many of those who got TT jobs out of graduate school aren't graduate school superstars of this sort. Second, however many talented people there are coming out of graduate school, there are clearly very many talented and accomplished people in VAPs, post-docs, etc. -- people with lots of good or even top-notch publications and teaching honors -- who aren't getting TT jobs. Many people with VAPs, post-docs, etc., are clearly comparable in accomplishment and promise to those coming directly out of grad school. If people want to argue with me on this, fine -- but I think it's a pretty safe assumption.

So, assuming this, let's turn to moral evaluation -- in particular, to the question of whether it is ethical to hire someone directly from grad school (even though there are people at least as promising in post-docs, VAPs, adjuncting positions, etc.). Here's a very brief sketch (I must be brief: this is a blog!) of why I think it's arguably not ethical:

Utilitarian analysis: individual acts and/or a rule of hiring people directly out of grad school over comparable candidates in VAPs, post-docs, etc., does not maximize happiness . The converse acts/rule (prioritizing comparable people in non-TT jobs over grad school applicants) do(es) maximize happiness.

Here's why. First, the department who hires does as well either way. Either way, they hire a comparable applicant. Second, perhaps the biggest "utility reducers" in the academic market are people who get "stuck" in non-permanent jobs as a result of staleness. These people suffer year after year on the market, become paid worse and worse over time, and sometimes wash out of the discipline altogether. Third, prioritizing hiring people from VAPs, post-docs, etc., would minimize this. People would be taken out of the non-permanent job pool and into permanent jobs faster so that they don't grow stale and wash out. Finally, those that wouldn't be getting jobs straight out of grad school wouldn't really be harmed, since they could still get post-docs, VAPs, etc., leading to TT jobs. That's a very quick first gloss at the utilitarian argument, but I think it's solid.

Now turn to:

Kantian Analysis: hiring people directly out of graduate school passes neither (a) Kant's contradiction in willing test for imperfect duties (the Universal Law Formula), nor (b) his harmonizing with humanity test (the Humanity Formula).

Consider first the contradiction in willing test. Could you consistently will that no (comparable) people get TT jobs directly out of graduate school? Yes, because any such individual could get a job later on, after a post-doc, VAP, adjuncting, etc. But could you consistently will that some (comparable) people get TT jobs directly out of grad school? No. Why? Because some such people getting hired could cause you -- in a VAP, post-doc, etc. -- to go "stale", thus making you less/un-hireable, which of course you couldn't will.

Now turn to the harmonizing with humanity test from the Humanity Formula. Can hiring no (comparable) people directly out of graduate school harmonize with humanity (e.g. the capacity of individual to set and pursue ends)? Surely -- because people not hired directly out of graduate school can still effectively pursue their end of getting hired out of a VAP, post-doc, etc. But can hiring some (comparable) people out of grad school harmonize with humanity? No. Because hiring some such people undermines the capacity of people in post-docs, VAPs, etc. made "stale" not able to set and pursue their ends of getting a TT-job.

Now turn to:

Virtue-Theoretic Analysis: not hiring directly from grad school best expresses and promotes virtue.

People in VAPs, post-docs, adjunct positions really suffer (first-world problems, I know, but the suffering is real). It's really, really hard to go on year after year getting publications, good teaching reviews, etc., all for naught -- and seeing people years younger than you get jobs with hardly a dot on their CVs. So, I would say, a compassionate and merciful search committee should prioritize people who have been out of grad school a while. They've worked for it, suffered for it, and accomplished things worthy of reward. Yes, people in grad school have too, but not nearly as long or under the same kinds of conditions. Second, I want to say, if you want to promote virtue (as a teacher, philosopher, and person), hire people who have been out of grad school a few years. They've had to bust their butts to become good teachers, good researchers, good members of the community, etc., under way-below-optimal conditions (e.g. teaching 3-3's, 4-4's, and worse).

Finally, I want to mention something that I think is important and relevant that I rarely see discussed. There is a not-insignificant number of people who receive TT jobs directly out of graduate school who never receive tenure. Why? Well, some of them (a surprising number, I would say) never publish, or don't publish enough, or never learn how to teach well. Getting a job right out of graduate school -- when you've never published anything, or taught a course -- can be a recipe for failure. And that's not good for the person who was hired -- nor, of course, those in non-TT jobs who were passed over for the hire, nor of course for the department who hired the person and now has to fire them. People from non-TT jobs who have good records publishing, teaching, etc., are, offhand, in a better position to succeed in a TT job. And those grad students who might get passed over if those non-TT people were hired over them? Well...I would say, post-docs and VAPs are an excellent way to learn how to publish and teach before you get put on a tenure-clock, thus increasing everyone's chances of actually getting tenure once hired. Which, again, is good for everybody (nobody wins when someone doesn't make the cut for tenure).