There’s been a lot of talk (Other than FP, here and here, for example) about the problems of APA interviews, one of the most significant being the huge financial cost to job-seekers of attending the APA. I’ve suggested that we should consider ditching the APA interviews. But, as many on the SWIP mailing list have pointed out, we should also do something to help job-seekers as long as so many of them are forced to attend the APA. As a result, Eastern SWIP (US) is setting up a fund to help philosophy job seekers attend the APA. Here is a description:
ESWIP is now accepting donations to help defray travel costs for graduate students attending the Eastern APA’s December conferences. Eligible graduate students will be able to show they will be interviewing at the APA. Procedures for fielding applications and distributing the funds are to be determined.
If you’d like to donate, go here.
This is not directly a philosophical issue, but it is one that will concern many philosophical parents:
So readers may want to know about a major study done in England whose conclusion has just been announced. It’s not within my competence to decide how far this settles the issues, but it has got to be an important component in a debate that engages many families.
(Updated to include correct link– thanks, RS!)
Here it is midnight in the middle of American and I thought foolishly I’d have just a quick look at the NY Times online before getting the cat to settle down and falling asleep.
And what do I find? Another one of these mind-blowing attacks on Hillary. It’s really too much. Except it will make a good example for CRITICAL THINKING.
Enter David Brooks. Here’s the argument:
Premise One: Hillary Clinton behaved very badly toward Jim Cooper over health care in 1993, and was icy cold (gasp!) toward him.
Premise Two: She is still icy cold toward him.
Premise Three: “the debate Clinton is having with Barack Obama echoes the debate she had with Cooper 15 years ago.”
Ultra-Nifty Premise Four: “But it is legitimate to wonder if adults can really change all that much.”
Conclusion: Hillary Clinton has a dark side which threatens on a national scale to undo the good she is attempting.
Of course, once we have this conclusion, we off to visit Hillary as the Manichean and so on.
One thing you have to be glad about: Brooks starts out telling us he isn’t a Hillary hater. That’s really good, because otherwise the evidence that he is seems pretty strong.