Yes, I got that from reading the paper. However, the wording of the abstract seems quite sloppy; taken at face value it suggests that a person's education, K-postdoc (not to mention informal education) should have no influence on the person's philosophy.

Moreover, the paper's point (illustrated by the Cohen example) is not really surprising; one's views on unanswered questions are apt to be influenced by the school of thought in which one was educated - were this not the case, the choice of what university to attend and which professor to study under would be somewhat arbitrary. Moreover, I don't think that she made a case that philosophers are ignoring the evidence, only that the philosopher's educational background continues to exert an influence throughout the philosopher's career. From a Bayesian standpoint this makes sense - loosely speaking, when the philosopher leaves graduate school, his/her education and life experience to that point constitute his/her priors, which he/she updates as new evidence becomes available. While the philosopher's priors are altered by evidence, they are not necessarily eliminated by evidence. This is not problematic unless overwhelming evidence one way or the other is available and ignored. The fact that whether or not to accept the analytic / synthetic distinction is still an open question suggests that no such overwhelming evidence exists - so I am not seeing a problem with the fact that Oxford grads and Harvard grads tend (on average) to disagree on this issue.