Old Comparative Job Rumors
posted by American and Comparative Politics Job Blog at 12/19/2006 06:45:00 AM
American and Comparative Jobs
Hello bloggers! As requested, I have turned off comment moderation. But, if it becomes a personal free-for-all I will ask someone else to manage the blog because I do not have time to devote to continuously deleting comments.
1132 Comments:
Didn't Cornell's Labor school hire Mary Gallagher?
Swarthmore has cancelled its IPE search for this year. They will do it next year. Communication received.
Spring Hill, Univ. of So. Indiana, and Elizabethtown have sent out their rejection letters.
Has anyone heard anything about the public policy jobs at Berkeley and Minnesota?
Just the general nature of the positions and the universities. But that was from you, just now.
Did Notre Dame ever make an offer for their junior CP position? Who got it? Has it been accepted?
I know they made at least one offer last month, but it was rejected. Don't know where they are on their list now.
I was told a while ago that Notre Dame had made an offer. I cannot remember who he or she is (and would not post that in any case since that seems to be the norm) and do not know their status.
Can we learn the names of those who interviewed for the Notre Dame position? (I am trying to compile a data-set with all the interviews, offers made, offers taken for this year in CP).
Notre Dame interviewed Lisa Blaydes, Adria Lawrence and V. Yadav.
Notre Dame made an offer to Blaydes and it was rejected.
I heard they made 2 offers? Who got the 2nd one?
Why don't you wait until someone accepts an offer before posting names. Come on.
I see no harm in learning that an offer was turned down by Blaydes. Come on.
As long as it's after the fact it's okay. I don't think it's a good idea to post names when the offer is still under consideration.
Awesome. I think it is a very good idea. Ex post gossip much less exciting than interim gossip.
I wish visiting this site meant seeing my name mentioned for several positions. Lighten up folks. If somebody has been given an offer there's no harm in letting their name out. If they take the job great, no harm no foul. If they turn it down then their future employer thinks they were a hot commodity. Any arguments about some negligable bit of leverage you are depriving those candidates is undoubtedly outweighed by the benefit received by the community.
Wholly agree with the above.
Anyone know what is going on with Vassar or Holy Cross?
Does anyone know what is going on at Denison University with their IR search?
This is a better job than you might expect...
Political Science — Comparative Politics — Assistant Professor
Western Illinois University
Description Ph.D. required by August 20, 2007; strong teaching and research competence in Comparative Politics with an emphasis on European Politics.
APPOINTMENT: August 20, 2007.
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS: Ph.D. required by August 20, 2007; strong teaching and research competence in Comparative Politics with an emphasis on European Politics.
PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS: Ability to teach International Political Economy
RESPONSIBILITIES: Faculty normally teach Introduction to Political Science or Introduction to American Government; introductory courses in Comparative Politics; upper- or graduate-level courses in Comparative or European Politics; opportunity to teach one course in international political economy; research and participation in departmental or university service.
RANK & SALARY: Assistant Professor, tenure track, competitive. Western Illinois University offers a competitive benefits package that includes domestic partner benefits. For full benefit information visit: http://www.wiu.edu/hr/index.shtml#benefits.
THE DEPARTMENT: The department offers both the Bachelor’s Degree and the Master’s Degree. The department employs thirteen faculty members. Department website address is: www.wiu.edu/politicalscience
THE UNIVERSITY: Recognized as one of the nation’s “Best Value” institutions and one of the “Best in the Midwest Colleges” by the Princeton Review, as well as a Tier 1 Midwestern Masters Institution by “US News and World Report,” Western Illinois University (WIU) serves approximately 13,000 students in the heart of the Midwest through its traditional, residential four-year campus in Macomb, IL and its upper-division urban commuter location in the Quad Cities/Moline, IL.
Western’s friendly, accessible, nurturing campus communities are dedicated to higher values in higher education and are comprised of strong faculty, state-of-the-art technology and facilities and a wide range of academic and extracurricular opportunities for students and staff. The four core values at the heart of WIU are academic excellence, educational opportunity, personal growth, and social responsibility. WIU’s GradTrac and Cost Guarantee programs ensure that students can achieve their degrees within four years while paying a fixed rate for tuition, fees, plus room and board. WIU remains the only university in Illinois to guarantee the cost for tuition plus fees and room and board for students over a four year period at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
WIU is a comprehensive public university offering 57 undergraduate degree programs, 36 graduate degree programs, and a doctorate degree. With a student-to-faculty ratio of 17 to 1, WIU’s 649 full-time faculty teach 95% percent of all undergraduate as well as graduate courses in addition to 13 pre-professional degree programs and 10 certificate programs. Western Illinois University is a member of the NCAA and competes at the Division I level. The Leslie F. Malpass Library ranks among the finest at comprehensive universities in the United States.
WIU is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association.
APPLICATION: Send letter of application, curriculum vitae, writing sample, three current letters of recommendation, transcripts and teaching evaluations (if available). Reply to: Dr. Jutta Helm, Chair; Comparative Politics Search Committee; Department of Political Science; Western Illinois University; 1 University Circle; Macomb, IL 61455-1390.
Review of applications will begin January 12, 2007, and will continue until the position is filled.
Western Illinois University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity employer and has a strong institutional commitment to diversity. In that spirit, we are particularly interested in receiving applications from a broad spectrum of people, including minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. WIU has a non-discrimination policy that includes sex, race, color, sexual orientation, religion, age, marital status, national origin, disability, or veteran status. Location Macomb, IL Country United States Employment Type Full Time Categories FACULTY JOBS, Social Sciences / Education, Political science
Reply To Dr. Jutta Helm
Search Committee Chair
Department of Political Science
Western Illinois University
1 University Circle
Macomb, IL 61455
United States
Does anyone know what the outcomeof the comparative search at UC Santa Cruz is?
We've already had the discussion about whether or not it is a good idea to report the names of people with authors in the previous discussion. See the IR blog for why they are not doing it. What exactly is the community good that is being served by revealing such names? None at all - if you applied for the job, all you need to know is that an offer is out, and it is not to you. So if there is some risk to people with offers, it seems to me that there is no community benefit that outweighs this consideration.
Thanks for deciding what the rest of us need to know you presumptuous twit.
If you don’t like how the game is played here you can go back to your beloved IR blog.
"If you don’t like how the game is played here you can go back to your beloved IR blog."
What a stupid statement.
First, it's up for debate whether we should post names with offers or not. As such, 7:46AM has every right to post his opinion (and to point out that on the best-run blog of the lot they don't).
Second, "love it or leave it" didn't work for the Nixon crowd in the 60s, and it doesn't work here. It's pretty idiotic to tell someone on a Comparative rumors blog to go back to the IR rumor blog if they don't like how things are here. Or perhaps you just missed out on the whole subfields in the discipline thing?
If somebody has been given an offer there's no harm in letting their name out. If they take the job great, no harm no foul. If they turn it down then their future employer thinks they were a hot commodity. Any arguments about some negligable bit of leverage you are depriving those candidates is undoubtedly outweighed by the benefit received by the community.
Note all the assumptions made in this statement. The poster asserts without evidence that there is no cost to the individual, and even that the individual may gain.
Then the poster asserts that there may actually be a cost (thus contradicting their previous statements) but claims some unidentified community benefit.
The whole posting starts with the information that this individual has received no job offers.
Don't you think the opinion of the impacted party--someone whose actually received an offer--would be most relevant here?
> Second, "love it or leave it" didn't work for the Nixon crowd in the 60s, and it doesn't work here.
Actually it works pretty well, because you have no choice but to accept when someone posts personal information about a job offer. You can harangue them etc., but if they post it you are pretty much out of luck.
Here, here, 10:40 am.
"First, it's up for debate whether we should post names with offers or not."
Yes, I guess the normative question, as always, IS up for debate. But, as 10:40am, rightly points out, it's not up for debate whether we _do_ post names or not.
So, to be in good anonymous blog form, all those who don't love it, and don't leave it, welcome to suboptimal behavior -- on YOUR part. Anonymous rumor mills exist _precisely_ to subvert the conventions you so fervently desire to impose upon them.
Going back to a much earlier debate, this IS ironic.
Hi Bloggers,
I am one of the grateful ones who has a job offer at the end of this ordeal. Am trying to figure out the terms of job offers. Does anyone have a perspective on what the range of research budgets is and how many years the initial budget is generally committed for? Thanks!
Didn't the neoinstitutionalists already demonstrate to most scholars' satisfaction that the setting and the rules matter and do/can constrain behavior...or did you morons happen to miss that one?
The names will fly. Hate the game, not the playa, yo.
This should be a transparent system, if for no other reason than it sure is a lot more interesting this way.
and if you don't like it, make your own blog with names required. you'll soon quickly see how it dies.
2:00, what's the prestige of the dept we're talking about here? that matters a lot.
My guess is that if it's #11-#20, I would guess the mean is about $5k for three or four years. #21-#50, $4kish for two or three years. After that, the better question might be "what research budget?"
Top ten, no idea. That's out of my range of knowledge.
I haven't yet heard a good reason why names shouldn't be included. Yes this means I'm not convinced by the "stop trying to hurt people because we've already decided and I like being an information fascist duh" argument or it's equally erudite variants.
10:37, isn't there a "World of Warcraft" that's missing it's idiot when you post?
Thanks 2:06, that helps. Its a #11-20 range school.
10:31 here. I'm not going to continue the "debate" (holidays and all that). What I will say is that to anyone who isn't already convinced of my underlying information fascism: check out the IR Rumor Mill (run by the grandchildren of Mussolini? You be the judge!) and decide for yourself (by whatever criteria you choose) whether it works better than this one. I say yes, but by all means decide for yourself.
Oh, and 4:08 PM: next time you decide to call someone an idiot, you may want to brush up on the difference between "it's" and "its." Even most of my (public university) undergrads can get that one right.
Gawd, I would be happy if we could just agree that "impact" is not a verb. Nothing can be "impacted." Nor can anyone "impact" anything else. Yes, I know language is a living thing, blah, blah. But we're not there yet, at least not with impact.
Start-up funds: Big 10 schools -- or at least those trying to stay competitive -- are 10K/year for first three years.
IR rumor mill's censorship is ridiculous. Nothing worth reading or commenting on.
6:37 you're grammer fascism is killin me!
Williams College made an offer
Nothing can be "impacted." Nor can anyone "impact" anything else.
But try telling that to Chicxulub or Tunguska... it's almost worse than that bloody Miranda showing off its scars all the time.
Also, come to think of it, my father once impacted a mountainside.
OED disagrees with you, 6:47.
Nothing worse than a *wrong* grammar cop.
You're welcome. One small screw-up. It's if you go on too long (more than 40 minutes) that faculty may get especially frustrated or start skipping out the door before getting their questions asked.
Somehow the previous got posted to the wrong forum -- sorry. I wrote it on one, previewed it, and "published" but it showed up here.
wow, this is all really useful stuff...
Anonymous rumor mills exist _precisely_ to subvert the conventions you so fervently desire to impose upon them.
Another idiotic statement. There is no norm other than the one we create. The convention of posting names is itself a convention, dumbass. The point some are trying to make is that YOU are imposing these on OTHERS.
Just got back from the holiday party. Tell me if this is off base, but I think political scientists should be drinking more booze per capita. We seem to be a little weakass in that department. Thoughts?
> The convention of posting names is itself a convention, dumbass.
I think the point is that some conventions are incentive compatible and others are not. Suppressing personal info when anonymous bloggers want to post it is the latter type.
Or, as you say, only we can make our conventions, but we can only make those which individuals will adhere to. I am sorry to be the bearer of this bad news.
Has princeton made an offer? How about Columbia?
I haven't yet heard a good reason why names shouldn't be included.
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that the mean reason why you don't find the first argument more compelling is that you've not received any offers or you are not, in fact, on the market.
Maybe the best reason is the practical one. Posting names might be counterproductive. Information really seems to have dried up this year, and its not because of stricter moderation. Its because the moderation didn't happen quickly enough. Without new information daily, job blogs are only slightly less useless than the old departmental blogs.
Err, mean should read main in the above post.
First, in answer to a query above, USSC has an offer under consideration.
The reason I won't give a name is because...I have an offer, and was recently turned down for another position because - I was explicitly told - they knew I had another offer and didn't think I'd accept. Whether or not this is true (which it isn't), it should have been my decision to make, based on a host of considerations that people who read and write on blogs rarely know of or consider.
So, to inject some empirical content into this fatuous debate, there ARE costs. And for those who think that one offer per person should suffice, and I shouldn't be crying over spilt milk, what's really more fascist? That attitude, or the IR blog's professionalism?
to the previous poster, i am not sure that i would want a job at a school where my future colleagues make decisions for hiring based on an anonymous blog. if they suspected this to be the case, they could have asked you directly. and, i would doubt that this was the only reason you didn't get the offer (i mean nothing personally attacking; i only mean that i would hope that no one would base a decision to hire on whether or not the number one candidate may or may not have another offer at a place that may or may not be better than others in the eyes of the candidate).
I have no problem deleting comments that refer to offers to particular individuals unless they post them themselves. The problem is that I am not monitoring the blog on a daily basis given that, like the rest of you, I am also on holiday. As a result, the posts will stay up long enough for interested parties to see them anyway. I could remove the comparative job rumors from the blog and someone else could start a strictly comparative blog that does monitor it more closely. Please let me know what you guys think. I aim to please.
Assumign their epxlanation is sincere, knowing you had an offer the instituion acted stupidly. Of course, you have to assume they were being truthful and not fudging as a way to overcome a split vote or in order to try to be kind and not tell you that they didnt want you of your own merit.
My department recently told a candidate that he would not be getting a job. but we put it very nicely rather than telling him that we thought he was unhirable.
On the other hand, one might also imagine that a chiar from one department might see that a candidate has an offer in hand and as a result make a stronger offer than they otherwise would in order to make it more appealing.
Of course, the candidate might not know that the offer was stronger becuse they dont have a baseline fom which to compare what the offer otherwise would have been--thus there might be a strong benefit to having names published too.
i am amazed at the reluctance to admit 5:53's point.
even before blogs, hiring decisions were made based on tactical considerations of what the offering committee thought were the chances the offer would be accepted. the calculus is simple: "if we make an offer to candidate 1, then have to wait for her to inevitably decline because she is competitive enough to have an offer, or for that matter we are already aware of an offer, from a more attractive department. meanwhile, we may have missed our window on candidate 2 in the interim, and now have to settle for candidate 3 or come up empty. whereas, we can go straight after candidate 2 and likely get him." and as i said, this thought process was worked through before blogs existed.
knowledge of an existing offer removes any incentive for "lesser or equivalent" departments to make offers (which is precisely where one would have otherwise hoped for more money being thrown at the problem, 9:14) ... so imagine how that is compounded now that there is knowledge of even more offers, thanks to these blogs.
and to 7:40, enjoy working at one of the two or three departments that wouldn't need to bother with these tactical concerns.
9:14 is smart. Besides 5:53's loss is someone else's gain. Most of us have been part of candidate hires and know that much of the hiring process is a crap shoot. Should Candidate 5:53's loss bother me? Well, if I was in Candidate 5:53's position I would certainly say yes. If, however, I was in Candidate X's position (the guy/gal who ended up getting the job) I'd like the free access of information. Being neither candidate 5:53 or X I side, as I almost always do, with those saying more information is always better if there is no great reason for censorship. I suspect the blog's that provide this unwanted censorship will fade into the ether as others, for a very low cost these days, replace them with websites carrying greater volumes of information. So enjoy the power while you've got it.
This discussion is retarded. Either someone lied to 5:53, or 5:53 didn't make it clear to the "lesser" department that 5:53 really wanted to go there. And if 5:53 had real reasons for wanting to go there, it shouldn't have been difficult to convince the lesser department of that. I was in the same position and it was not a difficult situation to negotiate.
If 5:53 didn't want to go there and just wanted the offer as a bargaining chip, then the lesser school's offer wouldn't matter, because if the schools were really that different in quality better school wouldn't bother bargaining against lesser school's offer. I've been there too.
And furthermore, schools always think they're a lot better than they actually are. I just find this story hard to buy unless the lesser school was a LOT worse than the better school. In which case, it's the poster's fault for not making his/her preferences clear to the school.
Baylor University has made offers for two comparative politics positions. Both offers have been accepted.
"i am amazed at the reluctance to admit 5:53's point."
Really? I'm not. For the following reasons:
1 -- it's a stupid point.
2 -- that's not "reluctance" that you sense, it's outright disagreement.
3 -- 5:53 was lied to just as many, many others have been and will be. Period. Or, as 12:57 put it, 5:53 should be happy to not get the offer. Any department that back away from you because of some other offer you have is not a place you want to be.
And before you start crying again, I know what I am talking about, as I am on a search committee and have been on them in several other years.
Now move on to the rumors -- and don't post names if you don't want. And be prepared to "deal with it" when I do post them.
Missouri has made an offer.
who cares about missouri
obviously not a post from the 1850s
I'll be deep in my cold, cold grave before I recognize Mizzoura.
Great site, I am bookmarking it!Keep it up!
With the best regards!
David
David,
Thanks a lot for telling us.
Just for the record Missouri is a very solid department and has hired well recently. It's clearly not Big-10 or "coastal elite," but moving in the right direction. I'd think that a lot of the self-admitted unemployed on this list would be happy for such an opportunity rather than denigrating it. Disclaimer: I have absolutely nothing to do with the Missouri department, whatsoever.
David,
Thanks you for your support.
Id like to introduce you to George Gonzalez....
(who is sorely missed!)
Respectfully,
Anonymous
Niiiice. High five.
Rice is interviewing Serra, Bambaci, and Carroll in early Jan.
SPSA is next week in New Orleans. Any good strip club recommendations?
I'm pretty sure "good strip club" is an oxymoron. Particularly in New Orleans.
Don't go to NO for strip clubs at SPSA, 2:52 and 7:04--go for food. Walk down Canal Street and eat; repeat as necessary. Food is more permanent than cheap thrills.
This from madgrad(with a job).
Hm... where to start?
1) Rick's Cabaret on Bourbon Street is quite possibly the classiest (and best) strip club this side of Las Vegas; coat-and-tie mandatory.
2) don't go looking for decent N'Awlins food on Canal Street; dip into the side streets of the French Quarter. The food will be much better, and much cheaper.
This site
http://www.politicalsciencejournals.blogspot.com/
used to be informative and useful, but it seems to have been forgotten judging by the paucity of new comments. I didn't set it up, but I am mentioning it b/c I think lots of newer readers are unaware of it.
"5:53 should be happy not to be hired by that department."
"5:53 was lied to."
"5:53 should have been able to negotiate themselves out of it."
And most incredibly selfish of all: "why should I care about 5:53, their loss is my gain."
What an unbelievable amount of self-serving and petty arrogance.
Pitt has made its Europe offer.
Quoting 12/28/2006 3:19 PM:
"What an unbelievable amount of self-serving and petty arrogance."
========================
Not really unbelievable even if those points were self-serving OR petty. The points are good ones.
Even though (I guess) you're upset by them, perhaps because you side with the "let's live in a land of rainbows and sugar plums and name no names" supporters, the reality is that
1) a department that doesn't offer you a job because of an anonymous blog is already demonstrating poor organizational and strategic tendencies.
2) if the department doesn't offer you a job because of hearing from someone else that you have another job offer, then
a) the anonymous job "norm" is irrelevant, and
b) this is a VERY STRONG sign that internal support for hiring you was less than over-the-top
3) MOST LIKELY, the search committee chair/chair of the department/your friend at the department was relieved to have a clearly plausible (to you, at least) story about why you didn't get the offer.
Look, we all get rejected for jobs. Nobody bats 1.000. Now get back to your research, and stop anonymously crying in public.
Anonymous bullying is clearly better, right? It seems that a few people want to impose some kind of name exposure on the more reasonable people. Yet no one still has made any sort of an argument for why people need to know who got an offer. There is no "right" to this information, and it does not really help anyone else on the market to get the actual name. Someone got the offer, you didn't, game over. Revealing names can have a number of consequences for those who are named. A lesser school may not make an offer when they hear that someone got a better one, but it still may be in that person's interest to get more offers. There are other potential scenarios. But the basic point is that it hurts no one to keep names out of the blog, and MAY hurt the candidate to be named, so why don't we just abide by that? Why risk harm, even if it is low probability, for absolutely no good reason?
But that argument is probably too reasonable for disappointed bloggers to deal with...I'll probaby just get a bunch of arrogant, insulting responses.
Do you really believe that you were denied an offer because of the blog posting? I mean, be serious about it. First, if you did have another offer, the normal practice would have been for you to tell the competing department about it. I have never heard of people being shy about receiving competing offers and it will have to come out at some point anyway. Second, no department, however badly they think of themselves, will just decide what you want for you. In other words, even if your other offer is from a better-ranked department that is situated in a better place to live, no one can be sure what your preferences are. Best thing to do if they like you is make the offer anyway (they've gone through all the trouble already) and give you a short deadline to decide if they are worried that you're unlikely to accept and they're thinking of going after an alternate. Third, if I understand you correctly, you did not even have another offer. When the chair fed you that BS about the blog info, you could have just said so. I am afraid this is when you would have found out the truth: they were not going to hire you anyway. I find the chair's attempt to be tactful really depressing: why not just tell you the truth? It does not reflect badly on you or your skills; there are thousands of reasons worthy candidates do not get offers that stem from internal politics in the department or from the vision it has about its future, to name just two common ones. Everyone I know who has had multiple interviews has been rejected a couple of times, even the stars.
"Anonymous bullying is clearly better, right?"
Yep. Now shut up and give me your lunch money.
12/29/2006 10:39 AM
Is entirely on the mark.
10:39 assumes the previous poster is the one who was told that (s)he didn't get an offer because of a blog. Not true. This is a new poster. Try to get that into your thick heads.
I just wanted to make the point that there is no need to post names, for a number of other reasons. I agree that offers are unlikely to be issued solely on the basis of what is said in this blog. But I have heard from people on search committees that they do follow the blog, it may help them consider who is hot and who is not (perhaps more importantly) and thus naming names can affect individual opinions of particular candidates. Do I really have to lay out how this might actually have an influence?
10:39 just renews the response to the previous blogger, saying absolutely nothing new or interesting. And certainly doesn't answer my question for why the hell people actually feel they need or want to know who is getting offers.
"And certainly doesn't answer my question for why the hell people actually feel they need or want to know who is getting offers. "
Well, because it is a rumor?
Or is your head too thick for that to sink in? Geez.
Look, if you don't want to read old and uninteresting replies, just don't restart old fights. I am willing to bet that none of us are pivotal -- but it is fun shouting at each other anonymously.
Now this time, give me your shoes, punk.
In response to the question about research budgets from a few days ago: I work in a "top 20" research department. The 15-20K over 3-4 years that the one response guessed was the mean may be just that,the mean - I don't know. But I do that that amount is NOT competitive with what departments that want to STAY in the top 20 are offering. Not even close. Double that, or just add more if the amount is spread over 5-6 years.
Where did Ethan Bueno de Mesquita get offers?
Did he get ANY offers?
So is he staying at Wash U?
Who got the Baylor offers?
Maybe someone in the department that gave 5:53 the reported offer can read through this blog's anonymity and cancel their offer. Are their any departments that need someone so narcissistic and vain? Geez, I’ve run across enough self-consumed jerks at APSA with much more confidence in their work than its quality suggests and would rather a department spare me the inconvenience of having to endure yet another. “The Academy” isn’t always an easy or even nice place. The sooner you learn to walk through its halls with humility the sooner you’ll do both yourself and others a huge service.
Is there a comparative politics job table somewhere?
On occasion my department has not made an offer to a particular candidate (or perhaps not even interviewed the candidate) because it thought that person was a shoo-in for a position elsewhere where he or she had a particular "in." We have always been wrong when we did this. A department has to go aggressively after any candidate who applies or might apply who really fits the position and not make any assumptions about their preferences or the preferences of some other department. But as I said, we've made that mistake a few times.
But we've also learned from it. It's much wiser to go after the candidates we find the strongest, and then deal with any possible competing offers after the fact -- not in anticipation or prior to making an offer.
Occasionally this means we strike out completely. But that's a preferred outcome to auditing or editing out candidates without even giving them or ourselves a chance.
(I can't recall an instance in which we made a negative decision based on a rumor about a competing offer. If anything, competing offers tend to validate our own preference for a particular candidate.)
My understanding is that EBDM has at least one offer outside Wash U and also has interviews in January.
Post names, no one cares. If you think you can hide in this world of emails, you are mistaken. The real gossip goes on outside of blogs.
That school was bullshitting to 5:53, either they will come out and ask the candidate directly if they have other offers or the school has a real inferiority complex. The only reason a school would not interview a candidate of their choice because of other offers has to do with timing, not blogs.
Post names, no one cares. If you think you can hide in this world of emails, you are mistaken. The real gossip goes on outside of blogs.
That school was bullshitting to 5:53, either they will come out and ask the candidate directly if they have other offers or the school has a real inferiority complex. The only reason a school would not interview a candidate of their choice because of other offers has to do with timing, not blogs.
Back to rumors and news:
Oregon has made an offer
Anyone else have information to share?
Columbia has made an offer.
what is going on with UCSC?
UCSC is rumored to have made an offer...
Confirmation anyone?
What about Princeton?
Who gave job talks at Columbia and Princeton?
I can confirm that UCSC has made an offer and that it was supposed to expire on the 29th (but may have been extended).
re: SPSA
The Gold Club
Yu Zheng of UCSD seemed to be the only comparative job talk giver at Columbia.
is Caltech hiring anyone?
There were, in fact, at least 3 other talks held at some point at Columbia...
12/30/2006 3:51 PM: ' My understanding is that EBDM has at least one offer outside Wash U and also has interviews in January. '
What else is happening at Wash U then? More departures? New arrivals?
Is it true that Hallerberg is leaving Emory?
According to rumors, he gave a talk at Duke in the fall, and is scheduled to give a talk at Essex (UK) in January sometime. That being said, the CV on his webpage hasn't been updated since he received tenure two years ago (usually a sure sign that someone isn't actively looking for a job), and as far as I know, he doesn't have any major, groundbreaking projects in the pipeline. So who knows? Well, besides Hallerberg himself, and I'd imagine he's not planning on publishing his thoughts on the matter in this forum.
Speaking of Emory, is it true that Jen Gandhi is looking for a new position?
I hear that Wash U is waiting to sort out the American situation before moving to comparative.
Gandhi would be a solid catch for a school. Her work on authoritarian regimes is first-rate. It'd really be Emory's loss if it couldn't retain her. I thought junior people at Emory were all fat and happy. Why would she want to leave?
The REP blog reports the Oregon offer was accepted.
Any news on Princeton?
It is amazing to me how many offers have been accepted yet how few are actually reported on this blog. Perhaps 2005-06 was the year of the polisci job blog, and it will just fade into history?
What is the URL to the REP blog? Thanks!
http://haterfreeraceandpolitics.blogspot.com/
REP Blog
What is going on with Adria Lawrence? Where is she headed?
Are you sure that offers have been accepted?
Colorado has had two of its three comparative offers accepted.
Who is going to Colorado?
I am. Good skiing there this time of year, I hear.
Gandhi isn't going anywhere. I believe the previous poster was just asking the question based on one unsourced post on this blog several months ago that said she had applied for some positions.
Who did Duke extend offers to in Comparative?
What about Stanford? Any offers?
yes and yes
names?
Not sure if Stanford made an offer to Blaydes, Long-Jusko, both, or neither.
Duke made an offer to Wibbels from what I heard (third hand though).
Who got offers at OSU? Columbia? New School? Michigan? MSU? NWU?
I believe Lawrence and Kocher got an offer from OSU. I also heard that an Associate Latin Americanist (can't recall her name) also got an offer from OSU. Not sure whether the offers were accepted.
Michigan has not made any hiring decisions.
source for MI? Just some indication of reliability...
I think the New School had already made offers?
Does anyone has more info on Blaydes and Long-Jusko going to Stanford?
Long-Jusko has an offer from Duke
Jusko has accepted at Duke.
Rochester just sent out an email saying they have concluded their searches for the year. No further interviews will be done.
Anybody know about Princeton?
Princeton has already made an offer for its comparative position. I think they are still waiting to hear back.
Who got the Princeton offer?
re: 1/05/2007 8:21 AM.
To my knowledge, Jusko has not accepted any offers.
David Samuels is giving a job talk at the University of Chicago.
1/05/2007 10:07 AM
and why would you know that?
I thought that David Samuels was a famous vibraphone player. Huh.
Sterling Marlin accepted the Princeton comparativist job. He's a good hire. Very fast worker.
Did Duke make an offer to Hallerberg?
No, Hallerberg didn't get an offer from Duke.
So which political scientist will Sterling Marlin accidentally kill?
anyone who is being interviewed for the south asia cp position at the jackson school in U. of Washington in Seattle?
If Hallerberg didn' get the Duke gig, then maybe his UK talks (Essex & Oxford) will be, or turn into, job talks? Rumor was he wanted out of Emory.
Did we ever find out who got the Stanford offer?
Is David Samuels interviewing at Chicago David Samuels currently at U of Minnesota? Or some other guy?
The vibe player is interviewing.
Wait, now Hallerberg has an Oxford talk as well? Where did you hear that?
What happened at Northwestern?
That is the rumor at Emory.
Who got the offer at BU?
Why would Hallerberg be unhappy at Emory? For that matter, why is Samuels considering leaving Minnesota? Them that gots wants...
Its how the market works now, deal with it
This is how the market works just about always....
Top departments want *proven* top talent. Think of the way the Yankees have usually dealt with the trade and free agent market - though as this example should suggest, such a strategy does not always produce optimal results (and this from a life-long NY fan)....
Its how the market works now, deal with it
It is also very possible that David Samuels is from Chicago and so might simply be interested in moving home, in addition to the financial benefits of a move.
Speaking of Chicago, word is that they had another methods offer accepted.
Sinclair and ?
Jusko? Or is she taking Duke's offer?
Jong Hee Park, maybe?
Yes, Park also accepted at Chicago.
Anonymous said...
Why would Hallerberg be unhappy at Emory? For that matter, why is Samuels considering leaving Minnesota? Them that gots wants...
1/06/2007 7:03 PM
Just a guess here, but I think Emory's younger senior faculty are all working on outside offers in order to tap in to some more of that sweet Coca-Cola money. Reiter, Carrubba, and Hallerberg have all interviewed at other places this year, if you can believe these blogs, and none of them have, as of yet, taken any offers that we know of.
Political scientists should just hire agents...seems the field is moving that way. Show me the money!!
And we could start having faculty issuing emphatic denials, all while negotiating with their new schools:
"I guess I'm just going to have to come out and say it: I'm not going to be the next endowed professor at Duke!"
And for the tenure-track folks at Harvard and Chicago:
"They might want to get rid of me, ever think of that?"
Speaking of money, one of my colleagues has mulled donning a Nascar-style sport jacket for teaching big undergrad sections--with big logos from Lynne Rienner, Red Bull, etc. The field is wide open for that.
My sense is simply that many newly tenured folks wouldn't mind mitigating some of their salary compression. Even at private places like Emory, I'd guess compression is a problem and, realistically speaking, universities don't ever part with their money unless they have to, i.e. credible threat of exit.
I think Emory's younger senior faculty are all working on outside offers in order to tap in to some more of that sweet Coca-Cola money. Reiter, Carrubba, and Hallerberg have all interviewed at other places this year, if you can believe these blogs, and none of them have, as of yet, taken any offers that we know of.
--------------------------------
Has Reiter received any offers? Hallerberg? Carrubba? I thought the first two at least had not received any outside offers this year.
Carrubba has an offer at Florida State.
According to the American blog, UC Merced has an offer out to a Comparativist. Anyone know who?
I don't think Reiter got a Chicago offer last night.
Last year, that is.
UC Merced also has an offer to Carrubba.
Anyone know of any cases in which someone was passed up by a school at one point in his/her career, only to be offered a job at that same school later? Is redemption possible?
Indeed it is possible. I know of a number of such cases.
Lots of cases of that, both people passed up when first on the market and assistant profs not originally given tenure but later offered tenured positions.
Another way to rank departments.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported a new ranking of departments (see below) based on faculty productivity, rather than reputation. The top ten political science departments are:
1. Wash U
2. Harvard
3. Yale
4. Stony Brook
5. Illinois
6. Kansas
7. Maryland
8. Princeton
9. Cal- Santa Barbara
10. Virginia
The 2005 Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index, by Academic Analytics, a company owned partially by the State University of New York at Stony Brook, ranks 7,294 individual doctoral programs in 104 disciplines at 354 institutions. It also ranks institutions in broader categories, like the humanities and biological sciences, as well as institutions as a whole
That list (or at least parts of it) is absurd. Number of words, articles, or books is a poor gauge of quality.
but it does move Stony Brook up...
Chaning Subjects, Tulane has posted an opening in Latin American politics. Has Van Cott decided to move (I know she interviewed at several schools this year)?
Chaning=changing, of course, in the previous post
"That list (or at least parts of it) is absurd. Number of words, articles, or books is a poor gauge of quality."
Why not look at productivity, perhaps combined with journal impact? What's better - reputation? At least this has the virtue of evidence.
Van Cott is moving to UConn
Just to get a general consensus from the group:
There are a couple of departments I've heard of that seem to have a policy of - once they have decided to hire a given candidate - never contacting those they interviewed but didn't hire.
This is very bad form (and very unprofessional), yes?
(I know that there was a long discussion about things related to this, but if it was there I missed the comments on this specific question. Sorry for any redundancy.)
I personally think that it is very unprofessional, and unjust. Candidates put a good deal of work in to interviews and they at least merit information, either way. Unfortunately, the practice of silence is not unusual. Perhaps we could embarrass depts into doing so by naming those lazy depts here...
Yes. Not good form and totally unnecessary.
UC Santa Cruz: I hear the department there does not contact any of those that it interviewed except for those that it actually hires. (However, my information here is based on discussions with only a few people but they all had the same experience.)
CSU Fullerton has hired Julie Chernov (Colorado). Congrats Julie!
A little suspicious there with Stony Brook (authors of the study) at #4, but the idea is right. Number of citations (perhaps per faculty member, perhaps total) is a nice objective measure of department strength. I'll take that over reputation.
"Reiter, Carrubba, and Hallerberg have all interviewed at other places this year, if you can believe these blogs, ..."
Don't believe the blogs.
The top five are credible. Don't know about the second five, though.
Simon Hix has done a better job of this ranking research. It is citations per faculty member weighted by the quality of the journal (and thus an article's presumed impact on the rest of us). That is, we read CPS and APSR, but nobody reads the Journal of Comparative Federalism. So, why count JCF like you count CPS?
And yes, the Hix ranking looks very different from this and much more consisten with your prior assumptions (with some surprises).
YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING. ILLINOIS AND STONY BROOK -- in the TOP 5?
Yes. I see. I forgot that it ws an open bar.
"That is, we read CPS and APSR, but nobody reads the Journal of Comparative Federalism. So, why count JCF like you count CPS?"
Thanks for explaining this concept of "weighting."
I think it has what are known in the biz as "legs."
Reputations do matter, and they aren't merely coincidental to the quality of a faculty. But the earlier poster is on the right track in pointing to citations as a far better predictor of reputation than publication counts. In fact, number of publications (per faculty) are a very poor predictor of reputation.
Further, if you consider that the "impact" journals are not just the ones that are most widely recognized and read but also the ones that are most widely cited, then if you're going to try to measure the quality of a faculty by reference to journal publications you must weight the journals according to their impact.
On the point about citations mattering much more than number of publications, check out:
R. Jackman and R. Siverson, "Rating the Rating: Analysis of the National Research Council's Appraisal of Political Science PhD Programs," PS (June 1996).
R. Lowry and B. Silver, "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: Political Science Department Reputation and Reputation of the University," PS (June 1996).
<< Home