Old American Job Rumors
Please keep this thread for job rumors only and keep the personal/individual attacks to a minimum.
posted by American and Comparative Politics Job Blog at 6/20/2007 09:10:00 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.
533 Comments:
I have started a new thread for American job rumors. Can everyone do me a favor and alert me through the Alerts thread to disparaging comments? It is too difficult to track each thread so closely. Thanks!
Any American job openings at the top ACC schools this year?
I heard that Barb Sinclair is retiring. Is this true?
"Any American job openings at the top ACC schools this year?"
Here is the very small amount I know about ACC jobs, which is mostly gleaned from previous threads and eJobs (and I make no claims whatsoever about what is top in the ACC).
1) UNC has advertised a methods job. Steenbergen left, so maybe they will look to fill a polit psych/behavior line as well.
2) Maryland posted an REP ad.
3) Duke is rumored to be looking senior in behavior.
4) At Midwest, the Miami chair told me they may be looking to fill multiple positions in American.
5) Florida State seems like they are always hiring.
6) Wake is small and I don't think they lost anybody, so I bet they are not hiring.
7) Georgia Tech doesn't have a poli sci department, so I doubt they are hiring.
I know absolutely nothing about hiring plans at the other five schools (BC, Clemson, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech).
Is it just me, or does anyone else finding it jarring when political science departments are grouped by athletic conferences? It's nothing against the ACC -- I find references to Ivy League and Big 10 political science departments just as as annoying. If you want to know about research institutions in the Southeast, just say "research institutions in the Southeast." There is nothing intellectually coherent about athletic conference groupings.
Looks to me like 1:14 always got picked last on the playground!
ACC? ACK!!
It's not jarring, perhaps, but it's not a very _useful_ reference for those of us who don't care/know much about U.S. college sports (and who, thus, are unlikely to know which schools are ACC). I say this as a faculty member at one of the departments mentioned by 11:47... (And I don't have any residual playground angst! I just never got into college sports.)
11:47 seems to know a lot about 08-09 searches.... So what other schools might have American job openings?
email to UCLA department about a month ago stated Barb Sinclair is retiring, though I think she's in DC for the summer.
"So what other schools might have American job openings?"
It's very likely that Michigan State will have multiple openings in American. One carryover from last year in judicial/public law. Probably one or two more in institutions or behavior.
I heard that U Georgia will likely have an opening in American Politics.
ACC rules! Go Deacs!
Is the Chicago search for real, or do they already have people in mind?
I heard that U Georgia will likely have an opening in American Politics.
6/21/2007 7:07 AM
----------------------------------
This is on eJobs already.
I received an email today saying that University of Illinois - Chicago filled their position. Who did they end up hiring?
Marquette will be hiring in judicial politics/public law, but that is also already on ejobs.
Does anyone have a clue what salaries and teaching loads are like for assistants at Marquette?
One is low and one is high. Guess which applies to which.
3-2 load for those who publish. Don't know about salaries.
6:07 pm- Do you know if they allow faculty to double up on their courses? (i.e. 3-2 with duplication...)
6:19 -- I don't, but I'd be surprised.
Maybe this would make some of us feel better: "Any American job openings at UAA schools this year?"
Good one! Maybe the second strongest ACADEMIC athletic conference in the country.
The athletic conference thing makes sense when ... well, when it does. As undergraduate institutions, for example, "Ivy League" and "Patriot League" are coherent meaningful groupings.
For political science Ph.D. programs, "Big Ten" is a meaningful grouping. There are, through the CIC, shared library resources, tuition reciprocity, and on and on. The chairs meet annually. Also, they, and Deans, use each other as a peer group for evaluation and standards.
The ACC and Big East have become even more meaningless for these purposes, not even identifying regions any more. What binds Syracuse and South Florida? Florida State and Boston College?
Bad football? :)
What binds the CIC ("Big Ten plus Chicago")? The cooperative efforts are useful but not all that significant in the larger scheme of things.
Also, as a former member of the Big Ten, Chicago can claim common ancestry even if the Conference can't count straight.
University of Chicago
University of Illinois
Indiana University
University of Iowa
University of Michigan
Michigan State University
University of Minnesota
Northwestern University
Ohio State University
Penn State University
Purdue University
University of Wisconsin-Madison
I think the "binding" is that the schools see each other as more direct competitors--so if Michigan is doing something, Minnesota and Iowa want to "keep up."
Not every school looks within its athletics conference; for example, the Southern Ivies (schools like Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, Duke) probably look more to each other than within the SEC, C-USA, ACC, etc.
I agree about the binding of consciousness. Not only do political science chairs meet annual to exchange information but so to chairs in other disciplines as well as deans. Comparisons of "CIC salaries," for example, are used by deans as a reference point. And chairs in political science, at least, have even more detail than what the deans share -- about salaries of faculty and grad students, department budgets, external funding sources, placement, and other matters.
There's a kind of "competitive collusion" not to hold costs down but to gather information that gives each chair some ammunition to use in pleading for money and other resources from the higher admin.
The New Mexico open rank search has (finally) failed in American.
They may or may not hire next year.
Given their recent losses, will Iowa be searching in American this year?
Anyone know who was in the running for that New Mexico job?
I was actually hoping to get a look from them (my family's from there)...just wondering how I stack up.
Given their recent losses, will Iowa be searching in American this year?
-----
I would assume so--Squire leaving obviously opens a gap on the institutions side
Squire is the sidecar on Shipan's chopper.
Maybe Boehmke will be the next to leave. Who else do they currently have in American?
Boehmke just turned down Emory and has some kind of partner issue or deal at Iowa. I think he's in for a while, luckily for the Hawkeyes.
Who else is mobile at that level this year?
I am -- for the right position and right price. I suspect the same is true of dozens and dozens of others, but relatively few will move.
7:41 makes a good point that almost all tenured profs are "moveable" for the right position and price. Of course, most depts are either unable or unwilling to pay this price. There is likely a much smaller group of tenured people who are "realistically moveable" meaning that they would be willing to move to another dept for what that dept could realistically pay if it were so inclined.
So, perhaps an interesting related question would be what is a realistic amount to get someone to move? (assuming that the non-monetary aspects of the package were competitive) How much for a new associate; associate with a few years; associate on the cusp of full; new full; endowed chair, etc. ?
Of course I realize that on an "American Job Rumors blog" people might consider these to be silly, irrelevant questions - in which case we can go back to discussing research approaches and the Duke case.
Following up on the post from 8:17 a.m…. For non-ivy league institutions and/or universities not in areas with an especially high cost of living, the minimum salary levels necessary for possibly moving established scholars probably would be about $130 thousand for younger full professors and $100 thousand for recently-promoted associates. For MINIMUM levels, does that sound about right?
These seem in ballpark. But if you really want to be realistic, you have to consider some of the impediments that dampen people's mobility considerably, especially once they're in mid-career.
(1) They seldom move only for money. They need to be attracted by the career possibilities compared to their current job. That means research resources, colleagues in the department, and the overall university environment.
(2) They usually some with additional costs aside from salary. Possibly spousal hire, whether in political science or another academic post. Also course reductions (some universities are not as flexible as others in this respect).
(3) More generally, spouses have careers, and the destination location may not be that attractive to the spouse.
(4) Children may matter. Some faculty I know won't move at a certain point in career because it creates disruption or hardship for their children, whether in their access to particular educational programs or simply bad timing with respect to their grade level.
There are other considerations not implied by the above, location in the country among them.
9:03's estimates sound about right to me, as minimum 9 month salaries for a top 20 department.
Scholars in high demand get much more than that minimum. And some people get paid less, particularly if they have been stationary for a while without any outside offers.
8:17 here
I think that 9:03 is about right for *minimum* levels at these two ranks. Of course, this is just the ticket to start being viable and the rest of the package (as noted by 9:35) is extremely important, as is the cost of living. If it's an expensive area, then 9:03's numbers are too low (as s/he notes). 9:35 appropriately outlines the reasons why so few people at the tenured level are actually mobile. My point stands - for the right price, they would leave - but that price would be completely unrealistic, so it's a moot point (or as Joey from "Friends" would say a "moo point" = a cow wouldnt care).
Some places may also offer more attractive places to live, however you might be surprised at how much this varies by individual - some people like cities, some like suburbs, and some like country. I know some faculty who would never, ever live in Chicago, NYC, or LA.
So, 9:03 and others, what about more senior associates (although you cant be too senior) and senior fulls? Any ideas? I'll take a preliminary stab and say 115 for the former and 165 for the latter - *as minimums*
165 sounds a bit high as a minimum for senior fulls.
The minimum should be for a department that is, say #15-20 ranked, and not in an expensive location, and a scholar who is solid but not a star, and is not the subject of much interest from other top-20 departments.
Adding all those factors up I'd guess more like 145 as the minimum for a senior full.
Been tenured associate for one year, and 115 sounds right or a little low to me for a lateral move to a place with a comparable cost of living and quality of life and at least a little better as a department.
Tradeoffs on any of those dimensions = higher minimum
Well, I think many of these numbers are a bit high. I'm a relatively recently tenured associate at a top 30 that pays slightly lower than its peer group. moving to a place with a reasonable cost of living, a 9-month salary of $100k would be a serious raise (let's say between $10-$25k). Maybe with a bidding war something like that could happen, but universities probably aren't in the habit of handing out 20%+ raises to hire someone.
And generalizing a bit, I know my university has hired a few associates over the past ten years or so in the $70-$85 range. These are all good scholars, who are at worst solid and respected individuals in their fields.
The salary numbers cited by 6:13 p.m. are surprisingly low for a top 30 R1. There obviously is a lot of salary dispersion across similarly ranked departments, creating openings for recruiting underpaid scholars. In other words, there is a lot more potential for movement than many posters may realize.
I don't agree with 6/25 7:43 PM. I suspect many posters here are from schools in CA and the East Coast, or are graduate students posting from top 10 departments.
I don't want to get into a pissing match about the top 30. For my source, I drew on Hix (2004).
Here are average full / assoc salaries for some selected. Yes, of course outside offers would be higher, but not by the magnitudes being suggested here.
OSU / 119 / 77
IU (Bloomington) / 109 / 75
Mich St / 110 / 79
Binghamton / 105 / 76
FSU / 99 / 69
etc. Re-roll the list any way you want, but once you capture state schools in the SEC, the SUNY system, the Big 10 below UM/UMinn, newly tenure associates make in the 70s-80s. A salary of 100k will be an increase. Similarly, fulls who have not gone for lots of outside offers will be making similar to what Squire was making--110-120.
to 9:52
That's kind of the point isn't it? Outside offers are substantially different from what people make with year to year lame increases at their home institutions - or at least they need to be. Inertia and the reasons posited by prior posters keep people at their home institutions for substantially less than what they can draw by some schools on the open market. 6:13 cites a range that s/he has observed over the past 10 years for recruiting external candidates at his/her institution - 10 or even 5 years ago is highly irrelevant to what a similarly attractive candidate can draw today - there are cycles in hiring of all sorts - consider, for example the substantial jump in salaries for lawyers in the mid to late 90s.
The pol sci market has seen a "correction" in the last 5 or so years. To be fair, I have seen reasonably good schools offer in that range (70-85) at the associate level in recent years, however I know of very few who got their first choice and usually they didnt get their second choice either.
In sum, you can't make assumptions about the external market by looking at assoc/full averages - internal and external are entirely different animals.
Is the salary data that 9:52 referenced just for political scientists and is it fairly recent? The numbers you mention seem very low to me, but that may simply reflect my ignorance. I think that there are a lot of misperceptions out there about salaries at other institutions. Correcting such misperceptions is one possible contribution of blogs like this
Okay, I still think that more associates than this suggests, including many of those that were moved, still don't receive offers over $100k. I don't have a lot of evidence to demonstrate this, of course, just knowledge of my institution, some competing offers I have received and a few discussions with people at other schools.
Let me rephrase the question, then: what's a reasonable salary bump for a move? I heard 10% once. Obviously that could be more in an area with a high COLA.
7:23
I'm guessing that there is a difference between what it takes to move an assoc/full and what it takes to move an assistant (due to the inertia and other factors previously discussed), however, I will just state this as a general strategy for schools looking to get people to move laterally.
First, we must assume that the candidate in question is not highly unhappy with his/her present institution - if they are, then this represents a different dynamic. In the typical case, one institution is trying to convince an assoc/full prof that they should come to their institution and doing so would make their life better.
Assuming this, the introductory offer for should likely be at least 20%. Think about it: if a new associate is reasonably ok with his/her dept and location, and someone offers them 10% (lets say they make 70k), then this is just 7k more. Why would they uproot their family and move for this? Typically, their home institution is going to match this, but they might not even be inclined to take it back to them b/c they might not see it as a credible offer (i.e. no one would move for such a small bump). At 20% we are looking at 84K. Then the home institution will probably come close to matching that and it's back in the offering institution's court - I would suggest making the final difference at least 6-8k more. Even with this, the prof's inclination is to stay and keep the 84k rather than move for a mere 6-8k bump. This being said, people sometimes do move for such a low difference b/c they get emotionally invested in the opportunity or negotiations bring up bad feelings at the home institution, etc.
Of course this is just a hypo. If a home institution is paying a productive associate 70k, then they are just asking to have him/her cherry picked by another institution who will pay them the market rate - for heaven's sake, some schools are paying ABDs 70k.
The salary figures are the averages for the whole institutions for 2006 as reported in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. My own sense is that political science is average in most schools--we are neither as inflated as economics or some of the natural sciences, nor deflated as some humanities.
Obviously, there are differences between what a "local" is making and what would be offered to an outside candidate.
These are provided just for perspective, however. I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the "star" category could command an associate salary that is double the university wide average (6/25, 5:26 pm for example).
Furthermore, I believe that some of the higher ranked schools actually feel they can pay a bit less than the "market" especially if a candidate is moving "up market" because their disciplinary prestige is so valuable.
This is only additional perspective on the conversation--there are many factors that go into a move, including the size of your "jump", personal / family considerations, cost of living, salary compression, etc.
A competitive outside associate offer, in my view, could range anywhere from 90k-120k, and full from 100k-who knows. There is far too much individually based variation to make much of a conclusion beyond that, unless you carve things up much more carefully, e.g. top 10 / star / lateral move; top 10 / star / upmarket ; top 30 / reputable scholar / slight upmarket ; private / public etc. etc.
The numbers of $130 full/$100 assoc seem high to me to, especially for "minimums." I think those numbers are certainly possible, but are unlikely to come from a "top 30" (but not top 10) in a low/average cost of living area.
I think $110-$120/$85-$95 is bit more in line with what people actually get. That is still pretty good, and one who gets grants can probably add 10-20% a year in summer salary support. (It's good to be Jim Gibson or Jon Krosnick with their uncanny ability to get huge NSF grants!)
Below is a link to a report that has average salaries for several big state schools (go to second page for table). These are not poli sci specific salaries, but (almost) all of these schools can claim at least a top 30 department.
http://apa.wisc.edu/FacultySalary/faculty%20salary.pdf
I am sort of a newbie at this blog. I am at the 3/5ths point of my program and am just thinking ahead to the market.
So what are the top 30?
I have received several outside offers over the years. The largest % salary increase was 20%. The smallest was about 5%. I've had friends with outside offers which tend to the 8%-12% level.
Surprised no one has brought up NSF proposals. Based on that there are a lot of strong associates well below $100,000.
My only reply to these naysayers is the following: *try to do it*
In other words, try to get an associate to move to your school. Here are my necessary conditions (as noted previously).
1. This is not someone who is unhappy with their current situation - that is a different situation.
2. They are productive (also, post tenure productive) and reasonably well regarded in their subfield (i.e. if you land them people will notice and be impressed).
3. The move requires some sacrifice on their part. (In other words, they will have to move a substantial distance and their significant other will have to get a new job, kids new school; i.e. it's not a local move)
4. And this is a new one; we are not talking about going from starter lower tier school to top 15 or so. (Although, I have to imagine that top 15 would probably pay well.)
5. There are no unusual attractions to your school specific to the candidate (e.g. their long-distance spouse lives there).
6. Finally, we are not talking about other aspects that might be considered (reduced course load, summer money) that might be considered. These are all taken as a constant. So, if I ask prof X to come to a 2-1 load from a 2-2, then we'd have to consider the course reduction as part of the financial package; same for summer money.
Yes, these are qualifiers on the claim, but they are all realistic.
Now, go out and get that candidate for less than 20%. That's not make an offer (that is turned down in favor of the counter), but land the candidate. It can happen, but it's rare.
How much do you think WashU offered its candidates (they didnt get)? Less than 20%? What about some of the other schools who tried to land senior assistants, or associates, or fulls?
How much do you think WashU offered its candidates (they didnt get)? Less than 20%?
Yes, less. Know for a fact.
Well, perhaps that explains, at least in part, the outcome. I rest my case.
what are the latest rumors about jobs not yet posted on e-jobs?
Well, perhaps that explains, at least in part, the outcome. I rest my case.
No kidding, and don't be so touchy about it. On the one hand, outside offers tend not to reach 20% for salary raise. On the other hand, you are saying anything less won't get someone to move.
These statements are easily reconciled by the fact that most outside offers don't work.
I know that some of the WashU candidates were offered raises over 30%. Still, the offers were below market for the candidates -- these were all top people remember. Shows how hard it is to get anyone to move...
Did we ever learn who interviewed at New Mexico (senior position)?
So what are the top 30?
As far as I can tell, there are about 50 "top 30" schools. Take your pick as to which are actually top 30.
If you are new to the blog, trust me when I say you don't want to go down this road. No good will come of it.
I get the sense that there are two different conversations going on.
One conservation is talking about how much fulls and associates actually get paid.
The other much more abstract conversation is about how much it would cost to move somebody who is happy where they are.
The latter might well be a much higher number than the former, which is why we don't see a dramatic amount of movement at the associate and full levels.
It may be correct that the "minimum" to get someone who is good, well placed, and happy to move is $130/$100, but that actual offers are (quite?) a bit south of that.
That begs the question(s), then, about whether these schools are:
1. Intentionally lowballing;
2. Hoping for a lucky draw;
3. Not interested in the candidate;
4. Trying to separate types of candidates (happy vs. unhappy, moveable vs unmoveable);
5. Ignorant that they are generally wasting their time.
How else can one reconcile so many offers (I would presume) that are made but not accepted? Are we just involved in some cooperative game to raise our salaries w/o moving?
Frankly, I don't think that salary is generally the key dimension in most decisions. That is, an extra 5-10% on an already 10% raise would not result in that much more movement.
I think that 12:46 brings up some excellent points. I would be betting that the most likely culprits are numbers one and five with a dash of two. To a certain degree it is a cooperative game, but it's also a matter of keeping up appearances, both internally (within the university) and externally (the discipline). As a dept you want to look like you're in the recruiting for senior people game, but you aren't really willing to do what it takes to land the candidate. It makes people happy in the discipline and it "shows" that you are an ambitious department. A senior friend of mine had a slang term for it, but it escapes me at the moment.
I think that people generally underestimate how hard it is to move tenured profs and when someone does move it tends to be rather idiosyncratic.
On the other hand, sharing info on how much it costs to move someone - ideally with some real details if at all possible, is helpful to us all, assuming that you dont like working for peanuts.
Speaking for my department (which is not top 30 or even 50), #5 on the 6/26 12:46pm poster's list has us pegged. Last year we actually tried hire away an associate for a couple grand more than s/he made. And people were genuinely surprised this person wouldn't take our offer. Some departments have idiots running them-or, to be more kind, and in the previous poster's words, people who are ignorant that they are wasting their time. I'm sure my department will try the same thing this year.
Hypothesis:
Controlling for cost of living, department rank, quality of life, perks, and good feeling about the institutions, the amount required to move a tenured professor is approximately equal to:
(1.1 * present base salary) + $5000 + ($150,000/ expected years until retirement)
The constant is there because the disruption of moving is roughly a constant.
The years till retirement term is there both because the base salary itself keeps getting paid every working year and subsequent raises compound on it. So if I've got 35 years till retirement, even a $10,000 raise is a pretty huge deal, regardless of whether I'm making $60k or $150k. If I'm five years from retirement, unless the place trying to make me a moosehead is extremely geographically desirable, it'll take a *lot* of base salary to be worth it.
A 35 year-old making 75k will move for around 90k, a 20% raise.
A 40-year old making 100k will move for around 120k, also a 20% raise.
But a 40-year old making 150k will move for 175k, a 16% raise. He or she is young enough that the big absolute value of the raise, times thirty years, is more important than reaching 20%. And a 40-year old making 175k will move for around 200k, a 14% increase
hypothesis: these numbers and broad generalizations are being thrown around by people who have never made these types of life decisions involving these amounts of money, and likely have no concept of all the other variables at play.
to name a few off the top:
* selling a house and buying another - there are tens of thousands in transaction costs right there, alone. you think i should pick up and move for a $15K raise, and shell out $30K in realtor commissions and closing costs for the privilege? and before you tell me i'll break even in two years, at least throw me a bone and do a cost of money calculation.
* the physical act of moving costs north of another ten thousand.
* i could keep going. but all this is assuming i'm single. families have school decisions, and spouses have career decisions. these are compounded by destination city, how different it is than city being left behind (e.g. does husband have the same or better job opportunities), etc.
* much of this is somewhat random (i.e. does the one company in new city that might be suitable source of employment for husband happen to have a job opening at that precise time in his specific field, what year of high school is #2 child in, and so on).
but regressors will continue to regress, it goes without saying.
And of course this all assumes the home institution simply does not match the offer.
6/26/2007 6:40 PM:
hypothesis: these numbers and broad generalizations are being thrown around by people who have never made these types of life decisions involving these amounts of money, and likely have no concept of all the other variables at play.
-snip-
* i could keep going. but all this is assuming i'm single. families have school decisions, and spouses have career decisions. these are compounded by destination city, how different it is than city being left behind (e.g. does husband have the same or better job opportunities), etc.
I agree that you are right, but you're basically just suggesting additional regressors like children, age, spousal career, home-owner, etc.
But I think this confirms the previous statement that salary is only a small part of the consideration
So does all this mean that schools hiring people to solve the two body problem intentionally low-ball people? What if the partner isn't necessarily getting a job at the suitor institution?
I think senior hiring works backwards in this sense...Scholar X begins to have a conversation with institution Y. For some reason: location, prestige, colleagues,underpaid, better opportunities for spouse or dating,promotion and/or unhappiness with current institution etc.
The person and the institution try to work out a deal that meets the persons needs in order to move. My belief is usually it is here where things break down. Home institutions fail to counter effectively or prospective institutions fail to deal with something critical like a spouse's job or housing issues.
But I think unhappiness is a huge predictor of movement. But the rest comes out of how negotiations go and whether the persons needs get met such that the move becomes worth the costs..which as noted here are very high.
As a senior person I would NEVER move for a 10-15% salary increase. My current institution would have to be just miserable. Besides it is so easy to counter a 10-15% salary increase it usually takes things like more research money, housing etc. to make the move attractive across dimensions to get someone to move. Salary is an important but only one part of may.
On the other hand, I know a very well known scholar (non-Americanist) that has the policy that he will go wherever he is offered more money. Period.
He has made it be known that this is the case, and he has abided by this rule of thumb when entertaining outside offers and when moving (twice so far).
irrational, the transaction costs are huge and the home institution must have been unwilling to match. What is "more money"? Would he move for $2500? How about $5000? $10,000?
I am sure "more money" was not just a salary increase. It must have included research support housing, summer money etc.
I have witnessed a number of these recruitments successful and unsuccessful and been the subject of one or two myself. There is one of everything out there in the world and maybe there is someone who moves for any place that offers more money but I doubt that is the norm.
In the end, salary is usually the easiest thing to equalize. The other aspects of
More money, at least for this person, is a bigger COL-Adjusted salary, and all else (research support, teaching load, etc) equal.
Not saying I would do such a thing... just saying some people do.
Unless there is a huge $ disparity in terms of resources between one University and the next or your home institution has decided they don't want you...at the end of the day the salary difference is never big. The biggest salary difference I have ever experienced in four separate negotiations was 5K when all was said and done with peer institutions. In another case there was a huge difference but the institutions have a big difference.
Further, when it comes to public institutions you can't depend upon regular raises as a percentage of salary. I once took slight more at a public vs a private and regretted it because overtime I would have made much more at the private. Some places also have college tuition benefits..others have family concerns... like I said, this person is clearly a rare bird, or perhaps the home institution was willing to let him or her walk.
Senior recruitment standardly includes ways to cushion the disruption costs-- not only a suitably generous moving allowance but also various kinds of housing benefits. Several times tht I know of closing costs or realtor's fees or both were covered by the hiring institution. Or a new senior hire might be given one or two years of summer salary as a general "for your trouble" kind of thing. Teaching relief in the first semester also helps ease the transition.
Whether the final financial difference is large depends on a lot of stuff, including what the institutions are. If you go up against Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, or NYU, you're likely to lose the bidding war even if you're a respectable private R1 yourself. Those places can push just a little bit more than the budget of many other places can tolerate. And private R1s can do so to public R1s a lot of the time.
I know of a certain top 12 department that lured away a new Associate at another top 12 Department by offering a whopping 35% salary increase, that the home institution of the scholar in question almost, but could not quite, match.
This kind of raise is, I believe, pretty rare. Most Associates will get up to a 20% bump in my experience.
Is Georgia State likely to hire this year?
"Teaching relief in the first semester also helps ease the transition."
Am I the only one who believes that new faculty should never take a course release in the first semester? Given the transition to a new city, new professional environment, and new duties, it seems that many new faculty use their course release(s) in the first semester and still don't get much research done. Why not wait until your second semester to take your course release? That way you have time to acclimate, and you can best maximize your extra time for research.
(Perhaps this is best suited for the advice thread, but I was prompted by the post above.)
When you move with a family, doing anything beyond acclimating to the new city and department is next to impossible.
Georgia State hires every year!
Take the course relief in the first semester, even though you won't get any research done. It will allow you to ease your way into the institution (learning where things are and how things work and who's who without being thrown in the deep end-- "I needed to order my course books when? I wasn't even appointed then!"). It will also allow you to keep your sanity as you set up your new house and make your family transitions.
These things will make you happier with your new institution in the long term, which will make you more productive in the long term.
Don't assume that people with partners can't do well at the moving game. In my move, I got a 21% raise for myself, but the real deal clincher was a 50% raise and permanent job for my partner.
The markets are segmented, but I think the high numbers talked about here are pretty accurate. The important point is that in most cases, a first offer of 20% is necessary to even be in the game. Most departments can make a 4% counter out of the standard raise, and then get 6% or more from some special pool of funds on campus for counteroffers. At that point, a final difference of 10% is probably not enough to cause a senior candidate to move (all other things equal).
From the Race blog.
Any therapists offering discounts?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:06:49 -0700
From: GARY M SEGURA gmsegura@U.WASHINGTON.EDU
Reply-To: "Latino-C: Latino Caucus of APSA" LATINO-C@LISTSERV.ilstu.edu
To: LATINO-C@LISTSERV.ilstu.edu
Subject: A difficult day
On days like today, I find it particularly difficult to go on being a part of
this country. The promise of America was betrayed today, yet again, by the
fascist cabal that has taken control of this country. To wit....
1) The Supreme Court effectively overturned Brown v Board today. The majority
had the gall to actually claim their decision was in keeping with that historic
ruling, and constitutional scholars will want to mince words. But make no
mistake, Brown is dead. While segregation in American schools (and other
institutions) might continue to be forbidden as a matter of formal law, the
court has said today that the state is forbidden from fixing it. To
desegregate schools requires that a school district consider race in assigning
schools, which the court has now ruled out. Thurgood Marshall has rolled over
in his grave. This, of course, is just the latest installment of a longer trend in conservative jurisprudence... Having successfully defended white
privilege in the face of legislative and judicial attempts to redress it, the
white majority now uses the very language once used to attack de jure racial
discrimination to attack governmental attempts at redress.
2) The immigration bill is dead. It is the victim, first, of racist and
right-wing extremism and, to a lesser degree, of left-wing insistence on the
perfect bill or no bill at all. 12 million residents of this country just lost
whatever hope they might have of coming out of their shadow existence for at
least the next two years.
3) The Bush administration once again asserts that they are above the law, and
Alberto Gonzalez (who is a disgrace in every way) will be protected. The claim
of executive privilege in the face of subpoenas from Congress is approaching
Nixonian levels of hubris and disregard for democracy. While this will
certainly go to court, there is no chance that anything could be decided before
this administration leaves office, and no basis for faith that any court, let alone the Supreme Court, will rule on the basis of law rather than on the basis
of political expediancy.
If you are a Republican on this list, get a clue, or get some therapy.
Gary
Must...not...take...the bait...
Whoa. Even a card-carrying Democrat like me has more respect for Republicans - some are nuts, some are not. Just like my fellow Democrats, mind you.
Here, Here Gary:
Shame on the supreme court, shame on the Senate Republicans and racist talk radio ass holes and shame on fascist executives and their lackeys Gonzalez. The immigration bill was the one descent thing Bush could have done...poof.
It was too good to be true. There really is evil in the world.
You mean decent, I take?
The Supreme Court made the right decision and the immigration bill was a piece of trash that needed to be done away with. However, I can't argue your point regarding Gonzalez being an embarassment.
bye bye Brown..separate and unequal.
Guys, we know this will only end with ad hominem attacks and there is no reason to continue this. As the poster prefaced, this was posted on the race blog and can be discussed there. Please keep this to discussions of the job market only.
WRONG. The note by Segura was from the Latino list-serv. It was posted here AND on the "race and politics blog" not the "race" blog.
First of all if people from this blog would spend less time trying to police and ridicule discussion on the race and politics blog this would not happen and second there is a difference. It is just stupid and paternalistic to think that the race and politics blog needs the "American and Comparative Jobs" blog (I suppose 'reason' in the discipline) to insert discipline and reason into the discussion.
huh? I agree with the substance of Gary's comments, but no one here is trying to police your speech. Point is: this isn't the appropriate forum for the conversation. There are other options. Make use of them.
6/28/2007 2:13 PM
You misunderstand. Look back, and you will regularly see "hey kids, look what they are saying on the 'race blog' kind of things.." followed by "pathetic" and other judgments. Such people also post on the blog as well. The "policing" is not about 'speech' per se but more about the constant judgment and ridicule. Such that more open discussions in that forum are frequently poisoned by the "mainstream"... the initial post was meant to set off a round of this.
I love how people who post things like "This belongs on somewhere else" etc. Still have to let their opinion of the issue (pro or con) be known.
I think 6/28/2007 3:15 PM needs to mellow out a little bit.
You're most welcome to read this blog & to post on this blog, whether I agree with you or not.
Hopefully the blog you allude to will also be open to everyone so they can read and post, agree and disagree.
i don't know if this counts as a "constitutional scholar" "mincing words," but one thing i've learned is that the position of the respective voters in the decision is at least as important as the opinion.
look to the middle/swing vote (i.e. kennedy). roberts can say what he wants, but you can see that kennedy in his concurring opinion is clearly marking out under what circumstances he would have changed his vote.
so, brown isn't "dead," though it has been circumscribed. on first reading, this case doesn't look all that different than bakke or grutter (or was it gratz?) to me. somebody simply needs to bring a case that would lead kennedy to vote with the other side (like in gratz - or was it grutter?), and the core of brown will be preserved.
but then, i don't have the bona fides of some of the others posting here. i simply thought about it for about 5 minutes.
oops, sorry, just saw the admin request not to continue the discussion.
please disregard my last.
Keep in mind that O'Connor wrote for the Grutter majority, with Kennedy joining Scalia et al. in dissent. Soft race preferences (like those upheld by Grutter) are dead.
Back to the amounts that marketable middle-career Americanists could command in next year's market. Several good points were raised above.
However, what is missing in this discussion is a consideration of the market environment when these mid-career Americanists came out. In a word, the market sucked. In the 1990s, many new PhD Americanists could not get jobs and left academe. Many that did get jobs were underplaced or they hopped around on one-years until gaining a tenure-track job or leaving academe. Granted, underplacement has the potential to create a supply of people that want to upgrade when markets improve, such as they have. However, many who were underplaced simply were happy to have jobs, accepting their fate and adapting to the expectations of their dept., thereby rendering themselves unmarketable nationally.
So, there were less people in this cohort of new faculty because the market was bad and many who were placed settled in and satisficed. What we're talking about here is a supply issue.
Hence amounts will need to be quite high to attract someone from this relatively small middle-career cohort of marketable Americanists.
As an Americanist with a PhD from the 1980s, I have to disagree strongly with 12:32. The cohort of American politics scholars that emerged during the early 1990s was exceptionally well trained and has made a significant mark on the discipline. As a result, there are a lot of quality Americanists at the senior associate and young full professor levels, some of whom might be moveable. The challenge, of course, is to put together a package capable of getting them to incur the transition costs of a midcareer move. But why so much emphasis on moving senior scholars to begin with? The best programs initially built records of excellence by hiring superb assistant professors and then providing them with the resources and the environment necessary to become mooseheads. Personally, I have a lot more respect for departments that construct excellent faculties from the bottom up rather than by trying to buy senior scholars from other institutions. Programs like Iowa, which might be seeking to rebuild, should be looking hard at the most promising senior graduate students currently doing work at Stanford, Princeton, and other top, technically-oriented, PhD programs.
What does "technically-oriented" mean?
significant strengths in formal theory/applied statistical methods
Wouldn't "technical" people from Stanford and Princeton have better options than Iowa?
12:32 here. It looks like 5:19 and I were on different planets through the academic markets of the 1990s. I wasn't talking about quality (of course there were good people), but quantity of the cohort was smaller owing to a lack of jobs. And, people were excited just to get a tenure-track job. There are 5 times as many American jobs in recent years as there were in the 1990s. Perhaps someone could do a PS article on cohort size relative to PhD supply and placement.
At any rate, this may be why it is hard to land the mid-career folks. People are underestimating how much it will take to move one!
I agree w/ 12:32. The 90s was a tough time to be on the market and a lot of good people got "winnowed out." This makes for a lack of moveable associates or junior fulls. Not only do people underestimate what it will take to move one, they also overestimate who their institution can get. If you're trying to hire at this level, then the group of scholars who are attainable is probably not nearly as awesome as who you think you can get - there's an analogy to dating here somewhere.
Some of this cohort phenomenon may be dampened by the fact that senior fulls sometimes dont retire as early as they did in past decades (or were forced to until the late 80s?). Also, I find that depts, given the choice between an associate or entry level assistant, will opt for he the latter; thus, this affects the demand for associate level/junior full candidates. There are reasons for this preference, but I'll save space and only state them if asked.
I'd be curious to hear about it. Why is that the case?
Ok, here it goes... A qualifier - this is a generalization and doesnt apply to every dept. First, examine the proposition that every faculty member wants the dept to be better - certainly all faculty want to pay lip service to this idea, but are they really willing to make the decisions to make this happen?
So, let's assume that you can hire an assoc/full or an ABD. Typically, the former is going to be a more desireable hire, assuming they are accomplished and productive (why else would you hire them). An ABD usually represents a big question mark, even if they are impressive personally, have good letters, etc. A number of faculty members will almost always choose the ABD; it means another person lower on the ladder (rather than higher or same) and, as it is always argued, the ABD could (nay, will likely) become the next (fill in the blank of accomplished and admired scholar).
An existing associate or maybe even a full who isn't so productive anymore doesnt need some hot shot associate or full to challenge him/her for resources and/or dept influence; far preferable to have an ABD with a lot of potential (maybe) but who will be lower on the food chain and you can keep your thumb on them and/or "mentor" them and claim partial credit in the event that they are successful.
In sum, many faculty actually want things to remain status quo, rather than suffer the pains of change (e.g. new senior blood) that might better the department. Of course, this often only delays such growing pains until the ABD, assuming that s/he does well, becomes an tenured prof and starts asserting her/himself.
Again, this is a generalization and I recognize that people might disagree w/ me on this point. However, peoples' ability to engage in self deception and denial never ceases to amaze me.
Actually, holding other factors constant, it is rational to prefer an ABD to a tenured associate. Assume that your department is considering two candidates, one an ABD and the other a recently tenured associate professor currently at another university. Also assume that the expected future productivity of each individual is a probability distribution that peaks over the same median value, with the variance of the distribution probably somewhat higher for the ABD due to the lack of a track record. With some probability, both individuals will turn out to be unproductive. And with some probability, both will turn out to be stars. With the ABD, however, if the former turns out to be true, you can always fire that individual. Not so with the associate – You’re stuck with the person, potentially for decades. So the expected value of hiring the ABD (with the future option to fire) is higher than the expected value of going with the tenured associate.
That's why it is important for depts to go after associates who have been associates for a couple of years--people who have continued to publish post-tenure. Publishing post-tenure is a good indicator that the person will continue to do more of the same. Past performance (when the job isn't dependent on it) is the best predictor of future performance.
Indeed. The whole point of the probationary tenure-track is so that the "variance of the distribution" is not merely "somewhat higher" with the ABD but a lot higher. If you are looking to hire an associate, you should be looking for people with established records that have largely eliminated uncertainty about their future productivity. If you can't say that about the candidate in question, then you have the wrong candidate.
Wouldn't "technical" people from Stanford and Princeton have better options than Iowa?
6/29/2007 6:18 PM
I agree that it would be tough for Iowa to attract these kinds of candidates. They did not hire anyone of this level this past year so why think they can do it in the future?
Both of their hires last year were in women and politics. Are there are lot of W&P scholars who are technical?
If they had tried to hire a methods person last year and couldn't get applicants, your point might make more sense to me.
Iowa also struck out in comparative this past year.
Again, not every comparativist (indeed, most) are not formal theory/election systems and/or quantitative cross-national people. And that doesn't mean they're not good. Its an uninformative signal.
This comment may belong on the comparative jobs thread, but in response to the previous post I have to say that some departments definitely prefer quantitative/institionalist comparativists to those focusing on qualitative/interpretivist or other modes of research. That's definitely true of ours, for example. But I agree with the argument that quantitative/elections/institutionalist is far from the predominant research mode in comparative.
Do we have any sense, then, that this is the kind of comparativist Iowa even pursued?
I just find it odd that people say things like, "they'd never get such-and-such kind of person" because "they didn't do that last year." Its a weak argument.
Iowa has plenty of sophisticated scholars (Lewis-Beck, Boehmeke, Kadera, Boynton, etc.). Its not as if this is a department with a long tradition of Luddite-devotion.
Both of their hires last year were in women and politics. Are there are lot of W&P scholars who are technical?
If they had tried to hire a methods person last year and couldn't get applicants, your point might make more sense to me.
7/01/2007 5:39 AM
So Women in Politics = weak field?
So, I hate to be an ass, but I've asked a couple of times now...anyone know anything about that New Mexico gig? Are they going to hire again? Who did they interview?
So Women in Politics = weak field?
7/01/2007 5:02 PM
------------------------------
Thats nto what they said. Go back...read again. Are you just looking to be offended?
Segura here. Once again, I am startled to hear my name is on the blogs, where I have generally chosen not to participate.
The note posted here was, in fact, written by me to the Latino list-serve. It was not intended for a job-rumor blog of any sort. I do not know who posted it, so I apologize if it is out of bounds for this forum, but am not aware of how it got here.
I do not apologize for the sentiments, of course.
Gary:
How can you advocate using race as a criterion (and often as THE criterion) in education policy and yet claim that it is NOT discriminatory? That seems to me to be the definition of race-based discrimination. But, in this case, it is simply in the direction of your normative preference -- so I guess that means it's ok.
Has this blog become an undergraduate forum? Is this now what passes for analytical thinking...unsigned ad hominens and ninth grade rhetoric?
So Women in Politics = weak field?
-----------------------------
I wrote the post you're responding to and I have no clue how you came to this conclusion. The point was that WiP isn't a field full of technicians, so if you're hiring in that field you're unlikely to get and/or interview a lot of techniciians. That doesn't mean the work isn't good (in fact, I quite like what I've seen of Osborn's work).
If you were offended by what I wrote, then you're trying to hard to be offended.
UIowa has always been a somewhat small department. They can't do everything. They have to be opportunistic within the context of their university to respond to initiatives. They look for niches within the discipline. And so, for example, a few decades ago they decided to be THE department that does legislative studies -- American and comparative. They had some key folks with that focus in American and comparative. The founded LSQ and still have it.
If they're building in the area of women and politics, more power to them. I don't know this as a fact but it's possible that this is part of a broader initiative within the university. That's another niche the dept. of hoping to become strong in. It's as important an area as most of the other stuff we do.
in fact, I quite like what I've seen of Osborn's work
***
Anyone know where one could get access to this? Is it out in book form, articles, etc.?
The founded LSQ and still have it.
Does Squire take it with him?
No idea on New Mexico. I also asked that question once, but got no response.
Re: 5:41AM: Does Squire take it with him?
Not likely...Loewenberg is the editor of LSQ...Squire may likely remain as a co-editor, though, even from Missouri...
I thought Crisp replaced Lowenberg.
Anyone know where one could get access to this? Is it out in book form, articles, etc.?
-------------------------
There is a book manuscript floating around with Jeanette Mendez on social networks, political behavior, and gender. Both of them would supply it upon request.
I wouldn't say WIP is weak. There are some good young scholars such as Michelle Swers (Georgetown) and Kira Sanbonmatsu (Rutgers).
New Mexico made two offers at the Associate level; both candidates got strong counter-offers and decided to stay at their current institutions. No decision has been made about whether the search will be reopened next year.
6/29/2007 6:18 PM
I agree that it would be tough for Iowa to attract these kinds of candidates. They did not hire anyone of this level this past year so why think they can do it in the future?
7/01/2007 2:25 AM
I thought I would bring some additional facts into this line of comments, hopefully without engendering any attacks against any individuals.
Here are the Ph.D. schools for Iowa's current crop of assistant professors, plus the two they hired this year:
Harvard
UCLA
Wash U
Texas A&M
University of Michigan
Indiana University
Associate professors include:
Emory
Rutgers
Caltech
Michigan State
University of Michigan
So sure, no Stanford there, but still not too bad. Of course, many years ago, Shipan came there from Stanford and that didn't turn out too badly for anyone.
I doubt that things there have changed so much that it is unreasonable for them to think they could hire from these schools in the future (despite whatever may or may not have happened last year).
New Mexico made two offers at the Associate level; both candidates got strong counter-offers and decided to stay at their current institutions. No decision has been made about whether the search will be reopened next year.
7/02/2007 1:10 PM
Any idea on who these folks who got the UNM offers were? or are you sworn to secrecy?
My understanding is that Iowa interviewed CP candidates this past year with Phds (or ABDs) from UCLA, UCSD, and Stanford. They made an offer to the one with a UCLA Phd who accepted an offer at Maryland, in part due to a spousal hire at Maryland.
Don't know what happened after that, but it's not like they weren't in the game.
My understanding is Iowa made an offer, it was rejected, then made an offer to its second candidate, and got rejected again.
Didn't know about the second rejection. that sounds bad. as there can be a lot of variation year to year, best to see if the evidence from this year confirms that from last.
Two rejections isn’t at all unusual when you’re going after top prospects. Iowa has been a top-30 department for three decades and can rebuild in American institutions. It already has a strong base in IR and behavior.
I think Iowa also interviewed someone from Duke for the CP position.
From what I understand, Iowa liked more than the two candidates they offered. However, the Dean wouldn't allow an additional offer after the first two. I could easily be wrong. My information is third hand.
I don't see why two people turning down Iowa as a sign of bad things. Offers get turned down all the time for all kinds reasons.
I will say that Iowa City is a nice town (I've spent some time there even though I never went to or worked at Iowa).
I think a place like Iowa is always "at risk." It's a good university with the potential to be a very good (Top 20) department. But things have to break righ -- they have to have solid faculty in place, the grad program needs to have solid resources, etc.
Back in the 1970s, Iowa was a quite good department. People like David Brady, Jim Kuklinski, Shanto Iyengar, and Jim Gibson came out of Iowa. Those are household names in American Politics -- all are "stars" of varying degrees. They continued to place pretty well in the 1980s (Wlezian and a few others). They began to struggle with training and placement in the 1990s, when Jim Stimson left.
So, in reply to 11:19 and others, yes, Iowa is an ok department. But it has slipped each decade since the 1970s. It's probably in the 30-35 range now, with the huge loss of Shipan.
Is a 30th ranked department ok? Sure. It's better than a lot of departments out there. But Iowa, as a 30th ranked department, isn't really a "player" anymore. It will have a hard time placing students at Top 25 institutions. As recently as the early-to-mid 1990s, it could still do that.
RE the second Iowa rejection: I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this case. But by the time a school goes to it's second choice there's at least a 50% chance that the person has already accepted another offer (given the wait time before being rejected by their first choice, and the time to put together the second offer and get it approved by the dean). So I wouldn't read anything into the second rejection about Iowa per se.
Is a 30th ranked department ok? Sure. It's better than a lot of departments out there. But Iowa, as a 30th ranked department, isn't really a "player" anymore. It will have a hard time placing students at Top 25 institutions.
----------------------------------
Why is this standard by which all institutions should be judged? By definition, there aren't many places that can place students at that level. It says nothing about the quality of the people and the work being done at a place like Iowa.
I don't get this ridiculous adherence some of you folks hold to the "top 25." If it isn't in the top 25, it sucks, etc. What a stupid standard that is.
Do you want to strive to be the best, or to be mediocre? Why not shoot to be Top 25 as a department? You need a baseline or yardstick to evaluate your performance. Top 25 seems just fine to me.
I would rather have a department full of hard workers than a department full of chummy types.
Why is this standard by which all institutions should be judged? By definition, there aren't many places that can place students at that level. It says nothing about the quality of the people and the work being done at a place like Iowa.
I don't get this ridiculous adherence some of you folks hold to the "top 25." If it isn't in the top 25, it sucks, etc. What a stupid standard that is.
7/03/2007 5:56 PM
It's not ridiculous.
We call it comparison; it requires some criteria to compare upon.
Peer rankings is one way, and likely a little more nomothetic than say, evaluating each scholar in a particular program.
Both ways are a piece of the puzzle, but as always, nomothetic comparisons are easier to hold on to because they are a comparison at the general level which likely takes into many of those idiographic factors.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peer rankings is one way, and likely a little more nomothetic than say, evaluating each scholar in a particular program.
Both ways are a piece of the puzzle, but as always, nomothetic comparisons are easier to hold on to because they are a comparison at the general level which likely takes into many of those idiographic factors.
Can someone tell me what this means? I looked up "nomothetic" and "idiographic" (my dictionary just has "ideographic") and I still don't understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiographic
Peer rankings is one way, and likely a little more nomothetic than say, evaluating each scholar in a particular program.
Both ways are a piece of the puzzle, but as always, nomothetic comparisons are easier to hold on to because they are a comparison at the general level which likely takes into many of those idiographic factors.
7/03/2007 11:23 PM
-----------------------------------
Plus it lets us evaluate research without actually reading it.
Ask anyone who has "published up" how their road to tenure in a good department differed from their colleagues who came from a big name program.
7:35 Interesting comment - care to elaborate? Really, it sounds like an interesting line of discussion and I'm pretty sure that I agree with your sentiment.
Yes, please do elaborate.
Re: the New Mexico job, wasn't that Hood (UGA) who interviewed there?
Just looked up Hood's cv: Best dissertation title ever? "Capturing Bubba's Heart and Mind: Group Consciousness and the Political Identification of
Southern White Males, 1972-1994"
7:35 Interesting comment - care to elaborate? Really, it sounds like an interesting line of discussion and I'm pretty sure that I agree with your sentiment.
7/05/2007 8:24 AM
------------------------------------
I think that often as a discipline we use a department name (either where someone is or their PhD institution) as a screen for the quality of their work someone does. This is natural of course. There is an informational asymmetry at play. And it is likely true that the median quality of a person at/from Top 10 U is probably higher than the median of someone at 10-30 U. However I think the variance (or error term if you like) is far too large for this to be a meaningful screen. For those that hold on I think it sorts out, but at the job market stage this sort of screening is problematic.
Depending on school rankings to determine quality is very problematic because the rankings differ depending on specialty. This is especially true for “American politics” since it often includes the specialties of public administration and public policy (and those out there upholding the virtue of top ten schools in American government would be shocked to learn that the top ten schools in public administration and public policy are not the top ten schools in American politics).
But in the end, it really doesn’t matter anyway. If you have enough publications, you will get hired no matter the ranking of your Ph.D. institution.
do you think journal editors use the same type of screening? especially on manuscripts that are close calls?
Yes, no doubt. And there is also a "personal quality factor" as well, based on the reputation of the individual in question.
often as a discipline we use a department name (either where someone is or their PhD institution) as a screen for the quality of their work someone does...the variance (or error term if you like) is far too large for this to be a meaningful screen
The same can be said for publication record. How often do we judge people whose work we haven't read by the number of APSR/AJPS/JOP publications that they have?
I actually think that's a useful heuristic. Do you disagree?
I think it is about as useful as department ranking. A lot of bad articles get into the top journals.
I would say my fourth and fifth best articles are in top threes. My best pieces are in good solid subfield journals. A lot of colleagues find this to be the case if they are honest about it.
I've had someone (quite prominent) swear their best piece was in APQ.
Non-academic jobs listing:
http://www.pollingreport.com/
jobbank.htm
The same can be said for publication record. How often do we judge people whose work we haven't read by the number of APSR/AJPS/JOP publications that they have?
7/06/2007 5:02 PM
------------------------------------
I think there is far more information in the publication record than there is in the department ranking. If anything it tells you who is likely to keep hitting in those place.
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
I agree that it seems obvious, but is this really true? I've published there before, but who's to say if it'll happen again? There's a lot of randomness in what gets in at those journals. And how many papers do we write that have a realistic chance?
7/07/2007 10:21 PM:
--------------------------------
As long as I assume that everyone is subject to the same randomness and that in the mean it requires a certain level research work (quantity and quality) to hit at these journals I still think there is a good bit of information there. Certainly more information than the department name contains. Although these things are highly correlated, I have to admit.
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
I agree that it seems obvious, but is this really true? I've published there before, but who's to say if it'll happen again? There's a lot of randomness in what gets in at those journals. And how many papers do we write that have a realistic chance?
7/07/2007 10:21 PM
*******************************
Well personally I feel almost all the papers I write have a shot at the big three or a top field. But I have never suffered from a lack of confidence ;)
Besides if there really is that much randomness in the system wouldn't all your papers have a chance?
And there is a difference between someone who gets "lucky" and cracks the Top 3 once, and someone who has published in the Top 3 repeatedly.
I think there is far more information in the publication record than there is in the department ranking.
7/07/2007 11:16 AM
----------------------------
Publication record is a better indicator of quality, but that does not make it a good indicator. Too much bad work gets into the top journals.
"Publication record is a better indicator of quality, but that does not make it a good indicator. Too much bad work gets into the top journals."
I would reword this as: "publication record is a better indicator but it's not always a reliable indicator."
While nobody should read too much into the random publication even in the top-tier journals, if somebody manages to publish several times in such journals, it's not just a matter of luck.
Further, there are a lot of very smart, very skilled scholars, who don't manage to publish their best work in the so-called top-tiered journals, whether due to poor quality manuscript preparation, bad luck in the selection of reviewers, gate-keeping, or, in many cases, selection of an inappropriate journal.
When I see reference to the canonical "top 3" it is suggestive of a formula for success that isn't where most people who are successful in the discipline publish the bulk of their best work. Depending on your specialty and the topic of a particular paper, you can usually find several appropriate high quality journals that would be a good fit and credible professionally.
Why not just read the work?
Your argument being that "reading the work" is somehow bias free?
Of course you read the work. But, at least in my own experience, I've differed signficantly from other smart, successful people on whether a certain scholar's paper is "good" or not.
What does gatekeeping refer to precisely?
I hear people talk about it with the implication that editors quash papers either by not sending them out for review with little to no justification or sending them out with no intention of accepting them.
I get the sense that I've never been treated like this by an editor. Do I just not understand what gatekeeping refers to? Can one know if one has been "gatekept?"
For an example of gatekeeping made explicit, see previous AJPS editors. In general, though, most people who think they've been gatekept probably haven't.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19466978/
A credit to the profession.
Too bad _that_ is what gets us (or at least the faculty in question) some press coverage!
Your argument being that "reading the work" is somehow bias free?
Of course you read the work. But, at least in my own experience, I've differed signficantly from other smart, successful people on whether a certain scholar's paper is "good" or not.
7/09/2007 8:51 AM
My point is there is no bias free process at all. So in terms of making decisions about quality, who you want as a colleague one should read the work and deliberate. I guess it is just a little weird to me how uncomfortable political scientists are with subjectivity.It creates all kinds of distortions in governance and in these kinds of discussions. It is almost as if we can't admit that a lot of judgments are highly subjective and there is not single standard. Really smart people will disagree, and perhaps deliberate etc... it is almost funny the above comment seems to see subjectivity as an evil. I think it is a good thing.
Re: Tulsa prof.
Now now, don't go jumping to conclusions. I'm sure the other driver was just waiting on the passport agency backlog to clear up so he'd no longer be an "undocumented" immigrant. That is what undocumented means, right?
Re: gatekeeping.
The editor in a double-blind process knows who the author is and knows who the reviewers are. Therefore the editor can fairly easily choose reviewers who s/he expects to agree with his/her assessment of the author's work, and my guess is that "Top Ten Full Teaching A 1-1" gets an objectively easier reviewer slate than "Newly-Minted PhD From Bottomfeeder Program At 4-4 State."
A thought from PrawfsBlawg:
The academic departments of universities and colleges were also once more open in their selection of professors (although it was a much smaller pool). Before the 1960s, most such departments did not require a PhD in their discipline for professor positions. Some candidates had earned such degrees, but they had to compete with high school teachers, military officers, ministers, lawyers, and others from the more or less learned professions. Of course the emergence of the PhD requirement went along with the extension of tenure, raises in salary levels, and the hardening of scientific or scholarly methodology, among other good things. But even today, departments of sociology and political science, for example, might be even better if newly minted PhD's in those disciplines had to compete with union executives, community organizers, or campaign managers for their jobs.
if somebody manages to publish several times in such journals, it's not just a matter of luck.
No, but it is not a very reliable indicator of high-quality scholarship, either. Some people have a knack for getting mediocre work accepted at top journals. And there are subfield-wide pathologies that make it relatively easy for bad work on certain topics to appear in top journals.
which departments will hve the best jobs this year in American? which schools wil do the best in recruiting for those jobs?
I tend to agree that some sort of gatekeeping occurs in the top journals. Some of the reviews I've gotten back from these journals have simply been bizarre (e.g. a three page diatribe on the one time use of the word paradox when the paper wasn't even focused on pardoxes or the term paradox).
Also, I reviewed a paper for a top journal even though the editor knew that I knew who the author of the paper was.
I guess it's just part of the article submission and review process. Still, it's disappointing.
Yes editors often stack the deck in favor of the big names. An egregious example: my advisor's article was sent to out to be reviewed by one of his recent advisees (he chaired his reviewer's dissertation). Of course the former student knew it was her/his advisor's piece and gave it a great review. This is no small field so there were a number of qualified reviewers who were not connected to the author.
re: 4:32.
Inept, careless assignment of referees is an equally good explanation.
I know who writes the articles I review roughly 75% of the time. It doesn't really prevent me from being unbiased because the author doesn't know who I am.
That shows how small some subfields are.
OK, I have a question about jobs which advertise for "race and politics". Do non-minority applicants stand a chance at such jobs? How often are these searches exclusively shopping for minorities? I'm not trying to start a big affirmative action debate because I support that. But since I do research on race and politics, I just want to know if I should even bother trying to crack that market, or if I should try to focus on other searches. I am applying selectively because I already have a job, so each application has a cost to me.
If it is exclusively listed as a race and politics job, I think the bar to a non-minority scholar is very, very high. If race and politics is one area of interest among others, then it is much more plausible.
That shows how small some subfields are.
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm in the realm of electoral behavior. I'm just paying attention to what people do at conferences, I guess.
What are the fastest of the top journals are turnaround times? AJPS vs JOP? I guess it's too soon to tell on APSR.
The AJPS has become ridiculously slow. You're lucky to get a response in six months.
Is this true? Is this only on formal theory papers?
Do people out there in American read the JOP as closely as the APSR or AJPS? I worry that SPSA membership is pretty small, and am curious if the reach of JOP is thus limited.
AJPS editor asked me to revise and resubmit the same paper 3 times. Each time I wait about 3 months to hear back from them. All told, I still don't have a decision from them for a paper originally submitted in January 2006.
Would be nice to get a decision before I go on the job market.
Rejection letter from UNO today says they hired Robert Sims for the SRC position and "will very likely be authorized to hire some more political scientists... in the coming months."
Of course, if you read Gambit Weekly you'd already know the former...
Not the "best" journal in a lot of people's minds, but you'd be hard pressed to find one that is better managed right now than APR.
<< Home