Old American Job Rumors
Try to keep this blog for job rumors only. If you want to have a discussion on a topic that isn't related to jobs, let me know and I will start a new thread
posted by American and Comparative Politics Job Blog at 7/08/2007 04:08:00 AM
622 Comments:
"Not that they are necessarily wrong (though you should cite your source) but they don't reflect 'total funding per student,' for which the state general fund allocation is often significantly less than 50%."
Well, of course. However the point the poster I was responding to made was "Too bad both WA and OR (especially the latter) underinvest in their university systems."
As for the figures, almost every flagship university ought to have the information as part of its assessment plans. I googled and found a bunch of them. I used one from the University of Arkansas because it has more recent information (2006-2007)than what we have. The data is on page 41 and is comparable to what I posted before.
http://chancellor.uark.edu/images/Raising_the_Bar.pdf
Someone made the point about endowments. For the majority of state universities however, endowments work like lottery revenue for public schools. They are good for targeted expenses (endowed chairs) but their ability to contribute to the overall fiscal picture is dwarfed by the need for revenue on a campus with ten of thousands of students.
Say that you have a $1.5 billion endowment. That is probably only generating $50 million annually in net revenue over the long haul (unless you are biting into the endowment itself like Regents University is doing). Divide that by 25,000 students and you only get $2,000 per student. That money is also highly restricted in how it can be spent. It is great if you can get your hands on it but many departments are shut out because of a lack of donors. Even within departments it can be hit-or-miss. I have benefited from our medium-size endowment but I have colleagues who have not seen much of a tangible reward.
And less than ten public universities have that large an endowment as $1.5 (see cite at end of post). Iowa’s endowment is about half of that. They might have $1,000 per student to spend. It is better than nothing (which is what most regional colleges struggle with) but it does not come close to offsetting a state legislature that wants to make serious budget cuts.
http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf
The annual endowment expenditures figures ought to be a bit higher since most universities are trying to spend around five percent of their endowments – not the 3.5-4% estimate I was using. I think my figures are more viable in the long-run for reasons such as the 2000-2001”market correction.” However the estimates ought to be based on what universities are spending as opposed to what they should be spending.
Resources are fungible.
"Resources are fungible."
Yes and no. If a donor gives you $5 million to start a Middle East Studies Center, you can't spend the money on nursing scholarships. And while you could theoretically move money from Department A (which gets donor money)to Department B (which doesn't), university politics typically does not work that way. I would actually argue that deans and provosts are more likely to reward departments which get external funding by giving them more money.
Poster above makes a good point. Not that this matters to someone looking for a first job, but if you're around post tenure, endowments and the long term financial picture can start to matter.
Take my own college with a modest endowment of 400 million. Low, right? But we only have 1200 students, = 333,333 per student.
Compare to a seemingly much better endowed institution, say Vanderbilt, with a reported endowment of 2.92 billion. However, with nearly 10x as many students as Reed (11,607), their per capita endowment is actually lower (251572).
In terms of per capita, once you get rid of the outliers (Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, UTexas), the best endowed institutions are actually the group of top LACs, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, etc. with > 1 billion in endowment and 2-3500 students.
I second Paul Gronke's comments on the importance of a institution's endowment when you consider what your career there will be like in the long run. A small endowment may translate into crumbling infrastructure and sluggish faculty hiring, things that are really frustrating if you want to maintain a good department. This is just as true for state schools as for privates. State support could make up for a small endowment, but you'd be a fool to bet on that these days.
speaking of american, anyone have any other information on the american jobs recently posted?
Who are the young associates who might be moving this year?
Some thoughts on endowment and overall university funding.
I have followed this thread for a couple of days and here are some comments responding to various aspects of several posts.
On looking for a job, I agree that as an Assistant Professor, this isn't your concern. Options are generally few (except for the rare annointed ones) and you take the best job you are offered. However, I also agree with Paul and others that once you are tenured and making career enhancing and/or lifestyle choices, look extremely carefully at the capitalization of the institution. A great starting salary is nice, but at an under-capitalized institution, you will rapidly fall behind the salary curve. Also, life can be really grim during periods of fiscal stress. I have taught at both public and private institutions facing financial woes, and you never realize how nice it is not to be nickeled and dimed about conference travel, long distance, EVEN PHOTOCOPYING. Caveat emptor.
A second line of thought I would like to add is the issue of research funding. Many big campuses makeup for the lack of state support with federal overhead dollars. This is nice (especially if the U has a med school or is particularly adept at attracting extramural support), but it seems perilous to me. I currently find myself at an institution with LOTS of federal overhead dollars paying bills. If the fed ever meaningfully reduces NSF or NIH, everyone here is screwed.
A third line to think about (which was alluded to in the earlier discussion of the big public schools) is the creeping privatization of public research universities. Places like UVA and UNC have already made deals with their state legislatures that essentially allow the Universities to go their own way in exchange for accepting very low state support. The decline of support even in places like Wisconsin and Iowa--with long traditions of strong investment in the state university--suggests that privatization is occurring whether the campuses plan for it or not. I saw some numbers in the Chronicle or similar outlet some years ago showing that some of the Big Ten institutions have seen state support drop from around 55% of gen education budgets to something like 15-19% (and a few places worse). The shift has occurred since the mid-70s. I am in early mid-career (low 40s), and I can see a time where several of these flagship public institutions are entirely devoid of state support (apart from the fact t hat the state owns the buildings).
The problems associated with this are huge. First, the democratic ideal of a state providing a quality institution of higher education...that an educated citizenry was good for the entire commonwealth...is dying. Second, access to quality institutions will be more selective, exclusive, and non-representative of the general public. Third, the state as owner will continue to dictate policies even in the lack of funding (since they own the place), effectively limiting the ability of the university to adapt to the loss of revenue.
These are serious times in higher education.
Still, when it comes to Vandy & Reed, I prefer to compare faculty salaries. And, let me tell you, Vandy clubbers Reed on that regard, from Assistant Professors to Endowed Chairs.
Some great points about the privatizing of public research universities. And while you often don’t have much choice where you go, it is important to keep in mind that endowment money can make a huge difference in your quality of life.
I am going into my fifth-year as an assistant professor at a public R-2 (under the old Carnegie classification). My salary is modest but we actually have a decent endowment (especially for our department). What has that translated into since I have been here (all of this is on top of “normal” research support coming from the university such as GAs, travel and other money)? One-two months of salary support each summer for doing research, three years of a grad assistant working at a research center and spending fifteen hours a week on my projects, and an extra $1000 in travel money each year over what I was promised when I interviewed here. All of this came from various endowed funds on campus.
Obviously this pales to what many elite SLACs and R1s have (as well as some peer institutions). Still I know other people at comparable institutions who get much less.
The point is that I really never seriously thought about the importance of endowments at public universities until I got a job. I would encourage everyone in the job market (1)to look at endowment figures for institutions and (2) when on campus visits to ask faculty members what (if any) impact that money has had for them.
With regard to the suject of privitization of the public schools, is this necessarily a bad thing? I understand some of the dangers, like the state dictates policy while no longer paying the freight, but I would think it does provide a good entrepreneurial school with the ability to stay liquid through troubled times (when, under the old system, the state would cut off public university funding and faculty salaries, among other things, would freeze). This latter issue has plagued Wisconsin of late, and the result is the exodus of solid faculty.
These are really good comments about the importance of university finances for life after tenure. I have tenure and a very generous salary, but the fact that the university has a microscopic endowment and faces steadily declining state support still matters. Our library reflects many financial compromises over the years, the buildings are not in great shape, and the IT infrastructure is poor. It is a struggle just to get the university to replace departing faculty, let alone grow our department to keep pace with increasing enrollment. My personal finances may be insulated from my university's sad financial condition, but salary isn't everything. I'd give some of it up if I could be at an institution that was in better shape overall. This will be a major consideration in deciding whether to move elsewhere.
On the whole, is it better to be at a very good private university than a very good public university? What are the pros/cons of each?
It depends on which public university or which private university you're considering. I don't think a rule of thumb is very helpful. You need to look at the salaries, overall finances, and hiring practices of each one. Even a rich university can be mismanaged.
I've only ever been at public universities in my (long) career, so can't report the difference from private from personal experience.
But here are a few impressions.
1. Both publics and privates have some vulnerability to market forces. When the stock market went all to hell in the 6 years ago, it had a very negative impact on endowments and endowment income. But publics are more immediately affected also by state budget constraints (though, as has been pointed out already on this thread, less so in recent years than in the past because of privatization).
2. Public universities are subject to a lot of year-to-year ebb and flow of budget funds, whether from the state or private sources (including tuition and fees). The salary and merit raise process also moves a lot from year-to-year. So if you have a "good year" in publications while the state/university has a "bad year" in revenues, you may be out of luck. Despite this, in public institutions the raise process seems to depend very much on what you did last year, so your raises can be quite volatile depending on how your production cycle matches the financial cycle. In private institutions, the ups-and-downs are more muted, and faculties tend to take a longer-term (i.e., multi-year) perspective on faculty productivity expectations.
(If the faculty is unionized, you're talking about a different situation altogether. Raises seem to be split between cost-of-living and merit, and the latter raises tend to be more muted or limited by some formula than what you can get in a non-union public university. Basically, the admin has a lot more flexibility to respond to merit and market conditions in non-union shops; and in my opinion (no hard data) salaries tend to be higher in general.)
3. The "privatization" of public university budgets is not just a question of salaries and raises but also in all kinds of support areas ranging, as has been mentioned, from library and IT down to travel, telephones and xeroxing support.
To put the latter into concrete terms, in the old days, when I was a department chair, we started out with about $100,000 per year in our "supplies" budget allocation from the college/university. This was typically supplemented by several tens of thousands from "release funds" from faculty on leave, grant overhead recovery, and gift income. Nowadays, the current department chair has less than $25,000 in the base budget allocation for supplies, and the remainder of the need must come from alternative sources, namely release funds, grants funds, and special allocations from the university for initiatives of one kind or another. In reality, this also means that faculty pay more of their own research costs -- for travel, supplies, xeroxing, and the like. And the chair has much less discretionary money to help people in a research emergency (to buy equipment, software, etc.).
This is a real cost to faculty from privatization. It gives greater incentive to them to get their own grant money, whether internal or external to the university. But it still on the whole leads to greater out-of-pocket expenses. I've received a lot of grant money over the years (> $2 million), but if I'm not funded today I end up putting up my own money for the little things. One work-around is that I sometimes barter my time/services for added income or funds -- consulting both off campus and on-campus (attaching myself to projects, in return for spending money of one kind or another). That's a drag on my real research productivity as well as on the total time I have available for my main responsibilities as teacher and researcher.
These are just a few observations.
So are public schools better off at all by privatizing?
This discussion of public versus private and the potential consequences of privatization is first-rate and really useful. I work at one of the more highly regarded public institutions and offer a few additional thoughts. Our state funding has plummeted over the past fifteen years and our endowment is solid but not great. The consequences vary significantly, however, by department and school within the university. Within political science, we generally can secure full funding to cover participation in at least two conferences per year and IT support is excellent. But raises generally have been small (5-6 percent yearly during good years). Other departments within our institution have tighter budgets and less funding for conference travel. But because of internal politics, market conditions, and various path-trajectories, they tend to be more highly paid than we are relative to competitor departments at other universities. My point is simply that the impact of budget constraints and partial privatization can vary a lot within a university by department and university-wide data may not be all that useful for potential faculty hires. ABDs weighing offers from public universities should try to have candid discussions with current assistant and associate professors at the relevant institutions to get a sense of what professional life is like within the political science department. And let me close by stating the obvious. When it comes to resources, there are two kinds of faculty at all career stages in all universities; those capable of drawing an outside offer and those that lack the ability to move.
So are public schools better off at all by privatizing?
8/09/2007 7:23 AM
===================
Hell yeah. Without a doubt. I say this as someone who spent some years at a public public school and then moved to a highly privatized public institution.
What benefits/costs does privitization provide public schools?
Somebody mentioned the importance of whether the faculty are unionized (and how strong that union is) above and I want to underscore the importance of that point. My first position was at a school with a strong union (Western Michigan University). This had some good points in that the benefits were great (free parking, great healthcare, and they put 10% into your TIAA-CREF without you having to put a dime away). On the other hand, the union was mostly run by more senior faculty at the institution and, for many of them, merit raises were not in their interests. Thus, there was pretty much a standard raise that every faculty member received (at least while I was there) and except in particularly good budget years, merit raises were actively disallowed.
5-6 % raises? 3 % maximum around here recently. That was in the good years.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oops, I meant to sign the post about Western Michigan University.
Sounds like 7:33 moved from a poor school to a rich school. Within the "privatized public school" sector there are vast differences in the resources across states and across universities within states.
IMO state universities are not necessarily better off with the reduced state funding, nor is the public at large, unless you basically favor (and extremely value) "user taxes" (tuition) over general tax allocations as a way to support public services (education). If you do, then you might argue that we're better off "without a doubt." If you don't begin with that prior, you would likely have a open mind about the pluses and minuses of the changing finances of public universities.
I'm 7:33. No, in fact both schools are otherwise somewhat similar (my current institution is slightly wealthier, but not significantly so).
"What benefits/costs does privitization provide public schools?"
Donors whether individuals or organizations tend to be more specific about how money should be spent -- both in terms of what departments or groups should receive it and what is should be used for.
For example, my summer salary money comes from a center on campus that is funded by private money. The center specializes in a specific subfield of political science and I am supposed to work on a certain project associated with that center. My nine-month contract (funded primarily by tuition and state funds) however comes with little in the way of strings attached (besides wanting me to publish in academic journals and presses).
As someone also pointed out, there are no qualms about equity. While provosts may give more money to engineering than classical languages, there is at least some pressure to funds both endeavors equitably (if not equally). However if BP gives money to your geology department no one is going to complain that they should have given some of it to social work.
At most colleges and universities there is in fact a very strong cross-subsidy of the sciences, engineering, and other tech-heavy departments by departments in the humanities and social sciences.
This comes about because at most institutions students pay the same tuition per credit hour to sit in an enormous intro lecture in econ or psych, taking notes from a powerpoint presentation as they do to sit in a (generally) much smaller lecture, supplemented by labs and more heavy duty technology, in engineering or chemistry. Any lab fees that may be imposed still don't make up for this cross-subsidy.
In addition, the faculty in humanities and social sciences on the whole are paid a lot less than those in the sciences and engineering or business.
So the per credit hour COSTS are a lot lower in humanities and social sciences, but the revenues per credit hour are roughly the same.
The teaching loads also tend to be significantly higher in humanities and social sciences than in natural science and engineering. So we generate more tuition dollars that way as well.
In short, we are subsidizing the science, business, engineering courses.
Now THERE is an equity issue that is built into the budget process that is internal to universities. I once saw a report by the institutional research office of our university that documented the size of that cross-subsidy.
The claim that is often made is that the sciences, engineering, etc. bring in so much more in external funds (grants and contracts) that they make up for the subsidy they are receiving from the humanities and social sciences. But this is a myth. In the report that I referred to above, even with those external funds taken into account, there was a very substantial cross-subsidy of the sciences/engineering.qhoud
Having seen my institution’s data (MA department at a public U) I second 10:56's comments.
Though publics have become much more tuition based over the last 2 decades, administrators still advantage the hard sciences as if the grant advantages still exist (when tuition was actually affordable). Though I hate the trend of higher in-state tuition, which only homogenizes the classroom with no gains in quality, this trend could help us in the social sciences in the long run, as newer administrators more clearly assess our value.
Someone made a comment about about relative salaries at Vandy and Reed, and that's obviously true--Reed is a modestly sized LAC and Vandy is an internationally known R1. That's just my point on the per capita endowment. (Although note that salaries at top 10 LACs are competitive with nearly everything outside of the top 10 or 15 R1s).
Just to put things in perspective, I take a lower salary and higher teaching load by being here, but I get 4.5-6% annual salary increase, $2000+ in travel money, $2500+ in annual RA funds, and I'm just starting a fully internally funded year off (sabbatical + research leave).
While much of this discussion is only interesting to the gray hairs among us, those looking at the market should ALWAYS look at the full benefit package and not focus solely on salary.
Always ask about:
- Travel support
- Summer RA funds
- Computer replacement cycle
- Book, research, other "slush"
funds.
Anything else on that list?
Also sabbatical policy.
I know of one Arts and Sciences Dean who finally had some courage and extracted a pound of flesh from the other colleges. Starved for money and faculty lines, she proposed CHARGING the business, engineering, nursing, and other undergraduate colleges (can't remember them all) PER CREDIT HOUR for all the general education and elective units taught by A&S to the other colleges' students. Brava.
Shifting gears for a bit...I think the social sciences are the MOST screwed in a lot of ways. Some years ago, the institution I was at divided their A&S college into three divisions (arts and humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences....the life sciences were already separate). At that time, 40% of the majors on the entire campus were social science majors, yet the unit was funded at levels comparable to the others.
In the job search, always consider purchasing power parity; how much is that salary worth in the town where you'll live?
That calculator is on teh crack. It just told me that housing in Dallas is ~15% cheaper than Buffalo or Rochester.
Texas has no income tax. That takes about 7% off the top compared to NY.
is there any hope that this blog might get back to job rumors? any new rumors about the American job market?
the list:
American University
Boston University
Emory University (Judicial or Formal Theory)
Georgetown University
Georgia State University
Harvard University
Kent State University
Louisiana State University (Mass Communication)
Michigan State University
Michigan State University (Urban Politics)
Northern Arizona University (Race and Ethnicity)
Pennsylvania State University (Political Economy)
Princeton University
Stanford University
SUNY-University at Albany
Texas A&M University (Political Institutions/Bureaucracy)
Texas A&M University (Race and Ethnicity)
University of California, Davis (Institutions)
University of California, Riverside (Formal Theory)
University of California, Riverside (Race and Ethnicity)
University of Chicago (Race and Politics)
University of Georgia
University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign (Institutions)
University of Iowa (Open Field & Formal Theory)
University of Kentucky (Institutions)
University of Maryland (Race and Ethnicity)
University of Oregon
University of South Carolina (Judicial)
Vanderbilt University
Yale University
The list...
is incomplete.
12:58 needs to switch to decaf. When people have rumors, they will post them. In the meantime, I thought the discussion of university financing was both relevant and interested.
If you were looking to hire at the young associate level in American Institutions, who would you go after?
Yeah, but to job applicants this stuff is interesting too.
A couple of others that have been mentioned at one time or another, though I'm not so sure about specialty:
Georgia (Judicial?)
UNC (Methods?)
FSU (American?)
Any word on whether FSU's American search is for institutions or behavior? My hunch would be behavior since they seem to have given up on American institutions, but perhaps this cuts the other way and they've finally decided to try and fill the void (especially after losing Staton, who I assume taught their graduate courts class).
Duke and Ohio State were both also rumored to be hiring in institutions.
I would hire from the usual institutions schools...
housing in Dallas is ~15% cheaper than Buffalo or Rochester.
Not surprising. Housing in Texas is generally underappreciated, while it is opposite back in the East. I know this as I have lived in both.
Not surprising.
It is if you know that the median house price in Buffalo metro is $103K, and $115K in Rochester. I can't find the median house price in D/FW before I hit my lazy barrier, but I promise you it's rather more than $87K.
Which makes me suspect that the calculator is a wee bit inaccurate.
If you were looking to hire at the young associate level in American Institutions, who would you go after?
Why you and your friends, of course.
And who would that be?
Housing prices, of course, are based on how attractive people view living there.
Unattractive people, of course, have no effect on housing prices.
Is that why LA is so expensive? Are people using home equity on plastic surgery?
Sometimes on breathing apparatus.
I was speed browsing Friday’s posts and not paying much attention so here is what I initially read (when I left out the 5:10 pm post):
“If you were looking to hire at the young associate level in American Institutions, who would you go after?”
“Why you and your friends, of course.”
“And who would that be?”
“Unattractive people, of course.”
So here's the working list. Add more and I'll update when I check back in a few days.
Things to ask that or research that you might not have thought about ....
- Travel support
- Summer RA funds
- Computer replacement cycle
- Book, research, other "slush"
funds.
- Sabbatical policy
- Junior leave policy
- Relative cost of living
How about these:
- New faculty housing or housing assistance
When you ask, make sure to use the term, "slush fund," too. :)
It's always fun to ask if they can "launder" research money into salary without the Dean knowing. Chairs respect that kind of initiative!
;-)
Slush funds aside (good luck using that kind of language when you interview), and on to more innocuous matters, what happened with Groseclose? And, dare I ask, with Ting?
Add educational benefits for spouse/partner/dependents. These benefits are untaxed income.
You can find out about educational benefits for family members through the university's HR website. Faculty are generally clueless about this (unless they've used it recently), and this way you don't have to bring up the spouse/family during the interview.
Am I right to think the Woodrow Wilson American Politics ad is different from and in addition to the earlier Department of Politics ad?
Is it just me, or does it look to be a very bad market for candidates in American? It may be too soon to tell, but I can't recall exactly when we should expect a larger number of jobs to appear on the website...any thoughts?
so the University of Miami's chair was going around Midwest in the spring telling people that Miami was going to be hiring a lot of people this fall - maybe to replace all the ones they lost in the spring - so what happened? (Don't harass me and Gonzalez, don't call me names - I hoped to apply there despite the reputation because my family is nearby)
Two ads, two jobs.
2 ads for Miami? where? not with APSA...
two ads for miami:
1) department wanted
2) for sale used office furniture
Is it just me, or does it look to be a very bad market for candidates in American? It may be too soon to tell, but I can't recall exactly when we should expect a larger number of jobs to appear on the website...any thoughts?
8/13/2007 12:12 PM
***********************************
No, it is not just you. Several thoughts. It looks to me like American is getting killed by Comparative and IR, but I haven't actually compared numbers to confirm that. There are a fair number of American ads now, but when I go through them, it seems like most are either at elite institutions and thus unattainable for all but the most elite candidates, or highly specialized. That's what seems different to me. I don't recall so many job ads being so narrowly cast.
"There are a fair number of American ads now, but when I go through them, it seems like most are either at elite institutions or highly specialized."
Almost every forecast I've seen about projected state budgets has been bad so that might explain part of it. I don't know what to make of any change in the American:IR/Comp ratio.
Comparative ads are down across the board except for China specialists.
1:47, 5:03, and 5:39, thanks for the responses. I had the same impression about the elite schools and narrow positions. Thanks for the input. Maybe there will be a late influx of ads in American.
Keep in mind that committees often place a "generic" ad, but have particular specialties in mind. This year's market may be no more segmented than previous ones.
what's the word on Wisconsin? the events of last year suggested they might hire in American, perhaps several positions. but the lines listed so far are all other fields (poverty studies, theory, IR, CPE). with so many other lines, it seems like perhaps the American hires will be deferred. any inside information out there about their plans about American politics?
Wisconsin has a high profile, university-wise, administration-led hiring initiative. That's where the bulk of the hiring action over there will be during this season.
Does anyone know when the wiki is going to be relaunched for this year? Thanks in advance.
As an assistant on the clock, being on the market feels empowering. One doesn't just have to wait around and be evaluated by one's department. Yes, there's a cost to applying in terms of time and money. And lots of time if you-hopefully-get interviews. There's been a lot of talk on this blog about the costs of being on the market. Well, one non-pecuniary benefit is a feeling that, at least potentially, the people who've been evaluating you for the last X number of years don't have complete control over your career/life.
Of course, maybe I'm not thinking about this rationally and considerations about time should obviously trump a feeling of empowerment-and I'm on the market for reasons other than "empowerment", obviously. I'm just saying. . .
yeah, sure, if ensuring that your outside option is not unemployment is your idea of "empowerment" then by all means, feel good about yourself.
but i think you're actually right, provided you hate your department, they hate you, and they can't wait until the day they deny your tenure case.
i'm just saying...
Keep in mind that committees often place a "generic" ad, but have particular specialties in mind. This year's market may be no more segmented than previous ones.
8/14/2007 8:47 AM
**********************************
I agree that committees do this, but at least they have a good applicant pool to fall back on if they have to settle for a less preferred field. But these narrow ads will discourage a lot of applicants and when these searches yield a thin pool, I can imagine a lot of failed searches this season. We'll see, I suppose.
Re: Ting and Groseclose... Last I heard, Ting had leveraged all his attention into a better offer at Columbia and was staying, while Groseclose was still (sort of) on the market, for the right offer. At least, those were the rumors in the spring. Amazing that these two managed to pique interest for nearly two years.
At my university (Top 40 R1), we have between 10 and 12 graduate students who probably could go on the market this year, across fields. As people trickle back in from summer activities, I have learned that only two of these students are definitely going on the market, with one or two others only applying to "dream jobs," and another couple waiting another week or two before deciding. Is the market THAT bad this year? Granted, I don't work with all of these students, so I don't know the ins and outs of their dissertation progress, but I find it hard to believe that fully half of this cohort is prepared to spend another year hustling for bad stipends from one library or another rather than try to get a real job. Is this year's market simply shaping up to be abysmal?
"Last I heard, Ting had leveraged all his attention into a better offer at Columbia and was staying,"
What people will make for a 2 bdrm apartment in NYC. Simply amazing!
Will make others go through
Is Brian Sala tenured at Asst. Prof.?
"Is this year's market simply shaping up to be abysmal?"
I'm not sure I agree with the consensus. I just logged onto E-Jobs and searched for American Politics assistant professorships starting Fall 2008. I counted 65. While a number were cross-listed, the majority of these tended to be like the Norwich position (e.g., "The position is in American politics with a specialization in public policy."). That number seems like a decent one this far out.
Suddenly SUNY-Albany has a bunch of public policy slots to go with their multiple political science jobs. What's going on? Are they rebuilding from something or just expanding?
"Is this year's market simply shaping up to be abysmal?"
Not at all. It's not only too early to say that, but also, so far, unwarranted.
"Abysmal" is probably too strong at this point. I still think a relatively large number of the American ads are cast very narrowly, but I have no data to justify that conclusion.
Speaking of data, for fans of empirical American politics research, you can find 3 articles (of the 15 that are published) in the new APSR. Geez.
The Rockefeller College at Albany has a newish dean (Straussman) who has a mandate to hire. They lost at least two senior people last year (Mumpower to A&M, Birkland to NC State, both for endowed chairs).
Stanford has a ton of strong candidates out
are they selling them in bulk?
I was looking at their placement page (http://www.stanford.edu/group/polisci/job_candidates.html) and saw mostly comparative and IR people.
The two Americanists I saw did look like good job candidates. Are there are more? The page looked like it was recent -- unlike my alma mater that has information from two-three years ago still up.
what about the other power houses? Ohio State? Columbia? Harvard? Yale?
The American market just got tighter; Hartwick has canned its search until Fall 09.
Penn has an odd ad out today. anyone know the scoop? Are they targeting senior or junior?
Regarding Stanford,
The GSB and the department should both have very strong candidates this year.
"Regarding Stanford,
The GSB and the department should both have very strong candidates this year," said the fifth-year GSB student.
Ok, good point on the slush funds. It is very nice to have a set of unrestricted funds. It's amazing how nice this can be, for the cab ride that isn't covered by your travel, for that extra book you really want, for that printer at the home office.
Let's say 'research funds' OK?
Are there any senior level searches planned in American national institutions that have not been posted yet?
Most probably.
Does anyone know if Indiana will be hiring in American?
Indiana is searching in American public policy:
http://www.indiana.edu/~iupolsci/
public_policy_position.html
Are there any senior level searches planned in American national institutions that have not been posted yet?
----
I would think Iowa would to replace Squire, but they might go junior to save $$
Is New Mexico going to try again to fill it senior position?
I would think Iowa would to replace Squire, but they might go junior to save $$
Is Pev moving now, or next summer?
Michigan's new faculty now listed:
http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/
faculty/facultyAlpha.html
Will Michigan be hiring in American this year? At what rank?
Anybody see that the new 2008 U.S. News College Rankings are out? Any thoughts on the Top 25 university ordering?
Garbage in, garbage out.
The ordering seems to pass the sniff test to me. What places look under/over ranked?
The pre-season NCAA football poll is also out. A discussion of this would be about as productive as the US News rankings.
I think Boise St is probably under rated. They finished strongly last year with a big time bowl win and have some good starters coming back.
Anyone have news regarding the new NRC grad rankings? I hear they are done, but not yet public.
on US News, the rankings were not updated, the 2008 edition numbers are based on the 2005 survey.
We were speaking of the undergraduate rankings that just came out a few days ago.
What is Penn looking for in American? Junior or Senior? APD?
Is New Mexico going to try again to fill it senior position?
8/20/2007 4:20 AM
I have heard that it's not likely. They got turned down twice (by two pretty decent people) and might have lost the line.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/
~chingos/rankings_paper.pdf
Interesting paper on rankings.
"Is Pev moving now, or next summer?"
He should already be at Missouri.
Here's an Inside Higher Ed article on the rankings piece mentioned above: http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/21/ranking
I don't think I got my July PS. Ah well.
Looks like state budget cuts have put plans for hiring on hold at Fla's state universities for this year. Can anyone confirm?
What happened with Groseclose? Didn't he have an offer from Yale?
I've heard the same thing about the hiring freeze for FL schools, but my info is from a relative who lives in FL, not an official university source.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/
~chingos/rankings_paper.pdf
Interesting paper on rankings.
------
Here's another ranking piece coming out in October PS:
http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/ social_networks_in_political_science.pdf
--James
Heard a rumor that Basinger interviewed with FSU. True? If so, word on whether he's going?
Florida universities have had a decent budget cut (5-6%), but there is not a hiring freeze.
There wouldn't be a single, state-mandated hiring freeze in Fla because the universities govern themselves. But at least two state schools have implemented hiring freezes from what I understand, UF being one of them:
http://news.ufl.edu/2007/07/02/hiring-freeze-q-a/
FIU is another one, I believe. I suspect the other universities may be doing the same thing.
This recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education confirms the last post. The budget problems are statewide and pretty severe. Those of you looking to move to Fla will have to put all their hopes into the private universities, like the Univ. of Miami!
http://www.uffucf.org/news/article.php?id=203
I heard UM's political science departmetn was not going to be hiring this year despite claims to the contrary at midwest. I heard from a regent of the school that the provost is upset witht eh department over losing almost all the poepl who publish last year. So if you're looking to move to Florida, looks like it's going to be at the prep school level.
Really, you heard from a Regent?wow!
That especially stunning since UM doesnt have regents.
sorry, I meant trustee (an occasional golf chum)- at my school the equivalent are regents. Good you were snotty about it though, especially since UM isn't rrunning any ads. You really showed me, boy howdy.
There is still plenty of time in the hiring season for U.M. to announce new positions.
Additionally, I doubt any Provost would be "mad at a department" for losing people. Presumably the Provost would have some role in "losing those people."
Finally, in the case of U.M. wasn't it reported recently on this blog that an offer was not extended to one of the individuals that left the department. I would think the Provost had something to do with that.
oh man are we starting up the UM junk again? I recall the blog reporting that UM made no effort to keep any of the 4 people who left. The UM faculty should stop blogging, it makes the department look even more ridiculous.
Additionally, I doubt any Provost would be "mad at a department" for losing people. Presumably the Provost would have some role in "losing those people."
Yeah, Provosts being the reasonable, self-aware, open to critical self-assessment, individuals that they are.
Can I have your Provost? Seems s/he is nothing like mine.
no kidding, that's sort of weasely to blame the loss of 2/3rds of you juniors on the provost instead of the chair
We do not know why people left U.M. In light of this, it would be irresponsible to blame the Chair, or anyone else for that matter. Nonetheless, it is not clear why the Provost would be "mad at the Department."
I blame the weather.
We do not know why people left U.M. In light of this, it would be irresponsible to blame the Chair, or anyone else for that matter. Nonetheless, it is not clear why the Provost would be "mad at the Department."
Respectfully,
...
Proposition. The set of people who should care about the university of miami political science department possesses Lebesgue measure zero within the type space.
Proof. Suppose, in line with the statement of the proposition, that we are considering the University of Miami political science department. The result follows immediately.
GAG has returned!!respectfully
Who cares?!!!
Apart from the appropriately raised question of "who cares?", it strikes me as misplaced to speculate about identities when people are posting anonymously. First, there is no way to tell who is posting what. Second, such speculation can alternatively inflate or damage someone's reputation.
On a serious note.... GAG, can you tell us if there are plans in place to rebuild the Miami department and if so what they are and when? With appropriate personnel changes at the senior level, Miami actually might be a good appointment for the right kind of junior faculty.
My polo chum is a Rector at the University and says that Shalala will resign her position as President at the end of this academic year. Apparently she will retreat to her home department of Political Science and become chair (to replace Frohock) until such time as Hilary, should she win, offers her a job.
Whether she gets the funding needed to rebuild the departmnet will depend on the preferences of the incoming president who rumor has it may well be Bob Kerrey.
Hilarious. This is truly funny stuff. Bob Kerrey? WTF????
4:22 must be my favorite post ever
OK, so how many more jobs are likely to post?Right now there seems to be slim pickins. Either really good schools or...not-too great schools. Few in between. Who's left to post?
THANK YOU all for the UM posts! Keep 'em coming! I've gotten more entertainment from this subject than any other, with the possible exception of the Ting saga. And, by the way, I would still take a job at UM in a heartbeat. Discuss.
6:35: I agree the pickings are pretty darn slim in American, particularly once you throw out the jobs that most people aren't going to be competitive candidates for (top 20ish R1s), the REP jobs, and the glorified community college positions (you too can have a job at Miami of Ohio's Hamilton campus!).
Time to go reinvent myself as an REP scholar, methinks.
You will have to do more than study race if you are to get one of those REP jobs though. And, sadly, I don't think one can do what is needed to get one of those.
You could always pull a Ward Churchill and pretend to be an Indian.
Do it without the serial plagiarism and you might even avoid getting caught...
I think Teddy Roosevelt said "that distance enhances the view is no less true of the political world than the natural" You could also add U of Miami to the litany. I agree this has given me (now)years of comical hilarity. I hope they do an animated movie soon!
It's always a good sign when you join a department that's in turmoil.....and they misspell your name on the webpage.
When is their webpage going to have a "Hire a Miami Junior Faculty" link?
oh man...that's professional - very nice
Better than getting hired and not being listed on the department's web page at all (which happened to one of their hires this year).
Actually, I think there are quite a few good positions available, especially at LACs (Whitman, High Point, Whittier, Claremont, etc.)
The University of the Redlands position is interesting. Do they have a lot of resources?
8/23/2007 2:39 AM
8/23/2007 5:55 AM
I always hope this kind of racist bullshit is beneath seemingly intelligent people but apparently it is not. There are plenty of white people in REP who are well placed, both junior and senior:
Kinder, Sniderman, Sears, Hochschild, Mendelbergh, Frederico, Winter,Frymer, Strolovich, Klinkner, A. Marx (not Karl), etc. etc. etc.
Further, if you can't tell me you are really as good as White, Hutchings, Davis, Gay, Dawson and Barretto and some other minorities in the field who are as good as anyone in any field and have the record to back it up then shut the fuck up.
Attacking the REP field as being only people of color and therefore inferior is just racist and just as bad, wrong. It is not even funny to joke like that if you aren't serious. But sadly I think you are.
So why are people always dumping on the Cal. State system? Is it just that they don't carry the prestige of the UC schools, or are they just bad places? Are the CS-Northridge and CS-Long Beach jobs worth applying for?
"If you can't tell me you are really as good as..."
This is an argument I've never understood. I can't pass judgment on my betters? Are you serious?
the cal states are certainly less prestigious. they are more teaching oriented than research oriented--so you'll have a higher teaching load, their admissions standards are lower than the UCs, some are commuter schools I think; i think the system evolved from a set of teacher's colleges. they are decent places to get an affordable college degree. if you want to do a lot of research, there are better places to be.
"Kinder, Sniderman, Sears, Hochschild, Mendelbergh, Frederico, Winter,Frymer, Strolovich, Klinkner, A. Marx (not Karl), etc. etc. etc."
FYI: Most of these are not REP, or they became REP after making tenure in something else. Most of the work by Kinder, Sears and Frederico deals with whites' attitudes toward Blacks. Sniderman would never have published his book on Black Pride and Black Prejudice (which sucks) as a new associate professor. His other work is all on whites' attitudes toward Blacks, not REP.
Anyone who thinks a new white PhD has the same chances at getting a REP job as a racial or ethnic minority is just plane dilusional. It's not racist to say this.
Cal States are a mixed bag. It varies dramatically by school. In poli sci, Northridge is strong. So is Fullerton. Long Beach is really weak--and a looney bin. San Bernadino had an unwritten policy of not hiring women for a number of years.
Overall, the schools are pretty easy to evaluate, just look at what, where and how often the faculty publish.
They get most of the benefits of a research 1 school, but don't have all the costs. The teaching load is a little higher, but the publication expectation are much lower. There are opportunities for buyouts too. A friend told me that tenure at CSULB is 2 refereed articles.
They aren't really any more committed to teaching than the UC from what Ive seen, though class sizes can be smaller (but still Intro's of ~200 aren't uncommon) but they are unionized and so they have lots of benefits that the UCs don't have. I think their union just negotiated like a 24% raise over the next three years. At the UC you wont get that without an outside offer (there is no union).
If you want to enjoy life and not work hard they are excellent jobs. Though there are a few who actually earn their paychecks.
Here is a tip: if you aren't good enough to get a non-rep job, you aren't good enough to get one in REP either.
Cal State, here I come!
That is sadly and patently false.
Yes, everyone knows Cal State jobs are better than UC jobs. Hands down.
I heard Groseclose is going to Cal State Stanislaus. Can someone confirm?
Anyone heard of Jack Turner University of Washington?
Can someone give me examples of strong well published white guys who can't get jobs in REP?
Also, by that standard for example Larry Bobo is not REP for the most part. So people of color who study white attitudes are REP but whites are not?
True. We at least have had three REP searches in the past years. We once tried to get a white female scholar to interview for one of these slots. (She was an Assistant Professor at a certain SW Dept). We couldn't even get her to give a job talk. Everyone agreed she was the stronger than the three minority scholars we brought. But she was white. And she was thus out of bounds.
If there is anything racist in here, it's surely not claiming that this happens.
Departments often use their REP position to diversify the faculty. REP jobs tend to be held by minorities, just as women & politics tend to be held by women. What would be interesting is whether the basis for getting tenure in the two fields is different from other fields.
Sooooo . . . we are complaining that the white guys can't dominate even fields where they are smaller numeric majorities or perhaps even numeric minorities of the pool of scholars doing work in those areas? Yeah, it's a tough old world out there.
And yes, some universities and departments do authorize searches in REP in the hopes of attracting more diverse pools of applicants. But if a department has no one doing REP and three people doing American institutions, isn't that a rational curricular choice? Like, assuming that teaching and curriculum have something to do with these decisions?
And I'm sorry but I call bullshit on the person whose entire department wanted to bring in a white woman but was unable to do so, even though she was demonstrably better than the three minority candidates who . . . somehow came in and interviewed . . . based on what? Oh, let me guess. The mean bad HR AAEO thugs came over and threatened to break some kneecaps if the entire department didn't roll over and break the law for them. And then the dean said that if you don't hire a minority now, you will never see another line again as long as you live, right?
Pretending that fights over minority hires are substantively and qualitatively different than any other kinds of fights over hiring that lead to winners, losers, and sour grapes is pretty disingenuous and poisonous for departments and the minority scholars themselves.
A lot of this crap could be avoided if people just had the balls to say to their friends and acquaintances, "we didn't hire you because you weren't as good as the other people we interviewed" rather than trying to save face by saying "we would have loved to hire you but we had to hire a minority."
You're just not as good as Michael Dawson or Cathy Cohen or Dianne Pinderhughes or Ange Marie Hancock or Rodney Hero or Gary Segura or Lisa Garcia Bedolla or etc. Get the fuck over it and deal. If it makes you feel better, there are plenty of white scholars out there better than you, too.
In the 2004 market, almost every one of the SLAC (about six, I think) who advertised an REP job had a "closed" search. Go figure.
By closed, I meant "failed."
Um, ok, can we calm down a little?
As a non-Americanist, non-behavioralist scholar, I have a question about the above comments. I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm just confused. Why is it that if you study race and ethnicity and politics, but you study the effect of being white on some political behavior (rather than being non-white), it doesn't count as REP? It sounds like you'd be looking at race/ethnicity. Am I missing something?
Thank you so much for saying that 7:20AM; I couldn't agree more and it really needed to be said here. If you're white and middle or upper class with a PhD and still can't get a decent job, maybe you should think about the reason why - starting with yourself - and stop blaming others; doing the latter is equal parts pathetic and ugly.
Except that in a divided discipline, the losers in those departmental fights frequently think that their favored candidates were as good as (or better than) the candidate who was hired, which often does lead to poisonous recriminations. We couldn't hire you because we had to hire the minority scholar, the female scholar, the perestroika scholar, the formal theory scholar, the area studies scholar, the quantitative scholar, the history of political thought scholar, the whatever scholar, whom those knuckleheads across the hall or up the quad made us hire.
Cal States are a mixed bag. It varies dramatically by school. In poli sci, Northridge is strong. So is Fullerton. Long Beach is really weak--and a looney bin. San Bernadino had an unwritten policy of not hiring women for a number of years.
Overall, the schools are pretty easy to evaluate, just look at what, where and how often the faculty publish.
They get most of the benefits of a research 1 school, but don't have all the costs. The teaching load is a little higher, but the publication expectation are much lower. There are opportunities for buyouts too. A friend told me that tenure at CSULB is 2 refereed articles.
They aren't really any more committed to teaching than the UC from what Ive seen, though class sizes can be smaller (but still Intro's of ~200 aren't uncommon) but they are unionized and so they have lots of benefits that the UCs don't have. I think their union just negotiated like a 24% raise over the next three years. At the UC you wont get that without an outside offer (there is no union).
If you want to enjoy life and not work hard they are excellent jobs. Though there are a few who actually earn their paychecks.
Some thoughts on endowment and overall university funding.
I have followed this thread for a couple of days and here are some comments responding to various aspects of several posts.
On looking for a job, I agree that as an Assistant Professor, this isn't your concern. Options are generally few (except for the rare annointed ones) and you take the best job you are offered. However, I also agree with Paul and others that once you are tenured and making career enhancing and/or lifestyle choices, look extremely carefully at the capitalization of the institution. A great starting salary is nice, but at an under-capitalized institution, you will rapidly fall behind the salary curve. Also, life can be really grim during periods of fiscal stress. I have taught at both public and private institutions facing financial woes, and you never realize how nice it is not to be nickeled and dimed about conference travel, long distance, EVEN PHOTOCOPYING. Caveat emptor.
A second line of thought I would like to add is the issue of research funding. Many big campuses makeup for the lack of state support with federal overhead dollars. This is nice (especially if the U has a med school or is particularly adept at attracting extramural support), but it seems perilous to me. I currently find myself at an institution with LOTS of federal overhead dollars paying bills. If the fed ever meaningfully reduces NSF or NIH, everyone here is screwed.
A third line to think about (which was alluded to in the earlier discussion of the big public schools) is the creeping privatization of public research universities. Places like UVA and UNC have already made deals with their state legislatures that essentially allow the Universities to go their own way in exchange for accepting very low state support. The decline of support even in places like Wisconsin and Iowa--with long traditions of strong investment in the state university--suggests that privatization is occurring whether the campuses plan for it or not. I saw some numbers in the Chronicle or similar outlet some years ago showing that some of the Big Ten institutions have seen state support drop from around 55% of gen education budgets to something like 15-19% (and a few places worse). The shift has occurred since the mid-70s. I am in early mid-career (low 40s), and I can see a time where several of these flagship public institutions are entirely devoid of state support (apart from the fact t hat the state owns the buildings).
The problems associated with this are huge. First, the democratic ideal of a state providing a quality institution of higher education...that an educated citizenry was good for the entire commonwealth...is dying. Second, access to quality institutions will be more selective, exclusive, and non-representative of the general public. Third, the state as owner will continue to dictate policies even in the lack of funding (since they own the place), effectively limiting the ability of the university to adapt to the loss of revenue.
These are serious times in higher education.
Kinder, Sniderman, Sears, Hochschild, Mendelbergh, Frederico, Winter,Frymer, Strolovich, Klinkner, A. Marx (not Karl)
How many of these scholars got jobs advertised as REP? Name one white person that was hired for an REP position. I'm not saying that whites should dominate REP or making any normative statement at all. Someone made an empirical claim: "There are plenty of white people in REP who are well placed, both junior and senior." I'm just challenging it. While some may include these people in REP, they didn't get jobs as people studying REP. Most got jobs as people studying political psychology/public opinion.
8/24/2007 8:36 AM
When was the last time a person of color that does REP was hired for a general position in a field at your institution? That is when you advertise for American, Comparative or Theory without specifying REP do scholars of color who do REP get interviews and are they ever hired? I doubt it because most scholars of color that do REP in the discipline were hired in these REP "slots" or interdisciplinary programs. In fact, half are not even hired by the initiative of Political Science Departments. The spot originates in Afro-American Studies or Chicano Studies or whatever and they are joint in political science. That is in part why I find attacks on REP scholars for being "sociologist" or not real "political scientists" ridiculous. Most of them have to compete in an interdisciplinary market and write for an interdisciplinary audience in order to get jobs and advance in the market place. It also intellectually reflects the questions but is a market "fact".
So no big deal huh? If what you say is true and it is an empirical fact that white scholars cannot be hired for REP jobs while scholars of color are not hired for general positions the world is pretty just right?
Well know. General jobs run at least about 8 or 10:1 to REP jobs. Political Science is not like Sociology or Anthropology (or for that matter labor economics) where questions of race and/or social inequality more generally are seen as general topics in political science. They are "special". While I contest that the REP market is a completely "sheltered" market. If it is, it is one where there is actually bruising competition because there are a lot of scholars and very few slots. Anyone with half a brain can see the number of REP jobs compared to behavior, institutions etc. are
miniscule. Then why the comments about acting like an Indian or doing something to become a person of color?
The underlying assumption around REP is consistently that the field and particular scholars in it are inferior, undeserving and can't cut it in other fields. Further, that REP does not involve things like institutions, behavior etc.
The reason why this makes me angry is it is the exact same logic that creates at least the need for a sheltered market and/or affirmative action that you are complaining about in the first place. One could twist my argument and say I am against affirmative action. However, sadly I think the assumption that REP scholars are inferior and that REP is some special issue within political science set aside from "real" political issues (both of which I contend are hopelessly wrong headed) are not likely to change anytime soon. So I do agree REP are a "sheltered" market but so is the rest of political science.
Ask yourself how many times when you think of hiring the best available athlete in a field does a scholar of color in REP enter into the discussion? How many times do women who study women come up? Most scholars who do REP do not even get considered in the general market, regardless of how good they are. There are several scholars who apply for the general job at an institution and don't get interviews and then are subsequently hired in the "sheltered" market without much of a fight and turn out to be great finds. That is the serious problem with the discipline and we call it discrimination. Someone even made that comment that senior white scholars did REP AFTER tenure. Perhaps if you ask them they might say they did not think they would GET tenure doing REP. WOW what a spin on the 'facts'. Meaning the standard for doing REP may be higher because of its perception as a "special" consideration than other fields.
For whatever it is worth, I am a scholar with a Latino surname and will say that in my view I have been treated fairly in the discipline, as has another colleague with a Latino last name. Neither of us work in REP. I have colleagues that are politically conservative and opposed to anything that "smells" of affirmation action, but I would contest the notion that they are biased against ethic minorities.
the REP stuff makes me miss the Miami static. Surely GAG has something to add to this discussion?
8/24/2007 9:57 AM
Who says only conservatives discriminate? Further, the previous post was around scholars of color who do REP. Also the experience of you and one friend says nothing about the discipline.
I am also not sure what it means to have a "Latino" surname? Are you actually Latino do you consider yourself as such? Do others? Do you mean a "spanish" surname? I have never heard of a "latino" surname before. But you learn something new everyday.
8/24/2007 9:57 AM
Like on this list I would venture to guess that Latino scholars doing REP would AUTOMATICALLY be considered affirmative action hires by them and thus opposed. What does the "smell" of affirmative action mean if not that?
Is there a difference between between "Latino" or "Spanish" surnames? If so, it is news to me. While both my parents were born in a Hispanic/Latino country, and I grew up speaking Spanish, I consider myself a "citizen of the world". We all belong to the human race, and our differences are amazingly superficial -- biologically/genetically speaking.
One sub-argument of this discussion is that if ethnic minorities have preferential access to REP positions, it is justified because they are given constricted access to non-REP slots. In my lay opinion, the biggest obstacle facing ethnic minorities in the discipline is the relative dearth of minority Ph.D.s. I make that claim based on my experience in overseeing numerous job searches.
RE: 10:24 a.m.
It is probably true that my conservative colleagues would oppose creating a slot for REP. (They have indeed have done so in the past.) The other point worth making is that when the Department had the opportunity to hire scholars with minority backgrounds these conservative colleagues embraced the opportunity. They did so presumably based solely on merit considerations, without regard for ethnicity.
8/23/2007 8:25 PM wrote:
The teaching load [at CSU] is a little higher [than UC], but the publication expectation are much lower.
--------------------
The teaching load is a LOT higher at CSU but it is true that publication expectations are much lower.
The teaching load at CSU can be as much as 4-4 or as little as 3-3 but the teaching load at UC is 2-1 or the equivalent for for trimesters.
"Ask yourself how many times when you think of hiring the best available athlete in a field does a scholar of color in REP enter into the discussion?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "athlete" but I can think of several racial minority scholars who are tops in what they do and it's not REP. That said, most of the top racial minority scholars I can think of do REP. Why don't you answer this question? Who are the top racial minority scholars in non-REP fields?
BTW: It tend to agree with most of what you argue.
8/24/2007 10:45 AM
Top minority scholars in Non-REP fields: Mebane, W.Tam Cho, Wantchekon, Hoston, and Mike Alvarez (?). However, I do believe the very best minority scholars are in REP. I think most of them do some REP in addition to their non-REP work. Just as some REP scholars do some work on non-REP topics. Most REP scholars are pretty multi-dimensional in my experience.
However, the most important point is that REP is both a field unto itself but also is a part of other fields and subfields. Can you write about American institutions courts, presidency, congress or political behavior without discussing race? Can you do African politics or European politics these days without at least mentioning ethnicity? So, REP and REP topics are and SHOULD be found (more often I contend) in other fields and subfields.
For example "REP scholars" and their "fields":
Vincent Hutchings: American, Congress, Behavior, media, REP
Dawson: American, Theory, Behavior,and REP
Segura: Behavior, REP
Frymer: Institutions, labor, law and society, APD, REP
Taeku Lee: American, Behavior, REP
I am just talking about Americanists here there are also theorists and Comparativists. For example Nobles and Hanchard are REP AND Latin Americanists.
So couldn't any of these people be considered for a REP job but also a job in American, Comparative or theory in sub-fields like democratic theory, behavior, institutions, media, Latin America, congress, apd etc.? They work on race but also contribute to our knowledge in areas like behavior, institutions, American Political development etc.
If not why not? I think I agree with the above but I am just clarifying my point about the "sheltered" markets.
In a perfect world I think the boundaries between REP and non-REP work would be much more fluid with scholars of all different perspectives and methodological approaches etc. working on the topic to a degree since it is probably one of the most central and important when it comes to politics and governance IMHO. That would mean that like sociology or labor economics all kinds of scholars would take up the issue as part of their normal course of research, it would neither be left for a "special" set of scholars nor would it be perceived to be a "ghetto" to work on REP of any kind.
Vesla Weaver was hired by UVa this past year in a non-REP slot.
8/24/2007 10:45 AM
The question boils down to this (race stuff aside) are REP and other fields/sub-fields mutually exclusive or is there enough overlap such that REP scholars should be considered for jobs outside of REP in areas that there REP work relates to?
Why wouldn't they?
I look forward to the day when the APSR become a relevant journal again. I just looked at the most recent issue, and not one article looked at all interesting to me. It epitomizes all the downsides of proportional representation.
I think 8/24/2007 11:27 AM has it right. There is tons of overlap with lots of Black and Latino scholars doing work that would be considered REP, but also behavior, institutions, pol psychology, etc. There are also a lot of white scholars with substantive interests outside of REP, but their research incorporates race and ethnicity.
And what about white scholars who want to study the South? How can they do that without incorporating race? 8/24/2007 11:27 AM seems to suggest that they shouldn't; that most fields should (or must) incorporate race.
Interestingly, some white scholars that study REP report getting flack for it. For example, see last paragraph on page 15 of Canon's Race, Redistricting, and Representation. Is there a sense among racial minorities that the study of REP should be reserved to them and whites should not be applying for REP jobs?
also that huge raise at the CSUs brings them closer to but not at where the UC s have been for a long time. They get those huge raises after years of no raises
A lot of the REP stuff I've come across lately seems like... American behavior stuff. Voting stuff, in particular. I don't understand why it isn't considered simply to be a part of that literature.
8/24/2007 12:07 PM
Almost everyone at a UC Is "off scale" people.
UC Prof here. We teach 2-2 and then 2-3 in alternating years.
I know of people in the cal state system (several, not just one) who have 2-2 (with teaching a large intro to American) and with things like advising an internship program (or pre-law, or whatever), they get down to 1-1.
At UC we have to teach the large intros anyway, and dont get double credit for them.
Now if you are at UCSD or Berkeley and perhaps UCLA, your load will be lower, but my experience is that those places are special in that the Deans have bought down the average class size.
I have no omniscience, and I can't claim this is the case everywhere.
But I repeat: we had a search, and the Dean flatly told us we simply couldn't interview a certain scholar doing REP because she was white. She had a job in a top 25ish department, so it's not as if she was sub-par. But she was white.
I am not saying this to piss you. Though, boy, you surely sound pissed. That's just what happened.
Just like last year the Dean demanded that every single of our searches included at least one female candidate.
That's just what happened. No big sour grapes story here, no big conspiracy.
You can keep insulting me and using foul language. And yet that won't change what happened.
Teaching load at UCSD is a 2-3? I am surprised by that. I know people there, and all I know have a 2-2. Same goes for UCLA.
To 1:44 pm. Are you in a private school? Did the Dean ever make such statements on paper (or in an email)? I have to think it's against the law, but maybe I'm naive/mistaken.
I have to report a similar experience at my department. We tried to interview one of the non-minority REP scholars you meantion, and were not allowed to do so (on grounds that he was white).
(I am a big supporter of the scientific study of race, so hopefully I won't get any abuse for saying this).
<< Home