Old American Job Rumors October 2007>
posted by American and Comparative Politics Job Blog at 8/07/2007 12:10:00 PM
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.
537 Comments:
UCSD is great at placements and graduate training. Why the hate?
No mas! No mas!
Which departments have already met and have lists? Any interviews scheduled so far?
words be havin' it that Penn and Georgetown have invited pizzies out for jizzy tizzies. no wordsies on whethas theys be done yet -- just fo' da dos centinos.
So is this chill e. punk deal funny? Or what?
Anonymous said...
So is this chill e. punk deal funny? Or what?
9/29/2007 8:10 PM
No, it isn't. It's the price reasonable pay to read these blogs. When he's outed, his career is over.
Um, you can bet your last dollar that Chill has and will continue to do pretty well in the discipline. S/he is also always very well informed so pay attention if you care about the market.
Sometimes information costs are greater than the value of the information. Having to read "jizzy tizzies" and "wordsies" is too high a price to learn who is interviewing at Penn or Georgetown.
as one of the few who has a good idea who chill is, it wouldn't matter if he or she was outed or not.
believe me, he or she is much better than you are at this gig.
"it wouldn't matter if he or she was outed or not"
Then do it. Chickenshit?
>> as one of the few who has a good idea who chill is,
I thought there were many of us who had a good guess...
It's pretty well known who he is -- at least among people in the know (e.g. people who learn more from talking to their well-placed friends then they do from this board). It hasn't hurt him and it won't. If you can put out good work, that's all people care about.
It's Zorn.
Bzzzt! Wrong.
It's [insert name of the person you dislike here]
It's Guy Whitten.
Bzzzt! Wrong again.
"Having to read `jizzy tizzies' and `wordsies' is too high a price to learn who is interviewing at Penn or Georgetown."
Really? Are those costlier to read or type? Oh, wait....maybe you *meant* for the post to be ironic.
In the immortal words of chill and jamie kennedy -- don't be hatin', yo!
As opposed to the vast majority of recent posts on this blog, chill posted job rumors.
And yes, lots of people know who chill is. Some of those people even agree on who he/she is.
any word about who Penn and Georgetown invited?
Neil Malhotra will dominate the market!
Dude has a strong CV.
If by dominate, you mean "Receive an offer from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Chicago, or Michigan", Malhotra is a very safe bet. Then there is the remainder of the market for the rest of us. As productive as Malhotra is, he can only take one job and most schools will figure out that they aren't in the running pretty quickly. His biggest effect will be eating up interview slots for jobs that he won't take.
As a 3rd year grad student who is as yet unpublished, let me say that is a frightening publication record.
They get heavily discounted though because they're coauthored, right?
Except for the solo pieces of course.
Shit, better get back to work.
That is an impressive publication record for just a few years in grad school with Malhotra.
But none of those will count towards his tenure file, will they?
It's silly when schools whose faculty are competitive on the job market try to specify what will "count" for tenure. That kind of thing may work when your only hope for promotion is within, but not when there's an external labor market and chance for outside offers as well. In that case it's professional reputation overall that will drive the process. Places like this generally don't even bother to try to tell you what "counts" for tenure. And at any place that hired Malhotra, that's how things will be.
11:25 has a good point - if other schools are beating down your door to hire you, then people aren't going to play these silly games over 'what counts'. True, there are some inequities on the market under which some solid junior scholars aren't as marketable as others (for a variety of reasons), but this is the reality.
If you stop publishing, then the timing of your publications matters. Whether or not they "count" officially is irrelevant. Your colleagues, deans, and potential employers want to see your research trajectory.
They get heavily discounted though because they're coauthored, right?
Except for the solo pieces of course.
Shit, better get back to work.
I don't want to re-open the gaping chasm of a wound that is solo v. co-authorship, other than to offer my personal opinion that co-authorship shouldn't lead to much of a discount if it is a top 3 or even a second-tier journal. But that's for me.
I agree generally, but not if you are a grad student and you're writing with your senior-level dissertation advisor. Then your contribution is much smaller.
SUNY-Albany is starting interviews next week.
8:31 + 9:33 is my sense of things too on coauthoring. It's not much of an issue anymore.
It also depends what else you've done. A junior person whose only solid publications are with his or her phd advisor is not in great shape. But if the same person goes out and publishes other work, either solo or with different coauthors, then things look very different. He or she will even get a greater share of the long-run credit on the old papers with the advisor.
I have updated "the big board" for this fall (so far it is easy--extremely limited information for just four schools).
http://amjobstable.blogspot.com/
Berkeley policy school is looking at Americanists, among others. They are open to a wide range of substantive interests. See the add below.
http://gspp.berkeley.edu/facultyopening2007.pdf
For the record, many of Malhotra's co-authored publications are with grad students. Some are with faculty as well. So in his case, I wouldn't think that his co-authored pieces will be discounted.
I agree generally, but not if you are a grad student and you're writing with your senior-level dissertation advisor. Then your contribution is much smaller.
10/01/2007 9:33 AM
I think that's an unfair assumption/interpretation of co-authorship.
I can think of a few cases of junior folk who did more than their fair share of a piece with their advisor.
Then again, what do I know? I am one of those anti-social assholes who has never published with anyone else.
My point was not that grad student X did or did not do his or her fair share. My point was that when a grad student collaborates with a senior faculty member, especially an advisor, he or she will get very little credit in the larger marketplace. That's the reality. Now if grad student X publishes good stuff on his or her own, or with peers, then the situation may be a bit different, as one poster above mentioned.
Everybody who is "in the know" knows that co-authored pieces count 50% less than solely authored pieces and that nothing that you write while in grad school will count toward tenure. When I got MY job (at a top 40-ish institution) this was made quite clear to me. I feel badly for those who think otherwise, I really do...
6:41 is wrong. It saddens me when people are so clearly out of touch with the discipline. I may not be at a top-40 institution (a small LAC in the Pacific Northwest) but I attend enough conferences (WPSA, MWPSA) to know that this is not the sort of signal we should be sending our graduate students.
I have to second 6:41's comments. But I wonder from this part of the post...
"When I got MY job (at a top 40-ish institution) this was made quite clear to me."
...what institution do you think they're at? It's sage advice that more graduate students should receive. For example, it's "weakly dominant" to delay publication until you start your TT job.
I want ideas about the kinds of programs that are giving their students this advice, because it's really a recipe for success (I know firsthand, having served on hiring and tenure committes at my university -- Top 20-25 R1).
While I normally don't post on this blog (I've found it to be rather juvenile), I just have to say "right on" 6:41. My guess is that 6:41 is at Florida State, TAMU, Illinois, Vanderbilt, UCSD, UGA, UM, Emory, or Penn.
On not publishing until your first tt job - I hate to say it, but it's all "it depends" again. If you want to compete for the best schools, you have to have a couple of decent publications. I do think that you should hold back your "star" publication or book for after your tt begins, but most people aren't in the luxurious position of withholding a publication of this sort anyway (since most would be trying to finish up the diss.) Sadly, the only dominant strategy I see is "the more the merrier," before and after tt job begins.
I am going to take issue with several points. First, co-authorship in empirical work is increasing the rule rather than the exception...as political science moves towards a more science-like academic environment. This varies by subfield of course.
Second, I think co-authorship is NOT discounted 50% as a rule. I think it really depends on both who the co-author is (senior faculty or adviser, high discount, fellow grad student or assistant prof, very low discount), AND on what else you have. For someone with lots of work, co-authorship does not hurt. If you have very little and its all co-authored with someone senior, you are in trouble.
I would also add that many years ago, I competed for a job with a "future star" who had co-authored with several senior folk in his/her top-5 grad department. I did not get the job. Subsequently, s/he essentially bombed out of the discipline after writing almost nothing. So for those of you on hiring committees, beware the well-placed RA.
Finally, with respect to what "counts" for tenure, again, it depends on what else you have done. For example, folks with relatively constant rates of production will see value added to everything they have written. It is only those who stall out who see their pre-placement pubs discounted.
It is also important to remember that while a tenure committee may foolishly decide not to count pre-TT pubs, an outside hiring committee, looking to pick up a good prospect, will certainly look at the whole record. In the end, tenure is in the discpline, not the school.
There are undoubtedly some institutions that rigidly count when you published your work (was it on the t-t? was it here?), but plenty of other high-ranked institutions that do not. Graduate school work is likely to be discounted if it is substantively disconnected from your later work in various ways -- was it co-authored with an advisor? was it your best work? was it one-off from the themes and questions that motivate the rest of your publication record?
I don't want to re-open the gaping chasm of a wound that is solo v. co-authorship...
Nice work moron. Now we have to rehash another "all departments are different" argument.
Everybody who is "in the know" knows that co-authored pieces count 50% less than solely authored pieces and that nothing that you write while in grad school will count toward tenure. When I got MY job (at a top 40-ish institution) this was made quite clear to me. I feel badly for those who think otherwise, I really do...
--------------------
Your school is giving you the shaft my friend. Time to shop around.
Well, I take issue with all of the above. It is a very silly exercise to try to come up with any set of rules about what counts towards tenure. Your tenure file will be looked at by dozens of people and each one of them may be looking for something different. One of them may dislike your CV because you have all coauthored papers and another one will say "look how many people want to work with her." One will say "I like the book." And another will say "Nobody reads book anymore." The department will say "look at all those good journals" and the Promotion and Tenure Committee will just count articles. If there any universal rules, its that having your name below your advisor will diminish an article quite a bit. But everyone's department is full of senior professors from a wide range of backgrounds and each values something different - usually whatever dominates their own CV. E.g. the people who don't publish will judge you on your teaching and department service.
...I...think...there's...a...theorem...here...
C. C. is Andrew Martin.
If people are going to discount grad school publications, what counts as a grad school publication? For instance, if I publish something out of my dissertation while I am in the first year or so of my tenure-track job, would it count towards tenure or not? Does it matter if the articles were out under review while I was on the market? Or do I have to be actively working on the diss stuff while at my new TT desk for those pubs to count? Or doesn't diss stuff count at all? I recognize one of the earlier poster's points that no two people will judge tenure files using the same criteria, but for those of you out there who definitely discount pre-TT work, where do you draw the line?
My guess is that 6:41 is at Florida State, TAMU, Illinois, Vanderbilt, UCSD, UGA, UM, Emory, or Penn.
Well, if you name half the schools in the top 40, you probably will "guess" right!
My experience is that everything counts assuming you continue to publish. But I think this depends on your not squeaking over the bar.
My tenure reviewers did not discount the articles I wrote in grad school, in fact several spoke about one of them at length.
But, you will find that that as the earlier poster noted, lots of people will review your file and many of these have very different perceptions of whats important and what isn't. Some will discount coauthored pubs and some may not. Others demand a book for tenure. Some don't.
One of the most amusing things for me was one reviewer noting that I had placed an article in a regional journal that I thought was a bad placement, but to them it was a first rate outlet!
"My guess is that 6:41 is at Florida State, TAMU, Illinois, Vanderbilt, UCSD, UGA, UM, Emory, or Penn.
Well, if you name half the schools in the top 40, you probably will "guess" right!"
Ummm, 9/40 < 0.5, but I get your point. As far as it goes, everybody knows that, in several of the key subfields in American Politics (APD, Congress, Behavior) only books count. Journal articles are for gearheads and people with ADD.
I'm just glad that my colleagues (at a prestigious LAC in the midwest) believe the same as I do. Gravitas, people, gravitas!
Only books count in the Congress subfield? That's news to me.
Well, no one at a top 20 school says they are in "the top 40", so "top 40" = 20-40.
so you are right about .5
What this "debate" shows is how important it is for candidates to ask for a clear understanding of tenure expectations when interviewing. Schools are different--some care about when an article was published, some don't discount co-authored pieces at all, some only care about co-authored pieces with advisers, some don't care about co-authoring if you have multiple sets of different co-authors, some discount all co-authored work.
Make sure to ask, and ask multiple people. All those different views on co-authoring came from different people in the same department.
10/02/2007 5:10 AM
At the end of the day if you have a record within reason, it then depends upon whether the department and/or University WANT to give you tenure. It is generally much easier at public Universities because the process is much more transparent and bureaucratic (though this is not a universal rule). At private universities they don't have to justify themselves.
However, I have seen cases with weak records (on paper) have problems and I have seen cases with great records have issues. You can get a self-appointed "expert" on a university wide committee who has it out for you and does not like your approach.
I think in the end most of the time institutions get it "right" for the department and the university. Most letter writers in my experience are thoughtful. Though I do prefer them to actually talk about the quality of thought in a book or article rather than the journal or press as a measure of quality. But, the overarching point is hedge your bets, do the best work you can, and do your best work.
Politics also plays a role. In one department I am familiar with the "in" group sends weak cases up that continuously get questioned (and rightly so) by the University wide process questions them, while the "out" group gets thrashed at the departmental level but sails through the University wide committee. I won't say it is all "political" in that there is an intellectual agenda behind it and they believe themselves to be supporting quality.
Again,in 95% of cases they get it right in the end. The road can be rough etc. The 5% or 10% where it goes wrong are VERY ugly and painful. Generally departments and Universities know this and try to avoid it. Generally at most places (Ivy League Schools excluded), they WANT to tenure you if they hire you. Places that don't have the Harvard or Yale understanding or who don't explicitly have VERY high standards (Stanford, Princeton, Michigan etc.) who shoot people down for silly reasons ultimately end in ruin. I won't mention specific departments but the fall out appears here all the time. Though it is also hard to judge a case from the outside. You have to read the letters etc. One weird turn can happen and may seem strange from the outside but makes sense on the inside. But a number of them really indicates something is wrong.
Ask, explicitly what does it take to get tenure. Find out how the process has gone historically and in the very recent past. Also ask what the standing of the department is in the wider University. Find out if there are any intellectual or political divisions in the department or university that play themselves out around tenure cases. Absence these kinds of red flags, if you do your work you should be fine.
When in doubt, just keep publishing.
In different meetings I have seen some people say coauthorship does not and should not count and then in another celebrate someone for all of the smart and high profile people they coauthor with.
I have even seen someone who had only one or two non-coauthored articles and got tenure challenge a case on the grounds that there are too many coauthored articles when the person had a significant solo record. In fairness I think the person was saying that one coauthored AJPS (especially her own) counts for about a single authored book at a major press. Some people bought this but others really challenged it. You hope there is an honest conversation and real deliberation in all cases. But the point is even the same people can vary case to case.
>> Everybody who is "in the know" knows that co-authored pieces count 50% less than solely authored pieces and that nothing that you write while in grad school will count toward tenure.
Just to add to the chorus, this varies by school. At my department it is clearly false.
9/20<0.5 as well.
From someone "in the know."
I know it pains the graduate students with all of the "methods" and "datasets," ready to change the world, but the following facts are irrefutable:
1) Tenure in American Politics is about impact and contribution.
2) Articles are quickly forgotten and generally reviewed in a shoddy manner by individuals "in the club."
3) Books are read by REAL people.
4) Books are reviewed by senior scholars of weight in their subfield.
Ergo, tenure in American Politics is about books. All of my senior colleagues (at a top 30-ish R1) agree on this. I hate to be the bearer of such bad news, but better now than when you come up for tenure.
Similarly, we are not talking NEARLY enough about the importance of professional service and contributions within your scholarly community.
It surely doesn't work that way at every top 30 Department. I hope you can see that.
Im certain 10:20 is being ironical!
Good luck trying to get tenure at a research school based on average productivity but strong service....
I think 10/02/2007 10:20 AM and the earlier 10/01/2007 6:41 PM are the same person yanking on the boards collective chain.
Nice job on the trolling. You had me going for a bit. :)
Service matters at the margins but I agree about the books. Unless an article is a seminal piece it is easily forgettable.
Just like most books aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
One colleague, in joking about another collegue recently, referred to his "widely unread book."
'Well, no one at a top 20 school says they are in "the top 40", so "top 40" = 20-40.'
Actually, seemingly everyone in the 20-40 range represents themselves as "top 25-ish." "Top 40" means 40-75.
So, no one ever confirmed the rumors about Georgetown and Penn? Sounds like these are rumors and just that. If not, can we get some names?
chill's rumor re: georgetown and penn is correct. I'm not sure if they are done inviting people or not, but they have invited people.
my guess is that chill knows more than he/she is letting on, but are the names really necessary? it's kind of nice to not have flame wars about candidates (at least yet).
How about general questions? Are all invitees ABD or junior?
The trouble with "get clear expectations laid out" is that those clear expectations are not felt as binding by the senior faculty en masse at time 2. On questions including "which journals?" "which presses?" "books or articles?" "how does coauthorship count?" and "how do grad school publications count?" I've seen senior faculty freely disregard what a chair had earlier told the candidate, if they didn't think those were the relevant criteria, or if the result they gave didn't sit with their priors.
That conversation with your chair is an advisory opinion about how to interpret your contract; it is not a new clause in your contract.
Likewise, if somebody says they're top 30-ish, it means 27-45.
Because everyone knows which department ranks 27th...
not to digress from the topic too much, BUT ...is anyone else being driven crazy by the new APSR team??? Will my manuscript EVER get a number assigend or - god help us - actually be sent out for review?
'Well, no one at a top 20 school says they are in "the top 40", so "top 40" = 20-40.'
Actually, seemingly everyone in the 20-40 range represents themselves as "top 25-ish." "Top 40" means 40-75.
--------
You know what would help. Actual rankings, you know like the BSC
Georgetown and Penn have both scheduled interviews with candidates. It is not just a rumor.
The trouble with "get clear expectations laid out" is that those clear expectations are not felt as binding by the senior faculty en masse at time 2. On questions including "which journals?" "which presses?" "books or articles?" "how does coauthorship count?" and "how do grad school publications count?" I've seen senior faculty freely disregard what a chair had earlier told the candidate, if they didn't think those were the relevant criteria, or if the result they gave didn't sit with their priors.
Ask everyone you meet with when going on campus for an interview what their expectations for tenure are. Ask them their opinion, not just department policy. I think you can glean a lot of important information from a conversation like that.
But the point is well taken--not everyone in the department is of like mind when it comes to tenure. A chair is an important vote, but far from the only (and you could easily have a new chair by the time you go up for tenure).
For the record, I really like "Guy Who Knows Things." The moniker appears to be accurate and he doesn't use overtly racist language. Thank you sir, may I have another.
Does anyone else think asking every single person you talk to about tenure expectations is a BAD idea?
Ask the search chair. Ask the department chair. Ask one or two juniors in your field.
And then stop. Obsessing over tenure when you are interviewing for a beginning position can only make you look paranoid, arrogant, obnoxious, etc.
Quite right, since we all know the real purpose of one-on-ones is to kiss the asses of the current faculty members.
Wash U in St. Louis has scheduled interviews with candidates.
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
American Politics
The Department of Political Science at Northern Illinois University invites applications for a tenure-track opening in American Politics at the assistant professor level beginning August 16, 2008. The successful candidate will be able to offer undergraduate and graduate courses in Congress and/or the Presidency. Preference will be given to candidates who can contribute to the undergraduate or graduate methods sequence. The normal teaching load averages 4.5 courses per academic year. We seek a candidate with demonstrated or potential excellence in both teaching and scholarship. A Ph.D. in Political Science is required by the time of appointment.
The Department of Political Science has 26 faculty members and offers B.A., B.S., M.A., M.P.A. and Ph.D. degrees. The Department also hosts a nationally ranked Division of Public Administration, and has ties to NIU’s Center for Governmental Studies and Public Opinion Laboratory (a full service survey research facility). NIU is located approximately 60 miles west of Chicago. It has an enrollment of more than 25,000, including a graduate student body of over 6,400. Applicants must send curriculum vitae, letter of application, three letters of recommendation, appropriate transcripts, writing samples, and evidence of teaching effectiveness to: Professor Christopher M. Jones, Department Chair, Attn: American Politics Search, Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115-2854. Review of completed applications will begin on December 14 and will continue until the position is filled. Northern Illinois University is an AA/EEO institution and strongly encourages applications from women and minority candidates.
The normal teaching load averages 4.5 courses per academic year.
--
What does a 4.5 teaching load consist of? I have never heard of half credits.
Professors at Northern Illinois usually have a 2/2 load. Maybe they're referring to teaching one summer class every other year?
Good question. Essentially this means that you teach over a two year period a 2/2, 3/2, although no one has taught 3 courses in a semester any time recently.
OK, don't talk to people about tenure expectations when you are on an interview. And then be surprised after you've taken the job that the tenure standards are not as transparent as the chair made them out to be.
It is possible to ask in such a way that doesn't make you look paranoid or insecure. Solicit information--"what do you think makes a strong tenure file, that is, what are you expecting of your future colleague(s)?" Not so hard. And you will likely get back useful information beyond just how beans you need--that is you will learn something about your (potential) future colleagues.
I agree that it would be bad to phrase the question like "the Chair said 7 articles for tenure, with discounting for co-authorship, is that true?" But my suggested wording is significantly different.
There are a set of questions that faculty members expect candidates to ask. Resources, leave policy, tenure standards, collegiality, quality of undergraduates, quality of graduate students, quality of life issues are all in the bag of standard questions.
Candidates should ask multiple people the same question because you will get slightly different answers. It also helps avoid uncomfortable silences.
One question to ask the chair (and perhaps one or two others) is what was the disposition of the last 3 tenure cases.
Of course, then you have to make sure that it is representative of the process in place (i.e. that people were not brought up because they were told they wouldn't make it).
Speaking of questions to ask, let nobody ever say that APSA is completely useless: here's a list they provide. Obviously, I wouldn't ask them all to everyone.
Interviewers also want to have a sense that candidates have a life. Granted, after X years of grad school, you may not have a life, but you should pretend to have one for the purposes of an interview, which includes socially acceptable hobbies. This is usually not the place to divulge any hobbies that Dwight Schrute or Andy Bernard have, unless the interviewer divulges first his/her fandom of all things Buffy/Firefly/Battlestar Galactica/beet farming/acapella singing/frisbee golfing.
Also, asking about the location of the nearest Whole Foods can't hurt, although WF may be becoming too corporate for lefty faculty members. Better to volunteer to start an organic co-op.
That's right. Big bad Whole Foods is going after (and maybe has acquired?; I haven't followed) Wild Oats. How terrible! I need to take a drag on some hemp to get over these bad feelings.
Worst question: "What is the policy on faculty-student dating?"
The most important thing on an interview is to balance coffee intake with the need to avoid taking an embarrassing number of bathroom breaks.
Getting jittery can also be a problem, regarding coffee.
another bad question to ask:
"what's the department's policy on blogging?"
then giving them your URL which is something like, oh,
http://iamanacademicwho
likesitintheass.blogspot.com
It was reported that Nancy Burns interviewed at Duke. Is she also interviewing elsewhere?
Whole Foods has indeed acquired Wild Oats.
And in other important American Job Rumors news, Trader Joe's has discontinued its sale of Peppermint Joe Joe Cheesecake.
"Trader Joe's has discontinued its sale of Peppermint Joe Joe Cheesecake."
Oh hell's no!
Yale has begun to issue invitations to people in American politics.
Wonderful advice from the chronicle forum regarding what you should talk about on the drive from the airport to the hotel. Of course, any of these would work in the one-on-one meetings too. linky
My favorites:
"Dude! Here is a breath mint. Would you mind? I'll bet you hear this a lot. No no, keep the box, we'll be spending a lot of time together these next few days."
"Do you have a tie I can borrow?"
"Do you know the symptoms of chlamydia?"
"I'm so nervous that I vomited on the plane. Does that ever happen to you?"
"Can I borrow $50?"
"No? Okay, how about $10?"
"Hold on, wait a minute while I push my herniated intestine back into my stomach cavity."
"Mind if I drink? It is so expensive on the airplane and I am starting to shake."
da wizzle on the strizzle be sayin' UC-Davis has made some ring-a-lings to peeps on da JM.
Any senior people in play yet for any of the aforementioned jobs?
Does it get easier to read CHILL E PUNK's postings? I am new to the blog but it seems CHill provides substantive info once it is deciphered.
chill's format is:
[insert "street" junk] school name that has made calls, etc. [insert "street" junk]
not really tough, since chill doesn't "streetify" the school name(s)
Just think of it as practice for dealing with the undergrads at your future place of employment, a surprising percentage of whom think channeling John Cena (wrestling's answer to Vanilla Ice) is a good thing.
What street does Chill live on? He talks like the unholy child of Sesame Street and Huggy Bear.
What street does Chill live on?
Slauson Ave.
remember when Jenkins chilly-punked TAMU?
Hawthorne Blvd.
Worst question: "What is the policy on faculty-student dating?"
Worse than that:
This school ain't integrated, is it?
Can you pound a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?
Do you think they can smell it on me, Harvey?
Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
Can you stop at that gas station? I need some spank mags.
Is that as painful as it looks?
So... postop?
> remember when Jenkins chilly-punked TAMU?
The Kennedy assasination, the start of the gulf war, and Jenkins chilly-punking TAMU...I will always remember where I was during these three pivotal events.
Worst answer:
"Sure, I'm methodologically plural. I mean, yes...I like to swing."
not to digress from the topic too much, BUT ...is anyone else being driven crazy by the new APSR team??? Will my manuscript EVER get a number assigend or - god help us - actually be sent out for review?
-----------------
my experience as well
can anyone confirm the yale rumor?
Does it get easier to read CHILL E PUNK's postings? I am new to the blog but it seems Chill provides substantive info once it is deciphered.
Chill is consistently the best source of information on this blog. I second the call against "hatin'!"
Just like Borat, Chill grows on you.
Someone mentioned blogging above, what's your opinion on how it affects careers? Does it help? Who blogs?
Maryland has made invitations
can anyone confirm the yale rumor?
Yes. Yale has been calling people for interviews. I would name, names, but we all know how that turns out on this blog more often than not.
Anonymous said...
Maryland has made invitations
10/04/2007 9:51 AM
**********************************
Any idea who? Or what they study? Seemed a bit like an odd ad to me.
How?
> I would name, names, but we all know how that turns out on this blog more often than not.
Paradoxically, that is exactly why you should feel no compunction about naming them. Cf. "Equilibrium, pooling."
Information cascade. Good for candidates; bad for schools. Let the candidates decide for themselves if they want the advertising.
I've never been convinced there is much of a cascade in the job market. But in any case that is not why the prev. poster was withholding names. It was not to help people who -weren't- invited (by breaking a cascade), it was to help people who were. But since getting trashed is uninformative it doesn't really matter.
Getting talked about positively or negatively is never a bad thing.
Ask Britney's kids, or Groseclose, or Dennis Rodman, or Ting...
I'll reiterate my observation from last year that the people who primarily seem to get "trashed" here are people who turn down jobs, suggesting that most of the trashing comes from jilted departments and not other candidates.
There have been a number of instances where candidates that accepted positions or were not even really under consideration were trashed. Best to leave names out.
To get things back on topic here, Michigan has just posted an American position in their web site.
junior? or rank open? all subfields?
What is the deal with the high teaching loads in some of these jobs? Idaho State has a doctoral program and expects a 3-3? Midwestern State is a 4-4 yet offers an MA? I thought accrediting bodies had rules about these things.
yeah, can we talk about teaching loads more. Can someone at a R1 tell me how does a 2-2 there (with grad students) compare with a 2-2 at a LAC (where I am now). Is it really worthwhile "moving up" to a R1 just to have more resources, prestige, etc when a 2-2 will also come with grad students and more committee work? Are there secret perks like graduate dissertation advising counts as one course that I'm missing here?
Someone mentioned blogging above, what's your opinion on how it affects careers? Does it help? Who blogs?
--
Not blogging is weakly dominant.
Some of us actually want to work with graduate students, so being at a program where this is possible is a perk in itself. I really like teaching grad seminars, and having grad students around adds a lot to the intellectual environment in my department.
To 10/04/2007 2:25 PM
I think 10/04/2007 2:45 PM has it about right.
Perks of the LAC include autonomy in both teaching and research (at the better places); small classes; lower tenure standards for publications (compared to top 25 or so R1); better funding for internal research, travel, office, etc.
Perks may also include smarter undergrads, less expensive housing, significant lifestyle benefits, better employment benefits, less bureaucracy.
Negatives are higher teaching loads (most outside of the top 20 are 3-2), no TAs so more grading, higher tenure standards w.r.t. teaching, small departments, and of course the big one, no graduate students.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
To 10/04/2007 2:13 PM
I don't know of any teaching load "rules" in accreditation. (Accreditation doesn't really have "rules" as much as guidelines, and you are sort of "graded" based on how well you conform to the guidelines.)
Certainly, a 3-3 or even 4-4 is not at all uncommon. I can name a dozen PhD granting institutions off the top of my head that have a 3-3 load.
That is the standard load outside of the top 50 or so R-1 institutions. Almost all MA granting institutions have a 3-2 or greater load.
It just seems to me that we seem to put a lot of premium on having graduate students. Maybe people really like to be able to impart their knowledge to a budding scholar (to recrete themselves, so to speak, in our grad students). Just in terms of _time_ I can set aside for writing (all other things constant), I think I'd rather a Swarthmore over a BU (assuming BOTH are 2/2). Not that I'd say NO to either if I didn't have a choice, of course.
On the blogging question: I'd say there's no generalizable conclusions, largely because there just aren't many people on the market who blog, at least non-anonymously. My gut feeling is that it may help you build professional networks at the expense of being perceived negatively by some search committee members.
I expanded on this question a few months ago here; as I discussed in that post, the blogging thing's probably a specific case of the general issue that you don't want to stick out on the market in the "wrong" way.
If you don't have good self-censorship skills, being an academic blogger—really, having any sort of Google-able presence beyond your CV—is not in your best interests. And if you self-censor too much, you probably will be a very boring blogger to read.
My personal bottom line is that (a) any negative impact vis a vis most jobs is overdetermined anyway, as there are plenty of reasons to throw my packet out of the pile before you get to the point of using Google to dig up dirt on me, and (b) I'm not going to disappear from Google if the blog goes away; for better or worse, I have a 15-year Internet paper trail. That calculus doesn't apply to most people on the market... in their shoes, I'd probably go with the flow and post my random thoughts on Facebook, largely away from the prying eyes of potential employers. And I certainly wouldn't post anything under my own name here.
Regarding grad students, it depends upon how good they are. Smart and well trained graduate students will increase your productivity and are fun to teach. Mediocre or poorly trained graduate students are a big time sink.
In most interviews faculty are pretty candid about the quality of the graduate students. You might be able to verify those claims by looking at the number of graduate students who publish (and where) and how many professors co-author with graduate students.
I love this discussion about LAC careers and Paul Gronke's points are especially interesting. Let me add some humble perspective. I began my career at a "teaching" place and I'm now at the opposite end of the spectrum. I liked many of the features mentioned but what I didn't like is my performance evaluation for P&T being determined by stressed-out teenageers using imperfect survey instruments. Presumably lots of places understand this but I was at a place where mean scores were really, really important (never mind that taking means off of Likert scales doesn't make sense).
It's my opinion that some graduate students and assistant profs would be better served doing research than blogging. I know that I frown on people who spend time on blogs and haven't proven they can get something published in a 4th tier journal or make corrections to a dissertation chapter in a timely fashion. Trust me when I say eeben if you blog anonymously if you do it enough other people will know who you are and the talk gets around. On the other hand if you have "proven" yourself in the profession then you may have something of value to say and your colleagues can't do be punitive toward you anyway.
Whose on the market in race & ethnicity and what are the best jobs?
And let's be honest, graduate student are increasingly a source of publications for (young, ambitious) faculty at research universities.
The comment about blogging assumes that blogging is time consuming. Also it assumes that non-bloggers have no time consuming but non-research hobbies. What's better, a grad student who wastes time blogging or one who wastes time rock climbing? Probably neither. One is just more public than the other.
Perhaps bloggers just don't have a life or any other time consuming hobbies?
Are there any studies that compare productivity rates of bloggers and non-bloggers?
--non-blogger, avid rock-climber
And if blogging inspires a person to be obsessively competitive and insecure about their own research, and getting stuff published, it may well be a net benefit to that person. Of course, I'm not saying it's good for the individual's sanity or happiness, or even that we're all better off as a result.
Michigan has revised their postings again - showing the American job plus *2* methods slots.
10/04/2007 5:38 PM has profound insight. Caveat emptor on the job market people. Not all R1s with grad programs are good jobs. Not only do you face the problem of marginal grads being a time-suck, but also marginal colleagues who would pass a ham sandwich if it took comps out of a need to keep a marginal grad department going....
10/04/2007 10:22 PM
http://www.haterfreeraceandpolitics.blogspot.com/
"Best jobs" depend on who you are as it has been mentioned here. Of course Princeton, Chicago etc. are the top ranked jobs.
REP: don't forget Berkeley, OSU and TAMU
I went from research to LAC and prefer the latter. 2-2 teaching load at the LAC and yes, I do my own grading, but my classes are never bigger than 15 students, so it's not much different from grading papers in a grad seminar.
The LAC is more generous in funding (very deep pockets) and has a much better sabbatical policy, and the dept. identity doesn't seem to have impacted my ability to get external funding. And there are nice perks like free parking, free meals, and the dept. pays for advanced undergrads to do a lot the scut work that we often employ first-year grad students to do so their labor doesn't come out of my research budget.
The only drawback, such as it is, is that there are fewer of "my kind" of social scientist here since the dept is much smaller. But that's what conferences are for.
Not the place for this, I know, but: How about the names of folks who are bad about sharing data? Perhaps some public shaming will do some good.
Much as I'd love to shame certain people, this is a TOTALLY inappropriate topic for this board.
I posted earlier about the advantages of the graduate program in my current department (10/4 2:45 PM). I have to agree with subsequent posts about the burdens of bad grad programs, however. The place I worked before my current job had a dreadful graduate program. It was depressing to teach people who were insufficiently educated either to comment on real research or to get decent jobs. And to think they used to urge me to write letters recruiting people into that program! I think I repressed the memory when writing my previous post. Good grad programs are a joy. Bad grad programs are depressing exercises in cynicism. I'd much rather be at an LAC, even one with a slightly higher teaching load, than at a "research university" with a lousy grad program.
On the blogging question: I don't think the problem with blogging is that it takes time away from research-- as noted above, everything we do besides research can be construed in this manner (from sleeping to exercising to reading the newspaper). The real problem with blogging is that it runs contrary to our values. We spend a lot of time learning to be careful scholars, to go to great evidentiary lengths, and to be, above all, modest in our conclusions (or at least include uncertainty estimates). The immediate nature of blogging doesn't encourage these things. The stakes are not as high when the topic is something like the nice wines we've enjoyed or the cool gadgets we've played with, but once we encounter the kinds of questions that are the province of social science, blogging about them is not what scholars should be doing. We're trained to do better. Just my opinion, worth about what you paid for it.
Blogging is just a different kind of endeavor than academic research, obviously much more similar to journalism. But that doesn't make it unworthy. It would be a damn shame if all academics refrained from any kind of writing or intellectual pursuit which ran contrary to the "values" of academic research.
IMO, there are two real reasons that blogging is bad for ABDs and junior scholars. First, it just offers ammunition to anybody on a search committee who already has a bone to pick with you. Second, if you achieve enough notoriety as a blogger, a few very insecure people may feel threatened by that and try to tear you down.
A while back there was someone who was blogging under his own name. He was specifically seeking to defend his Department from anonymous critics. I cannot imagine that his posts "harmed" him in any way. He was reasonable in his tone, as well as decorous. If this blogger applied to my Department, his blogging would not prejudice me against him in any way.
I have participated in other professional blogs where no one posted anonymously. I think it elevates the discussion, and serves to foster a sense of community.
Active blogs do take a fair amount of time -- just like any hobby does -- and time is at a premium in the higher reaches of academia. Blogging can expose an aspect of your personality, just like participating actively on listserves, and that can either work for you or against you. Some blogs adopt a very professional tone and make use their scholarly judgment in useful ways, and others abandon or exploit their academic background to engage in polemics. The latter will not be helpful to your career. The former would probably not be harmful.
I don't think we have nearly as many examples of it in political science, but there are lots of examples of law professors and some economists who blog. From a career perspective, there are good and bad models out there.
why are we having this discussion about blogging and its implications for an academic career on a blog called "American Job Rumors"?
I don't know -- not like there have been strong germaneness rules on this thread. But if you have new job rumors to post, post away.
I'd actually argue that journalism is a step up the ladder from blogging. Journalists have editors--everything journalists put out there goes through *some* kind of review. Admittedly, it's nowhere near the rigor of peer review, but magazines and newspapers to factcheck. With blogging there's nothing like this. You shoot from the hip. Blogging requires a weird kind of self-confidence, a belief that what you have to say is good because it emanates from you. I don't know any serious scholar who can wake up in the morning and say, "I think I'll share my thoughts on China today." Scholars don't mouth off (and if they do, the best ones do it in the op ed pages of major newspapers, not on www.my-mental-effluvia.com).
"A while back there was someone who was blogging under his own name. He was specifically seeking to defend his Department from anonymous critics."
And now he does it anonymously and we still hate reading his stuff.
"I'd actually argue that journalism is a step up the ladder from blogging. Journalists have editors--everything journalists put out there goes through *some* kind of review."
Yes, and one harkens back fondly to the run-up to the Iraq War, when the editorial process totally exploded administration propaganda, misdirection, and attempts to smear detractors.
I think it's hard to read people like Glenn Greenwald, Dan Drezner, or Orin Kerr and conclude that the mainstream media is "better."
Talks are being scheduled (Davis, Vanderbilt, Yale, Stanford), but there's no information about them here. Is this blog qua jobs blog dead?
You know talks have been scheduled at those places. Not obvious what else you usefully need to know. Seems to me the blog is doing what it should do.
Cindy Kam is interviewing at Vanderbilt. She is scheduled to give seminar presentations at a number of other schools, although I have no idea if those are job talks.
Cal-Tech interview list:
Cesar Zucco, Department of Political Science, Princeton University
Erik Snowberg, Stanford University(GSB)
Nathan Collins, Department of Political Science, Stanford University
Zucco is a UCLA Ph.D., visiting at Princeton's CSDP.
Has Vanderbilt made contacts for their judicial search or just their American search?
What about Comparative for vandy?
Vandy has begun comparative interviews, but I don't know how many they have brought in thus far.
Iowa is in the process of making their cutdown. No idea on names.
Has American invited anyone out yet?
vanderbilt has their first visit today, no judicial candidates have been scheduled there
re: vandy
what fields are the candidates in?
uscjobs.sc.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=59011
re:vandy
A:American Behavior and Comparative
emory's search committee is meeting this week
Interview list for Maryland's race and American politics job:
Niambi Carter (Duke abd)
Antoine Banks (Michigan abd)
Brian McKenzie (Rochester Ph.D., Ass't at TAMU)
McKenzie is a Michigan PhD
According to the amjobstable,
Stella Rouse, PhD LSU, is also interviewing at Maryland.
Right - he was a Fellow at Rochester.
Full list from American Jobs Table discussion:
Maryland REP interviews:
Stella Rouse, PhD LSU
Vanessa Tyson, PhD Chicago, (visiting at Dickinson College)
Brian McKenzie, PhD Michigan, (assistant prof at Texas A&M)
Niambi Carter, PhD Duke
Antoine Banks, PhD Michigan
10/07/2007 2:08 PM
UC Davis interviews:
Kyle Mattes - Political Methodology/Positive Political Theory
Amber Boydstun - American Institutions
Thomas Clark - American Institutions
Dan Lee - American Institutions
Erik Engstrom - American Institutions
Leslie Johns - Political Methodology/Positive Political Theory
John Gasper - Political Methodology/Positive Political Theory
Alan Wiseman - Political Methodology/Positive Political Theory
David Lewis - American Institutions
Suzanna De Boef - Political Methodology/Positive Political Theory
Anonymous said...
vanderbilt has their first visit today, no judicial candidates have been scheduled there
10/08/2007 6:38 AM
When is vanderbilt planning to move on their judicial search?
what is up with the wiki? i tried to update it over the weekend, but it said that it was already being edited. no changes posted, though.
Wash U has posted a list of talks here.
I would assume that the candidates are:
Julia Rabinovich
Nathan Collins
Neil Malhotra
Ryan Moore
But it is possible that Desposato is also a candidate or there was one earlier before this list was posted. Any info?
Yale has posted one of its talks here: http://www.yale.edu/polisci/info/calendar/wb07-10-08.htm
Oct. 9 - POLITICAL SCIENCE - JOB TALK: Amy Lerman University of California, Berkeley: Bowling Alone (With My Own Ball and Chain): Policy Feedback Effects of Incarceration and the Dark Side of Social Capital. A candidate for our "New Initiative" search.
When will the Michigan search committee meet?
Is it possible to get an anonymous post removed?
Is it possible to reject a job candidate just on the basis of the title for a talk?
"Bowling Alone (With My Own Ball and Chain): Policy Feedback Effects of Incarceration and the Dark Side of Social Capital"
That title is too cute, cumbersome, and contains too much jargon.
no, but it's possible to reject an anonymous blogger for being unnecessarily rude to a person giving a job talk.
I agree with 8:12. I applaud the job candidate's attempt at being provocative. I imagine the title will produce a good turnout at the talk.
It is an intriguing title, and the job candidate should be commended for that. And 8:05 has hit a new low for this blog. Attacking a junior job candidate because of the title of her talk? What's next, making fun of her name? Better yet, just avoid this misplaced animosity and post your CV and tell us why Yale should hire you
For better or worse, the title reflects the direction the discipline has gone in the last few years. How many journal articles and conference papers can you think of that are "Overly-thought-out catchphrase or pop cultural reference: here's what it's really about"?
Just want to thank everyone for posting interview lists from various universities. Finally - actual job information....
That paper was one of the more interesting ones presented at the Polmeth poster sessions this year.
8:05 -- it's easy to snipe from the sidelines if you are too lazy to read the paper. Or maybe it was too hard for you to understand?
I have never met the paper's author. But the paper is outstanding. Isn't that what is supposed to matter? Or is this all just ressentiment and envy?
Answers to questions you are probably asking yourself:
I can't believe institution x has scheduled interviews and not called me. I am a perfect fit for their position, why don't they want me?
Answer 1: They do want you, but you gave the wrong contact info or your phone is unplugged. They are desperately trying to contact you right now.
Answer 2: They do want you, but they just don't know it. Some important person has not called to tell them how much they really do want you. You should email everyone in their department yourself and tell them how much they really do want you.
Answer 3: "It's me not you" School X does want you, but you are so awesome that they realize you would never realistically come to their institution. They know that the really great schools will be beating down your door soon, and it would be a waste of your time and theirs to fly you out.
Answer 4: "No, it's really you" School X really doesn't want you, neither does anyone else. You suck.
Answer 5: "We'll both be better off this way" Someday when that right school comes along, you'll forget about all of this. They'll know its right and you will too. You'll both just feel it. I know you think that we're a perfect fit, but we just don't feel the same way about you. Let's just be friends, we'll see each other at conferences, it will be a bit awkward, but we'll buy you a drink.
8:05 here. No rejection, resentment, or envy. I have even read the paper and can verify that it is good.
I just think the title is bad. As 5:07 points out, it captures all the annoying trends in article naming conventions. Pop culture references, parentheticals, colon delimited double title. You are always taking a risk coming up with a cutesy title. They better be good and/or pithy. Whatever happened to titles like "Who Votes?"
Making fun of a job candidate's title is hardly a new low for this blog (if you need evidence, I doubt a new thread will be started because of that comment). The suggestion that the candidate be "rejected" was obviously tongue in cheek. I certainly hope that an anonymous comment on a blog poking fun at her title does not cause emotional distress.
SUNY-Buffalo appears to have made calls for its judicial post.
<< Home