Old Comparative Job Rumors Dec. 15>
posted by American and Comparative Politics Job Blog at 12/15/2007 06:29:00 AM
American and Comparative Jobs
Hello bloggers! As requested, I have turned off comment moderation. But, if it becomes a personal free-for-all I will ask someone else to manage the blog because I do not have time to devote to continuously deleting comments.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Links
Previous Posts
- Old American Job Rumors Dec. 15>
- Old American Job Rumors
- Old Comparative Job Rumors--October 25th>
- Old Market Advice
- Old Methodology/Theory Debates
- Old American Job Rumors October 2007>
- Old Comparative Job Rumors
- Old American Job Rumors
- Old American Job Rumors
- Old "Methodology/Theory" Debates
Contributors
427 Comments:
everyone seems to have stopped sharing rumors, big or small, mundane or sublime, ever since someone tried to locate IPs at wiki? anything new going on at the job marketplace?
Yes, I agree. The whole cyber-stalking thing (oh, I'm sorry, "basic computing") has put a huge damper on the blog and on the wiki.
Which is particularly dumb, since all you have to do is click the link at the top to guarantee that your edits are anonymous.
I apologize. I was the one who used the language of stalking in a futile attempt at online humor. I didn't realize that it would lead to the demise of the entire online community. Guess I should stick to YouTube clips of Eddie Izzard. "Do you mean I've lost the file?... I've wiped the whole computer?!... I've wiped the internet!?!? ... But I don't even have a modem!!!" I swear I won't do it again (just as long as you don't destroy my anonymity by tracing my IP address!)
Quality Eddie Izzard quote. Even if i don't get a job this year and have to re-train as a plumber that single gem has made reading the blog worthwhile.
So 3 offers for one Mideast position at Maryland? What's the story behind this?
Maryland wants a serious Middle East politics program--and if they get it they would be one of the only departments in the country to have one.
Note the correlation between comments and stalking post may be spurious: Universities are in final exam periods and even vacations and so the rate of new offers has declined while candidates are also spending time grading instead of negotiating
I am at UConn-no need to stalk me (ha!)
Will U-Conn hire next year in comparative?
Maryland was devastated at the loss of Schwedler to Umass last year, and is trying to attract some of the most competitive candidates on the market now. The thinking is that they might be more inclined to accept if they know they are going to be part of a major initiative. If Maryland lands even two of the three (Brownlee, Christia, Corstange), they will join Telhami to have the strongest concentration in Middle East politics in the country. (The inside joke is it that it takes three people to replace Schwedler!)
Schwedler is good, but it doesn't take three to replace her. Brownlee is easily as productive, and his book (also with Cambridge) has made a very big splash. So, weep not for Maryland.
Matt Singer (at UConn above): You are shameless. Get back to your own work!
I'm not sure if the assessment of U.Md. strategy is correct. In Washington alone, both GWU and Georgetown have dedicated Middle East studies centers that have more more political scientists working on the region. Georgetown has a Title VI center and its Middle East oriented faculty include Hudson, Shehata, King, Brumberg, and Heydemann, plus a host of historians and anthropologists. GWU has the newly-hired Lynch, N. Brown, and Reich, among others.
Maryland is a strong department with great resources, but merely replacing the loss of Schwedler with some accomplished junior hires will not make it a focal point for Middle East research in Washington, much less in the U.S.
I agree with 5:40 am that it will take a lot to put Maryland on the Middle East map even in the DC area, esp since jr. hires take a while to prove themselves. Brownlee is very good but his book is too new to know if it will make an impact. George Washington has made extraordinary hires in Middle East the past year, with multiple hires in political science but also getting hot candidates in anthro and history. George Mason is also making great hires. If you count up the faculty included various depts (including publicy policy and business schools), GW, Georgetown, and perhaps even George Mason easily outpace Maryland, even if the latter gets all thee of its offers, which is unlikely--Christia is rumored to be going to MIT.
Does anyone know if Maryland is making so many offers (and not just in Middle East) because of all the 5 or 6 departures last year, or is the university entering a better financial situation? I am curious if they will continue to make hires next year, and if any will be in comparative (which seems to have taken a big hit there recently).
One of Maryland's senior comparativists, Davenport, has multiple interviews and might possibly leave. If he does, Maryland will definitely do a comparative search next fall, though it's not clear if it would be open rank/open area of specialization.
Is it just me, or is Wiki a real mess this year? Lots of rumors here and elsewhere don't appear at all.
Has Chicago interviewed for CP yet, or is that going to run into the spring?
Any word on the Wyoming position?
Where is Davenport interviewing?
MIT's IR offers went to Christia and Weisiger; the CP/Methods offer went to Saumitra Jha.
Did NYU make any offers?
What about Princeton? Any offers in Comparative or IR?
Any senior offers at WashU?
Any senior offers at WashU?
12/17/2007 5:55 AM
No, and none on the horizon. BTW, the Dec. 15 iteration of this blog has become downright polite and pleasant. How refreshing!
On NYU, I received an email that they made no junior offers, and their fall junior search has ended.
Chicago has interviewed in CP (two diffferent positions).
polite and refreshing, maybe ... but it is no longer very informative either (while I now know about the relative merits of MEast strengths in the metro DC area, I don't know, for example, whether Singh has decided on where she is going).
How about Jessica Weiss, for that matter?
When the blog was rude and personal, it wasn't that informative either.
Ohio State has hired Philip Rehm (Duke ABD).
Wiki says a Wyoming offer was accepted. Details?
which osu position?
The source for the Wyoming Wiki is a letter from the department stating that the position was filled. No details on who was hired.
What's happening with Notre Dame?
Any news on Villanova?
Notre Dame has sent letters asking people on its long short list if they want to remain in contention for the job during the spring season (my friend got one). Looks like they either aren't making an offer or don't expect to get their pick. They mainly interviewed Middle East people. The problem for them now is that most of the best Middle East folks have offers and will be off the market in the spring. So the ND job may have to open up to scholars of other areas. Yay!
Were offers made in CP/IR at Princeton?
What about Penn State?
Or UIUC?
I thought Wright had received one of the UIUC offers, but I could be wrong.
any word on Penn State and UVA offers?
I believe UVA made an offer to F. Christia.
I believe F. Christia turned down UVA, Maryland, Berkeley, and Michigan and she is deciding between Cornell and MIT.
Anyone think that there'll be more openings for Eurasianists next year now that Putin is Time's Man of the Year? Time declares: "Russia is central to our world—-and the new world that is being born. .... if Russia fails, all bets are off for the 21st century."
Maybe there'll be more than the ONE explicitly post-Soviet opening that there was this year. Thoughts?
12/19/2007 7:53 AM
multiple CP offers at UIUC?
Absolutely. Our department definitely bases its hiring requests on the trends identified by various popular media outlets.
Joking aside, I think what would be reasonable is to seek to hire people doing good work on autocracies or democratic failure, etc. Russia is part of a bigger trend in that sense.
Hey all, UMass says "the search committee will begin reviewing applications on October 12, 2007, and will continue until the positions are filled."
Anyone know if those positions are filled? Is it worth sending app materials to UMass at this point?
ND made an offer to Nalepa (Rice).
Has Chicago made any offers?
Does anyone know what's up with Princeton?
Any word on the Yale SE Asia search: if they've called people, whether they will before holidays, whether they're interviewing political scientists? Ditto on Oregon Asian Studies search.
Arkansas State University has emailed "semi-finalists" to ask if they're still interested, and St. John Fisher College is schedule phone interviews.
Princeton made several offers (five or six total), 2 of which in comparative.
What about UPenn's Africanist search? No news on that?
And did Stanford ever have those interviews? Offers?
Who got offers at Princeton?
Are UCLA ABD's doing as well as some in here thought? Which are the top schools when it comes to placing their ABD's?
Did Davenport give a job talk at Rice?
Not sure, but some of these might be job talks
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~poli/
polinewspg.html
appears that offers this year at top programs go to grads of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, UCSD, UCLA -- no different that many other years
Umass made only 4 offers this fall (for 7 position), and two have accepted (Jesse Rhodes, ABD American UVA; Angelica Bernal, Theory Yale). The search committee will consider late applications in January, so it isn't too late to send in materials.
I, totally unintentionally, sparked some UCLA-bashing a couple of months ago when I said I thought UCLA ABDs would have the market cornered for LatAm jobs. My bad. I guess they didn't do well at all...
Or am I wrong again?
If we trust the wiki, some UCLA candidates apparently got fine interviews (Caltech, Princeton X2, UIUC, Cornell). Quite possibly there are also lots of non-reported interviews.
As to offers, the wiki has little information, so I have no idea.
Heard UC Riverside is bringing in 3 comparativists for its ethnicity job.
Heard UC Riverside is bringing in 3 comparativists for its ethnicity job.
Care to be more specific?
For what it's worth, I heard they were bringing in traditional Americanist REP folks as well.
I don't think the above post (5:57) is correct--I'm pretty sure that UCR hasn't made any invites yet.
Since the topic is UCR, any news on their formal search?
Are offers out at Claremont Graduate?
Any Princeton offers in CP/IPE?
Heard a rumor of Princeton CP offers to Jha (Stanford Phd) and Campello (UCLA ABD) plus an IR offer to Margalit (Stanford ABD). Perhaps others of which I don't know.
Is Campello's husband (Zucco) also getting an offer then?
Funny, I thought Princeton had only extended an offer to Jha and Margalit. Then again, my information is third hand.
Which R1's will go back to their pools?
Is Boulder going to open a search now that Pepinsky is headed to Cornell?
12/19/2007 10:54 AM
12/19/2007 7:53 AM
multiple CP offers at UIUC?
----------------------
Illinois Comparative made an offer only to Matthew Winters (Columbia).
Any news on Syracuse? Have they made any offers yet?
Interesting to note that Oxford seems to list one of the most complete lists of job candidates for its Asia/China position.
To follow up, P. Thornton (Berkeley PhD) got the Oxford job, contrary to the conventional wisdom about the importance of a post-doc connection at Oxford.
Source: Wiki
BTW, what does Thornton work on?
From Portland State to Oxford. What does that say? More about Portland State or about Oxford?
Any senior moves in the works?
Actually, it says an awful lot about Thornton. I met her during the interview process and think she is just stellar. The "Portland State vs. Oxford" is a false or at least irrelevant dichotomy based on incomplete information.
I'd say it says more about Oxford - without this meaning the candidate in question is not great, something I have no clue if may be the case
Oxford is still mostly (though no longer exclusively) an Area Studies backwater when it comes to "Comparative" Politics. Sad but true - of Oxford, and most British universities, with the exception of Essex.
I am afraid that'd be true. Or at least that was my impression when I was there. I got a Masters at Oxford, and though it was fun, intellectually speaking it was awful but for the Normative Theory bit. They are decades behind the U.S. when it comes to Political Science. Admittedly, it might not be a bad place for those who want to work in a think tank or enter practical politics (several of the other Americans there did so successfully), but if you want to stay in academia it's terrible (unless you're a Normative Theorist, and even that I am not sure of).
I strongly second 11:37's remarks! I was there too and share the same view.
The study of politics in British universities remains untainted by the quantitative bias which dominates the social sciences in the US. This means that "comparative" politics are usually avoided in favour of research that requires a level of knowledge which you can't gain from a 10 day "data collection" visit.
As far as Oxford goes, you're quite right. It's an institution which focuses on undergraduate teaching; postgraduate study is much less important to them - and it tends to show.
Now, that makes more sense. Thornton might be little known for her research, but she did have a LAC teaching stint (Trinity College in CT) before moving to Portland State.
7:01 -- I find that to be an entirely incredible statement. There are plenty of very good area specialists at Oxford, but I also know of more than a few with much thinner expertise (in terms of languages, knowledge of history, and actual time on the ground) than that of top-tier comparativists in the US.
7:51-- Thornton has a good book with Harvard University Press. No surprise as to why she got the Oxford job.
A book from HUP could mean that the author is known by the two reviewers and the editor, perhaps plus the dissertation committee. That is not the same as being well-known.
to 9.29:
You are such a bore! Oh yeah,somebody has a book from Harvard, and only 3 people knows him. Yeah, right!
Oxford is an "area studies backwater?" Are you kidding me?
Does it really matter? Why Thornton got this job or that? Whether Oxford is a backwater or not? Whether working in the UK is good for "serious" academics or not? If that person is happy with that opportunity, yippe-i-yay. It's HER opportunity!
Christ Almighty this stuff gets boring. Really, at the end of the day, who f*cking cares? If you're not the one stuck in the backwater at Oxford or staring at boxes full of author copies of the Harvard University Press book that has miraculously been read by only three people, what f*cking difference does it make in your life?
Be content that, while the Thorntons of the world are falling on their swords and sucking up the hell that is Oxford and Harvard University Press, you're sitting pretty in the Ultimate Comparative Job with the Ultimate Teaching Load at the Ultimate R-1 with the Ultimate Salary and Ultimate Support, gazing beneficently at your whip-smart, adoring Ultimate Graduate Students.
How swell it must be to be you.
Amen, 5:28, Amen...
5:28-- Yes!!!
Who has got the bowdoin/belloit and colarado college offers
Speaking of area studies, does anyone know what the deal is with Yale and Princeton looking for political/social scientists to join their Depts of Middle East Studies? Any idea what they're looking for?
NYU's top-rated Middle East Studies program is also interviewing for an assistant-level "social scientist," who is likely to be a comparativist or a sociologist.
"Does anyone know what the deal is with Yale and Princeton looking for political/social scientists to join their Depts of Middle East Studies?"
12/29/2007 3:58 AM
Not a real answer, but Wendy Pearlman (Harvard Government Department, Ph.D.) has interviews at Yale and Princeton for these positions. I believe Yale’s search is sponsored by the MacMillan Center with appointment to the appropriate department. Princeton’s search is for a position in the Dept. of Near Eastern Studies.
I think that some of the big political science departments have been less "friendly" to substantive area studies specialists, even those well trained as social scientists. Many of the "hot" Middle East candidates this year use quantitative methods, survey work, or rational choice. This is fine, but that training has come at the expense of substantive expertise, and few of the names that have multiple interviews have ADVANCED (as opposed to token, slow-intermediate) language skills. As a member of one of the departments mentioned above, I can say that the candidates we are bringing in are exceptional social scientists--and mostly from top programs--and yet they aren't the ones getting multiple interviews in political science departments. That's not to say that great Middle East specialists aren't being hired into political science departments, but rather that we are also seeing a flush of political scientists working on the Middle East who do not have the language skills or field experience but still call themselves area specialists. I think that many area studies programs want social scientists, but aren't seeing them hired into polisci and sociology depts, so they are trying to hire them directly.
I completely agree with 11:41 AM. Since Sept 11, the number of political scientists exploring Middle Eastern cases has increased, and this has certainly advanced our knowledge. But some of this scholarship been downright ridiculous--particularly but not only the large-N studies of "terrorism" and its causes--in its ignorance of regional politics and history. At the same time, we have seen a proliferation of scholars who pass themselves off as area experts who lack both the substantive, historical knowledge of the region as well as the necessary language skills. Particularly when it comes to Islamist politics, how seriously can we take this work when our "specialists" rely on translators and cite blog discussions (in English!) of what Islamic groups themselves are saying and doing? Unfortunately, the race to hire in Middle East politics has led many non-experts to include Middle East cases and portray themselves as specialists in order to be competitive on the job market...probably at the advice of their mentors.
The dearth of Middle East scholars with excellent language skills, field experience, and good social science skills may be problematic, but it makes a lot of sense. Learning Middle East languages is incredibly difficult, most schools M.E. language programs are woefully old-fashioned and inadequate, and it takes a long time to get the credentials some believe area specialists need to have. My impression is that it is a lot easier to gain expertise in say, Latin America or Europe. So the problem is not just people "claiming" to have M.E. experience, and not really having it, but the difficulty that getting that experience entails, particularly when there are serious professional incentives not to take too long in grad school (spending years on languages).
1:49 raises what is, in my opinion, a serious problem. Political Science obviously needs area specialists if we want to remain relevant. (That isn't all we need, but we do need people who have deep knowledge of countries and regions.) The only way to be a good area specialist, again, in my opinion, is to have excellent language skills, spend significant time in the region, and gain deep/"thick" knowledge. That the professional rewards may cut against this for ME scholars means that we desperately need to take an area-specific view of what constitutes the acceptable time to degree. If not, we risk making Political Science irrelevant for gaining leverage on important socio-political questions. BTW, I am not an ME specialist, but would like to hear from some.
OK. I second the idea that some languages and regions are harder or easier to get a handle on than others. For example, arabic, Chinese, Russian, and certain other languages are a lot harder for native English speakers to master than French and Spanish are. Certain regions (Europe and Latin America for example) have lots of small easily comparable countries that share common language, institutions, etc. One could make such a case for the Middle East as well, but not for Russia, China or lots of other places with hard languages.
It is also important to keep in mind that not every country has "downloadable" data. Obtaining good data (qualitative or quantitative) just takes more time and effort in some contexts and countries than others.
Finally, not all countries publish documents in English (most don't actually, at least not in full version or complete runs) and many countries also produce considerable secondary literatures in their own languages. It is inexcusable for any "expert" on a country to act as if foreigners discovered all there is to know about it by ignoring important domestic literatures.
It's not just years of language training versus quick pubs and shorter time to degree. Nor is it just a matter of area studies (Russia is *what* I study) versus political science (Russia is *where* I study ethnic politics). Rather, some parts of the world (e.g.Europe and the parts of Latin America political scientists like to study) are simply easier to do research in than others (e.g. the Middle East, most of Africa and Asia, etc.). No matter where one works, knowledge of context and local language are basic building blocks to serious research.
Let's get back to job rumors now.
With this season winding down, does anyone have an idea of which top departments will be looking to hire "rest of the world" (i.e. non-Europe, non-Latin America) comparativists next year?
The scholars who spent a long time on their language skills and living in ME countries presumably didn't spent the time to also acquire an equally advanced level of formal or quantitative skills... But isn't that great? We can have scholars with different skill set who bring different approaches and answers to questions of interest to all of us. Assuming each side is open-minded enough to value the other's work, of course.
Alternatively, it suggests that those who want to be area specialists better develop relevant language skills as undergraduates. I think the expectation of short time-to-degree in grad school puts increasing pressure on looking for professionalized prospective students who already know what they want to do, understand what grad school and academia is all about, and have some of the relevant skills in hand. Language skills for area specialists will be no different.
Personally I'm all for diversity with ethnographers and quantitative types talking to each other--certainly this is the way to advance what we know. But what I find most relevant to the job market is that several top schools have hired Middle East "specialists" over the past few years who don't even speak a regional language!! That isn't to say their work is bad (though some of it is), but rather I find it incredible that schools boast of these hires as filling their Middle East slot. Would anyone take serious a Latin American specialist who didn't speak fluent Spanish? They might be smart, but should they hold positions at tops institutions and be branded as regional specialists? What does this say about the job market, and particularly the likelihood that there will continue to be multiple jobs for Middle East politics for years to come?
8:11: Please name one Middle East expert at a top school who doesn't speak a regional language. You said there are several. I'm asking for just one.
Middle East is not the only region for which this has been done. It is appalling when any serious department hires a specialist on any region who does not speak the language(s) of said region. This is an absolute. But it is one that is being widely violated these days - and this is both laughable and disturbing.
On the subject of when to acquire language and other training, certain languages are harder than others for English speakers. It is not realistic to "pick up" some of these in a year or two during grad school. Getting fluent enough for field work absolutely requires at least a couple years' training in undergraduate *and* at least 6-12 months in-country experience. This might need supplementation in grad school as well, depending on what kind of fieldwork is being attempted. For this reason, I for one will not consider a prospective specialist in my area who does not already have high-level language proficiency and serious in-country experience. Otherwise, she/he would almost certainly either switch areas or never finish the PhD.
Just curious... Does Mark Gasiorowski of LSU speak Persian? He wrote a book on Iran and does mostly cross-national statistical analysis for his other work.
I see C Vala of Berkeley being offered Loyola position, which, as far as I know is a Middle East position. I have seen his name also in China searches. How does this happen?
Many senior scholars have rusty language skills, but I am most concerned about recent assistant hires who never acquired advanced language skills in the first place. I am not sure it is responsible or ethical to "out" jr. scholars, so I will refrain from mentioning names. Part of the problem I think is that hiring depts without another scholar who speaks that language have no way of knowing which candidates are fluent. If a CV says 3-4 years of Arabic and time in the region, it is reasonable to assume strong language skills. But you can study Arabic that long and still not be able to conduct interviews or analyze documents (though 3-4 years in immmersion programs will usually do the trick). My question for this discussion is whether schools are aware that they are hiring candidates who cannot do research in the relevant language. Many of us spend time in the region simultaneously (often in Cairo), and we all know who can speak well and who cannot. Shockingly, several of those who cannot have landed plum jobs or currently have multiple offers, and yet they rely heavily on translators and/or local scholars who tell them what's being said or written. (Many of the candidates on the market this year have exceptional skills, of course.)
But then again, there are some people out there who are "from" the Middle East (or Asia or Latin America)--many are children of immigrants--who are thought to be area specialists, but who do not really focus on the region. Because of their surnames and language ability, they are assumed to have more creds when there are plenty of White Americans who do a better job. Even educated people fall into the trap of assuming that African Americans study Black politics, Latinos study immigration and Latino voting behavior, and people with a last name like Abd al-XXXX study the Middle East.
1:04 pm, I don't have the facts about Loyola. Do you?
My guess is that if they can't find the right ME candidates (who are all hotly pursued by the top schools), Loyola just switched its hiring focus.
Also, I sense you might study ME. If you are good, you will have your day too. Best luck on your job market in the coming year!
I study ME too. In fact, I'm endlessly fascinated by ME.
Sorry, just wanted to inject some humor into this bewildering discussion.
Disclaimer: I am not 12:11 or 12:47.
I am an American who can speak English. Does that make me an AP expert without getting enough training on the field?
I have seen many others following the same strategy [changing their area of expertise] to be more marketable. Let's face it. It is a big issue on the ME market whether we like it or not!
Every department should beware of falling for the ludicrous assumption that a given candidate knows a particular region or country well (or even speaks a particular language) because of her/his ethnic background. This, if it is actually going on, speaks volumes about the ignorance, and likely racism, of individuals and departments that act this way.
Has Oberlin started interviewing for its Middle East position?
Any news from Arkansas State and Georgia Tech?
Also, anyone who has conducted a search in an area such as the ME knows that during the interview process, we often ask candidates if they would like to meet with scholars from other depts. (e.g., creative writing, comp. lit., etc.) who share interests in the ME. I know we've done that and quite often, PS faculty use the expertise of non-PS faculty in determining whether the candidate has sufficient knowledge of the region.
Have others experienced similar interview setups?
I do not understand why people doubt Middle East candidates' expertise. For instance, 4.07: have you applied that cross-confirmation for candidates in other area? The region we are talking about spans from Morocco to Pakistan. Who on the earth can possibly grasp it to the full extent? Then, as a safer bet, a political scientist from Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Iran etc. must be eligible for any ME position as were Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, Russian etc. political scientists for Eastern European positions a few years ago. Any PhD originally from the area is much safer a bet than somebody who studied the region in the graduate school. Otherwise, the risk is much higher.
I had a colleague who wrote his dissertation on Belgian retirement system. Well, he marketed himself as a EU expert. In my opinion, he was not even a political scientist. Another one did something about IMF and Indonesia without even learning the language. Well, she was an East Asian specialist. So, stop presenting ME candidates as crooks who take advantage of the current tide in the discipline and try make the best of them. PhDs who are originally from the ME region and study in the US are among the brightest minds you'll ever find when it comes to the expertise on the Middle East.
As a Middle East scholar originally from the region, I have to say I disagree with one part of 5:20's analysis. I do *not* agree that people like me are "a much safer a bet than somebody who studied the region in the graduate school." I have too much respect for my advisors--who studied the region in graduate school--to subscribe to that bizarre notion. But I *do* agree with 5:20 that all of this handwringing about the qualifications of Middle East scholars is misplaced. I have *never* believed that my white colleagues were unqualified because they only did two or three summers at CASA. I look at the work. David Laitin's _Hegemony and Culture_ is superb, but he'd be the first to admit that his knowledge of Yoruba was rudimentary. Should we discount the work as a result? I humbly submit that we would be misguided to do so. I'm sorry if this offends anybody. Perhaps such discussions are best kept off this blog, which is intended for job rumors.
More to the point: Corstange accepted one of Maryland's Middle East offers (he speaks Arabic very well, for those curious); Christia turned Maryland down (as reported above). Brownlee also has an offer from Maryland, which is currently doing a tenure review for him.
If I get married from Yoruba, do you think I'd raise the likelihood of spousal accomodation for both of us?
Who took the Bowdoin job? And where, oh where, is Singh going?
C Vala is indeed a China specialist. Loyola decided to hire him instead of any of the Middle East candidates they brought in.
Christia to MIT.
Source: Dept. e-mail.
I think one reason ME jobs are being discussed so heavily right now is a) they were the lion's share of job postings in the fall, and b) the crop of graduate students influenced to study ME politics by 9/11 and its aftermath is starting to come onto the job market. Between now and 2011 or so, we're going to see a flood of ME specialists on the job market compared to previous years, which will just mean more competition.
Interesting discussion on languages/fieldwork/etc. Keep in mind that norms and needs vary by region - no South Asianist can possibly speak all of the major languages in the region, and depending on the topic may do most of his or her research in English (while other topics would need fluent Hindi or Tamil). An Africanist faces similar linguistic diversity.
Schools must stop emphasizing Middle East, and look for specialists on the larger Muslim world. That is, I believe, more timely and needed.
I think the M.E. discussion captures very nicely the not-so-dormant, but long-running, tension between systematic political science (for lack of a better term) and the dreaded (snark; not by me) "area studies."
There are some parts of the world where you can get away with a fairly superficial read on history, politics, and culture and fall back on your quantitative skills -- an American can "do" U.K. politics quite handily, for example, without having lived extensively in the U.K.
In lots of parts of the world that we are increasingly interested in, though, that kind of gaze from on-high misses most of what is going on down below.
Friends who've done field work in Latin America and have quite excellent Spanish still talk about how difficult it is to really "get in" to the culture and politics. I can only imagine what it must demand in Morocco or Sierra Leone or Kazakhstan or some like place.
Rather than killing off area studies, then, it might be wise to rethink our attitude toward (and dependence upon) those "soft" or "qualitative" types -- without whom, I'm not ashamed to admit, we would more or less be completely in the dark.
It might also behoove departments to work with language departments to create some intensive, "Language for Other Graduate Students," courses. If you have the time, it would be great to take the same classes as someone getting a Ph.D. in Spanish or whatever, but those classes are really not about language as a skill. What is needed is intensive, language camp-like classes, particularly in the hard-to-acquire languages.
Re: 2:08,
I agree. No SE Asianist can be expected to speak Malay/Indonesian AND Thai AND Tagalog, several dialects of Chinese, AND Vietnamese. This would not even cover ALL widely spoken languages in the region.
But I do submit that unless one studies a very narrow set of (mostly boring) topics in Singapore, Malaysia or the Philippines, it is impossible to conduct "most of one's research in English" in the SE Asia region (even in S'pore, Malaysia, or the Philippines). I think it is a basic given that any SE Asianist worth his or her salt should speak at least one of the 3 most important languages of the region (Malay/Indonesia, Vietnamese, or Thai) fluently and have done some form a fieldwork in at least one SE Asian country. A similar standard could - and should! - be applied to an Africanist (i.e. fluency in at least one major non-European African language and some kind of serious fieldwork in at least one African country). Maybe someday we'll get beyond throwing huge groups of heterogeneous states together into unwieldy regions like "Africa" or "Southeast Asia".
I could totally do CP. I have mad language skills. Here's some advice for your next job interview, in Greek:
Φυσήξτε την καρέκλα.
What do we mean by language fluency?
As a Mideast comparativist almost every scholar in the field I know (that is, in the Arab world) speaks/reads reasonably good Modern Standard Arabic but only so-so (in some cases, almost no) local dialect. When other area studies scholars accuse us of not knowing our field because we included, say, Libya in a multi-country case study but we don't speak Libyan dialect fluently, it's ridiculous. There are almost no good academic curricula, much less graduate educational facilities, for learning local dialects apart from Egyptian. You must live in the field for many months, possibly years, to master a local Arabic dialect, something that outsiders don't understand.
There are likewise very few Mideast comparativists, INCLUDING senior tenured scholars who we extremely well-known in the discipline, who speak and read 100% fluent Modern Standard Arabic. And they have great books out with fabulous top-tier presses and they teach at R-1 schools with legions of fans. Language is an important venue into understanding the culture and context of a case, but not possessing native fluency does not mean that those many years of study were wasted.
Then again, those claiming to be Mideast specialists with just a year or two or language training and with, what, a few weeks of "field work" are certainly suspect. Their work could indeed be damn good, but by "suspect" I mean to say they should qualify themselves by noting their language barriers. Might not work so well on the job market, though.
If we conducted an audit of East Asian specialists, African specialists, Russian specialists, South Asian specialists, etc., what degree of fluency need we expect? For those that can't speak/read fluently, do we kick them out of the profession? Or send them to language school?
Similarly, I know plenty of promising job candidates (many work in quantitative or formal theory) who don't speak English as fluently as native Americans/British/Canadians etc. What should the court of public opinion do with them?
To poster 1/01/2008 3:27 PM, I agree. But we should also stop looking for Latin American, American, and European specialists, and instead hire more scholars of the Christian world.
Your post is silly. How the hell is somebody supposed to be a "specialist" on a Muslim world that encompasses billions of people and stretches from Morocco to Indonesia? If you mean to say that there is something special ("Islam") binding all the countries in the geographic swathe described above, and that one can easily specialize in the entire Muslim world by just knowing Islam--and hence, that all countries in the Muslim world are fundamentally similar, comparable, and in some way intrinsically alike, then I shudder. I shudder long and hard, because you are probably a political scientist with a PhD, yet you make such a horrendously ignorant statement.
Somebody mentioned here a while ago it was a shame that policymakers don't turn to political scientists more often for advice. Here is a situation where I'm glad some of us don't have any political power in the real world.
OK, you taught me a big lesson. So let me take my argument back. Here is the new statement:
There is NOTHING special binding all the Muslim countries, that all countries in the Muslim world are NOT similar, comparable, and in some way intrinsically alike.
Hmmm.
Can we get this back to JOB RUMORS, and take the debate somewhere else? Um, please?
I'm still ignorant. Anyone know what's happening at UVA, Penn State, Syracuse?
Or the ME jobs at Brandeis and NYU?
How about U of Kansas, U of Nebraska-Omaha, Missouri State?
Is Boulder going to open a search now that Pepinsky is headed to Cornell?
Not this year.
Whatever happened with Michigan's China search?
Middle East Jobs: Massoud reportedly has the offer from Brandeis; Pearlman from Northwestern; Notre Dame is empty-handed again this year. NYU is interviewing but I have not heard anything since.
6:59 -- one reason why we don't "get back to JOB RUMORS" is that there are so few JOB RUMORS -- a lament on the American board and the IR board as well.
Perhaps the day of the Rumor blog is over.
Wait till next year...
Or actually, late this summer...
Now that (per wiki) Singh has finally made her choice - and hopefully some of the other "stars," as well - any rumors on which schools will re-open their searches and go back to the applicant pool? I've heard Suny-Albany might be. Others? And when will next round of UMass-Amherst calls be?
Apologies for cross-postings:
Call for Papers: Conference at Harvard on Networks in Political Science
The study of networks has exploded over the last decade, both in the social and hard sciences. From sociology to biology, there has been a paradigm shift from a focus on the units of the system to the relationships among those units. Despite a tradition incorporating network ideas dating back at least 70 years, political science has been largely left out of this recent creative surge. This has begun to change, as witnessed, for example, by an exponential increase in network-related research presented at the major disciplinary conferences.
We therefore announce an open call for paper proposals for presentation at a conference on "Networks in Political Science" (NIPS), aimed at _all_ of the subdisciplines of political science. NIPS is supported by the National Science Foundation, and sponsored by the Program on Networked Governance at Harvard University.
The conference will take place June 13-14. Preceding the conference will be a series of workshops introducing existing substantive areas of research, statistical methods (and software packages) for dealing with the distinctive dependencies of network data, and network visualization. There will be a $50 conference fee. Limited funding will be available to defray the costs of attendance for doctoral students and recent (post 2005) PhDs. Funding may be available for graduate students not presenting papers, but preference will be given to students using network analysis in their dissertations. Women and minorities are especially encouraged to apply.
The deadline for submitting a paper proposal is March 1, 2008. Proposals should include a title and a one-paragraph abstract. Graduate students and recent Ph.D.’s applying for funding should also include their CV, a letter of support from their advisor, and a brief statement about their intended use of network analysis. Send them to networked_governance@ksg.harvard.edu. The final program will be available at www.ksg.harvard.edu/netgov.
Program Committee: Christopher Ansell (UCBerkeley), James Fowler (UCSD), Michael Heaney (Florida), David Lazer (Harvard), Scott McClurg (Southern Illinois), John Padgett (Chicago), John Scholz (Florida State), Sarah Reckhow (UCBerkeley), Paul Thurner (Mannheim), and Michael Ward (University of Washington).
I think we're going to see a lot of action in the spring. Notre Dame, for example, has a deep pool of candidates for its comparative position that it is going back to. And some places haven't even begun interviewing yet. Just look at last year's blog to get a sense of how much happens after New Year's. The fall was just the preseason!
Why is Notre Dame going back to the pool if they already have made an offer to Nalepa (Rice). Did she decline the offer?
RE: Michigan
Mary Gallagher is staying at Michigan, not moving to Cornell after all. The senior China search was therefore called off. At the junior level, an offer has been made to Jessica Weiss (UCSD).
In the Japan search, an offer has been made to Kenneth McElwain (Stanford).
Job talk at Chicago: Stanislav Markus (Harvard)
Too bad irresponsible comments have led to moderation - if only because moderation often will kill a blog. There should be lots of rumors in the next couple of months...
interesting new development at Michigan. did anyone "renege" here?
Wiki says Massoud is going to Harvard, not Brandeis. Does anyone know if that Middle East offer is going to someone else?
News about 2 Duke CP PhDs accepting offers: Seth Jolly to Syracuse and Kevin Morrison to Cornell
As far as I know, Singh got the Harvard job, not Massoud. The wiki says nothing about Massoud going to Harvard.
Massoud got an offer at KSG.
Congrats to Seth.
I have received a letter from Illinois State University that they are extending the search to next year. Wiki shows that they have completed interviews. A budget issue, I would guess...
Harvard, Princeton, and Yale also have Middle East jobs in their Near Eastern Studies Departments or equivalents. Some political scientists are interviewing for those spots. Perhaps that is the Massoud to Harvard reference.
Cornell hired 5 (2 IR, 3 CP). One CP hire is senior. The wiki correctly identifies all.
Can anyone provide an update on the George Washington University IPE (Latin America) search?
Wiki and his own website says that Mertha has accepted an offer from Cornell. Good for him and good for Cornell!! Despite its idyllic insularity, Ithaca would be so much better (safer, quieter, etc.). Mertha should be a great catch for Cornell given his productivity.
please, 9:03, not another "renege" discussion (like the one on the American blog)...
is "moderation" still on?
yes it is
Where is Joe Wright (UCLA) headed to?
George Washington has invited candidates for the Latin America IPE search. Talks are scheduled for this month.
Who's interviewing at GWU?
As a first timer through the market, could an old hand let me know what happens now? Do schools that had an offer declined typically dip back into the pool of candidates, or do they go again next year? There must be variation, but is there any sense of the ratio of dippers to waiters?
Dippers are getting more common these days, but the classic model in the US context is to wait. In other countries (like the UK) this is different. There is also a distinction between dipping back into the overall pool to select new finalists and making an offer to another finalist who didn't quite get it the first time. This depends on what the committee and dept. thought of the finalists.
Overall, it is hard to say what the ratio of dippers to waiters is, but it is probably fair to say that the dippers tend to be concentrated at the low and high ends of the market, with most in the middle-tiers waiting (very often on orders from deans and admin).
To 1:08: I had my job interview for my first job at an R1 in mid-Feb, although this was in 2001 and I am not sure how things have evolved since then.
I meant "to 1:05"
Which schools will be dipping?
Re dippers to waiters:
A new dip is a relatively tall order. It means that 1) none of the initial candidates worked out, 2) the department thinks there are more qualified fish in the sea this year, 3)the Dean does not take the opportunity to hold back funds, 4) other voices in the department don't gain the upper hand in re-appropriating funds for another hire, and 4) the department has remaining funds to pay for campus visits (these often come out of a different pot) and enough energy to evaluate a new round of candidates.
Due to #2, top schools are less likely to re-dip. The most likely dippers among those that satisfy the criteria above are the ones that have strong teaching needs in the advertised area.
All that said, you just need the stars to line up for you once and a lot of unforeseen events conspire to land people jobs every year. Keep the faith!
1/07/2008 5:39 AM -
heard he was still on the market in december
Did UIUC hire anyone?
Villinova just posted a comparative/IR job for 2009. Time to start gearing-up for next year, I guess.
Anonymous said...
I have received a letter from Illinois State University that they are extending the search to next year. Wiki shows that they have completed interviews. A budget issue, I would guess...
1/05/2008 6:41 PM
They made an offer that was declined and decided to try again next year instead of going back to this year's pool.
UIUC hired Winters (Columbia ABD)
I've participated in both versions of the dip decision. In one case, it was fear of losing the line. In the other case, it was fear of satisficing. Different institutions, but as mentioned above the preferences/expectations of the dean are key here.
Any information on UC Riverside?
There is a position now available for a Lectureship ('Assistant Professorship') at the London School of Economics. The position is in the Development Studies Institute (DESTIN). More details (including application instructions) are available at the following URL:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/recruitment/jobsAtLSE/CurrentVacancies.
htm#LEC/07/20.
"Applications are invited for a career-track Lectureship in Development Studies, tenable from 1 September 2008. The successful candidate will add to the Institute's existing strengths in social development or the politics of development. S/he will have a PhD, fieldwork experience, and a proven record of high quality research."
The closing date for applications is the 11th of February.
UC Riverside has contacted candidates to schedule interviews for the Race and Ethnic Politics position.
7:23am: Thanks for the job post -- do you know if there is a regional interest in the department at LSE?
Do you know who got the offer (and subsequently declined it) at Illinois State? Wiki has no names?
Cullen Hendrix (UCSD) has accepted an offer from U North Texas.
When will the tenure case of Mike Tomz at Stanford be decided? End of the Spring semester?
UVA reposted a CP ad (per apsanet). What happened there?
Re: UVA
Looking at Wiki, I guess the people they interviewed during the fall all landed elsewhere.
Re UVA: so does reposting the ad mean that they will NOT be re-dipping, and want an entirely new applicant pool? It seems unlikely that the applicants in January will be much different from those in September. Does it make sense to reapply for the same job four months later?
Anyone know what happened to Kathleen O'Neill- once was at Cornell, wrote on decentralization as an electoral strategy in the Andes? Is she out of the academy?
Kathleen O'Neill left academia.
UVA is hoping to draw in additional candidates who might not have been ready this past summer/fall.
Re UVA: the ad says that if you've already applied, your application is still under consideration. No need to apply again.
Looks like 3 (maybe 4) of the candidates who interviewed at Claremont Graduate Univ. have gone to other schools.
Does anyone know if they are going dip back into the pool or wait until next year?
Did they hire in their other lines (policy and IPE)?
It has dawned on me that Vandy is hiring a whole slew of Duke Ph.D.s this year (about half a dozen by my count) in all fields. Is that correct? If so, does that strike anyone else as odd? Nothing wrong with Duke per se, but I find it a little strange (and somewhat off-putting from an intellectual perspective) when one department draws its hires from a small pool of similarly trained students.
Anyone else has any thoughts on that?
Duke is a top department, and its Vand-bound products are pretty different from each other. No surprise at all. We wouldn't be asking this question if Vandy had hired a slew of Harvard grads.
Kathleen O'Neill did *not* leave academia. She just finished up at NYU law, where she was a Furman Scholar (a JD program tailored for people who want to become legal academics). I suspect we'll see her on the faculty roster of a law school sometime soon.
<< Home