Old American Job Rumors Feb 14>
posted by American and Comparative Jobs at 2/14/2008 09:02:00 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.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Links
Previous Posts
- Old Methodology/Theory Debates
- Old Methodology/Theory Debates
- Old Methodology/Theory Debates
- Old Market Advice Dec. 15>
- Old Comparative Job Rumors Dec. 15>
- Old American Job Rumors Dec. 15>
- Old American Job Rumors
- Old Comparative Job Rumors--October 25th>
- Old Market Advice
- Old Methodology/Theory Debates
Contributors
519 Comments:
wow... brand new thread. I'm number one! I'm number one! :)
(good idea... it was about time)
Anthony Madonna Washington Univ, St. Louis ABD is going to UGA
Does anyone know what West Virginia decided to do?
I wanted to wish Happy Birthday to the 1-year old manuscript at AJPS. Do you think that if I offer to review it for you that the process might speed up?
The reviews are probably already in. there is no rush to make decisions at AJPS once the reviews come in. it is almost like there is a quota system and they randomly decide which ones to decide on.
So is AJPS taking its time on articles that have a chance, or what?
When you say "1 year," does it mean that you are still waiting to hear from them on 1st round reviewing? If not, AJPS is not necessarily slow. If yes, it is.
Problem with AJPS is not just slow. After 9 months they said they could decide with 2 reviews if both agreed. R1 was accept and R2 strong R&R... They waited 6 weeks for R3. Decision: reject.
That's just BS, like so much of what goes in the journals these days.
and then I get my new AJPS and read through it and think "really? this is the cream of the crop in the discipline?" It's too bad we are so beholden to the top journals that they aren't held accountable in any real sense -
Word: American University's offer in American politics has been accepted.
Journals are held accountable by authors who choose to send their papers elsewhere. It's not a very effective mechanism, but it does happen.
I find the AJPS a fine journal, along with JoP (especially for American). If anything, the APSR blows.
APSR and AJPS have both fallen on disreputable times - they aren't as indefensible as top tier as say World Politics (which is an embarrassment even when, on rare occasions, it does actually get published)JOP is the top journal in the discipline - the other two are riding on the inertia of their former glories and their editors should think about hanging it up -
JOP and QJPS are publishing the best stuff in American these days. QJPS is clubby but I'm still interested to see what they put out and it's usually well done work.
Does anyone else get the feeling that Bill Jacoby is active on this blog?
American/Methods question:
Let's say that I'm doing a pooled, cross-sectional analysis of congressional voting, where the dependent variable is some kind of transformed measure (NOMINATE based).
So, I'm in effect stacking members of Congress over time.
What's the best strategy for incorporating fixed effects controls?
Are time fixed effects (dummies for individual cognresses), to control for potential agenda differences, sufficient?
Or do I also want member fixed effects (to account for members being in the dataset multiple times)?
Can I just go with congress fixed effects with standard errors clustered by member?
What's the best (correct) strategy?
3:46pm -- Do you expect Bill Jacoby to respond?
3:46
If you use this strategy with Nominates. you should first learn the details of how Nominates are estimated, the underlying assumptions, etc.
Don't just treat them as data.
I was hoping that someone with appropriate knowledge would respond. Jacoby would be fine. Someone else would be fine too.
I understand perfectly well how NOMINATE scores are estimated. Just because there is dynamic element in DW-NOMINATE scores doesn't mean the answers to my questions are simple or straightforward.
Same thing with any other scaled right-hand side measure.
Congress fixed effects seem reasonable, if you assume there are agenda differences across congresses.
I don't see many people using member fixed effects, despite that fact that voting behavior for the same members is clearly not independent across congresses. Rather each congress is treated as if a unique set of members is presented.
So I raise these questions again. What's the best way of studying congressional voting across time? What are the appropriate fixed effects controls?
I should say: "scaled LEFT-HAND side measure"
I would dare to say that the diatribes against AJPS and APSR are just sour grapes. Let's face it. It's just more difficult to publish with the two journals than, say, at JOP where it is so common to find one single author publishing 5 pieces in one or two years these days.
4:35pm --
Snap!!
As someone who has published in just about all the journals mentioned, I must say that I find myself most interested in the stuff that JOP publishes in American these days. I have, however, noticed the clustered author effect as well. I'm not sure what that means either way, but just the same, I find myself reading JOP more than I used to.
On the other hand I have heard, though not myself experienced, horror stories about AJPS and APSR.
As for retribution, I'll go one better: I no longer review for AJPS. They ask, I decline.
I'll wait to submit and review stuff when the editor changes.
(And yes, I have published there)
4:25 here
I didn't mean to claim that the answers to your Nominates questions are straightforward. Quite the opposite. I just meant that there's no sensible way to address your question without thinking really hard about what exactly the scores are measuring.
And by that I mean harder than I've thought about the question, and I've thought about it a lot.
"So I raise these questions again. What's the best way of studying congressional voting across time? What are the appropriate fixed effects controls?"
Let me give you a piece of advice. Even if someone were to bother answering your question (why the hell would anyone give methods help on an anonymous job rumor blog...?), I wouldn't trust their advice. After all, how would you know if they knew what they were talking about, or if they were messing with you?
Assume your concerns aren't an issue. Say we have some behavioral measure of preference as our dependent variable (and say we're confident about what it's mesuring).
The next question is: if we're stacking individuals (in this question, members of congress across time), how best should we deal with fixed effects issues? If we think agendas may differ across congresses, then we might used congress specific fixed effects. That's fairly common in the literature. But we also know that membership is partially overalapping across congresses; and we know that the behavior of members who serve in multiple congresses is not independent. That would suggest that we also incoporate member specific fixed effects.
But can we stop there? Do we also need to cluster standard errors by members as well?
Fine, 6:22. Then point me toward a paper or article that considers the issues I've raised seriously. I'm more than happy to get it and read it carefully.
It just seems to me that congressional voting studies are haphazard in their econometric modelling. These seem (to me) like pretty basic questions for any studies that pool individual congressmen across time in some kind of behavioral (roll call based) analysis.
On Day 1 of taking over the editorship of a journal, you need to decide that the fact that you get 1000 submissions a year (or just way more than you can easily handle) is a good thing.
The editors of AJPS and the new editors of APSR obviously decided that they were getting too many submissions. So they have initiated all sorts of ridiculous practices to keep people from submitting papers with no chance just to get some good comments.
Of course, these practices affect all papers, piss off all authors, and eventually will reduce the number of submissions.
When that happens (or if it is happening) these journals will find that they are losing good submissions as well as bad ones. People on the tenure track just can't afford to wait 6 months + 6 months for an R&R.
JOP just cranks out decisions. The longer I wait for an answer from APSR and AJPS, the faster I return my review requests (including one today). So the JOP gets comparatively better and better at the expense of the big two.
Oh, and I just got into AJPS - after only 11 months.
Did U Mass make calls this week?
U of the Pacific has done some phone interviews.
If you want some reliable methods advice, I'd suggest subscribing to the pol-meth listserv and post your question there.
As someone on the tenure clock, I agree with 6:32. I am approaching a year at the AJPS for the first reviews of one paper, while at the JOP, I received first reviews after 3 months on another paper. Even if I was supremely confident about future papers, I simply cannot risk waiting a year for a rejection. The "expected value" is falling at the AJPS and rising at the JOP.
I know that the previous editors of the AJPS were criticized for other things, but one thing they did that made sense to me was to solicit very brief (and quick) reviews on whether weak papers even deserved to be sent out. So if you sent a paper that obviously had no chance, you would get a 2-sentence review back within a month saying "This paper does not merit review because..." (it happened to me, and while I was annoyed at the time, in hindsight it was fully justified).
Doing this reduces the incentive to send papers to top journals just to get useful comments while not punishing serious submissions.
I don't get the love fest for the JOP editorial practices these days. Yes, they are fast, but I know of at least four cases where R&R's needed to satisfy between one and three new reviewers on their second round. In at least a handful of cases, the new reviewers weren't informed it was an R&R. If its going to be common practice for authors to have to satisfy more than three anonymous reviewers, it ought to be part of the journal's editorial policy.
I'm sure some will disagree, but this strikes me as a tremendously high bar -- near insurmountable in some fields (e.g., judicial) -- to get over. I'm also curious if it is in fact widely or selectively applied. My guess is that it is selectively applied. I'd rather Geer just go back to the 3 review policy and offer fewer R&Rs. It strikes me as more honest.
As far as the AJPS/APSR are concerned, their editorial practices screw junior faculty. I don't care if they think the number of submissions is too high, they have a responsibility to process them quickly. That's the deal that comes with editing those journals. If you don't like it, go edit a small journal.
Hopefully, such a policy would be applied selectively, and only in situations where there's good reason to believe that additional insight would be gained through the new reviews.
Like most instances in which editors exercise discretion, this is a good policy if used wisely and a bad one if used poorly, e.g., the Finifter regime at APSR, which was notorious for endless R&R's with countless refs.
Finifter did an outstanding job as editor. Granted, she demanded a lot of R&Rs, but the quality of the journal was outstanding under her editorship.
re: 8:22 am.
At the very least a reviewer should know if they are getting a new submission or an R&R. Never heard of that happening at JOP.
In any case, mistakes happen and there are Type I and Type II errors at every journal. So holding all that equal, the speed of the JOP makes it a much much better place to send stuff. And that fact has increased the quality of the journal relative to AJPS and APSR.
On the assistant thing, someone should do a quick study of the proportion of articles published in the top 3 by assistants vs. associates and fulls.
Finifter did an outstanding job? I believe now I truly have heard everything.
Agreed. Finifter was one of the worst editors ever. She kept things under review endless and went out for new rounds of reviewers when she wanted a rejection but couldn't get one from the first round.
These criticisms of Finifter are off the mark. She took referees' advice very seriously, and published many positive-theory pieces even though they in no way reflected her professional preferences. The quality of the articles published under her editorship were excellent.
Actually, that defense of Finifter is what is off the mark. Journals can publish high-quality work without having editors who are abusive to authors. How many assistant professors were left hanging during a multi-round, multi-year review process, only to have their work rejected? No level of article quality can justify that sort of irresponsibility and cruelty. Good for Bob Knight that his players graduated, but that doesn't make him less of a thug. And good for Finifter that some people like the articles from that period, but that doesn't make the treatment of authors any more acceptable.
As bad as Finfiter was as an editor - and she was bad - she was worlds better than M. Stewart. It's criminal what she's been doing to the AJPS.
The notion that a high number of submissions necessarily leads to slow turnaround times and/or justifies measures to reduce the volume of submissions. . . well. . . I just don't buy it. Compare the previous APSR editor to the current editors. In the last year of the last regime, turnaround times were good and the quality of the reviews were good. In the first year of the new regime (or go into the second if you want to account for the learning curve) it's been, well, worse. I attribute this to differences in the quality of management since there's no way submissions jumped that much from t to t + 1.
AJPS and APSR complaints are sour grapes? You're out of your mind - it is completely unreasonable that AJPS can't decide whether to publishs something in a years time or APSR can't decide whether to even review something in 6 months. That are both in an incredibley unprofessional place right now - just because you are a good scholar does not mean you are necessarily even remotely competent as an editor - both journals shoudl get new editorial teams NOW -
Unless we believe that every journal has a moral duty to provide free, timely and quality feedback on every submission, perhaps editors of AJPS and APSR are employing an optimal strategy to deter submission of less worthy manuscripts perfunctorily sent just because AJPS and APSR are at the top of the ladder. With thousands of submissions, less than 5% of which will eventually appear in these journals, what would you do?
Folks, free submission might be increasingly rare. Many econ journals require a fee (around $100) for reviewing a submission. That might be the way to go for polisci too.
Unless we believe that every journal has a moral duty to provide free, timely and quality feedback on every submission, perhaps editors of AJPS and APSR are employing an optimal strategy to deter submission of less worthy manuscripts perfunctorily sent just because AJPS and APSR are at the top of the ladder. With thousands of submissions, less than 5% of which will eventually appear in these journals, what would you do?
2/16/2008 3:29 PM
******
There are multiple problems with that strategy that severely question whether it is optimal. First, for some work, time matters. It does a disservice to the discipline to impose artificial 1- to 2-year delays on the publication of research on timely subjects such as the Iraq War or the 2006 or 2008 elections. Second, the strategy doesn't discourage only poor submissions. High-quality papers that could have been in the APSR or AJPS will go elsewhere. Third, the strategy imposes a high burden on young scholars who face 3rd-year and tenure reviews. If timing causes them to submit elsewhere, the "top" journals lose fresh blood.
What would I do? If possible, I would indeed attempt to provide timely, quality feedback on every submission. It seems to work for the JOP. If not, I'm fine with a system in which the editorial staff and/or editorial board performs a quick initial screen, and deems some works as inappropriate for the journal. That seems to work fine for the BJPS.
One point that has me curious is whether the selection teams that picked the current APSR and AJPS editors knew those editors planned on imposing dramatic slow-down strategies. If so, you can't fault the editors for delivering.
Grammar question:
When referring to a group of authors and a citation like
Johnson et al (1993)
in the body of your paper, should there be a period after "al"? Or is the above, as written, correct?
Regarding the top journals hindering tenure chances: It seems like a breakdown of the process when the outlet for the work is evaluated rather than the quality of the work in tenure decisions. Lags between submission and publication are often much longer in economics, and assistants now face tenure review with working papers in hand. Does this result in better papers in econ journals? Maybe. With an increasingly technical discipline, expect longer and more difficult R&R and less necessity to make it into arbitrarily ranked journals.
I like that idea of slowing the process in order to discourage low-quality submissions. If the delay period is long enough--maybe five years?--then every single paper that otherwise would have been rejected would instead never be submitted. The journal would have a 100% acceptance rate, and obviously those papers that are published would be the cream of the crop, because otherwise they wouldn't have been submitted. Seems flawless to me.
Let's be honest with ourselves. In sending a manuscript to APSR/AJPS, how many of us are seriously planning to get it published there (I know about false self-confidence well myself)? How many of us are just interested in getting some quick, costless but good comments, which our department colleagues, graduate school advisors, and erstwhile collaborators are now finally tired of giving, before speedily incorporating them and sending the ms. to some more realistic journals in our subfields? I bet over 95% of us are of the latter group. If you happen to be one of the 5%, blame the 95% for the long wait, not the editors. If you are one of the 95%, let's just continue to fight for more gullible editors who work in our interests. Hence the bemoaning above ...
Period after "al".
I.e., "et al."
"Et" is not an abbreviation, "al" is.
The portion just looking for comments may be high, but surely not 95%. My estimate is that 20-30% of submissions to top three journals have a legitimate chance of being accepted.
Dude, what would I do? It's not rocket science. I would expect 1000 submissions before I asked to be the editor.
I would send 3 papers out for review every day. Go through 3 sets of reviews every day, and make 3 decisions every day. If this was too much, I'd get extra RAs and use the associate editors more.
Slowing the process does a lot more damage than discouraging bad manuscripts. When I was on the tenure clock I got articles intto JOP and other good places that would have had a good shot at AJPS or APSR (well, good meaning much better than 5%) but I didn't have the time to wait.
If you go from 1000 manuscripts to 500, you really think you are losing the worst 500? No way. Like any kind of sifting process, it might be easier to sift through half as much dirt, but your chances of finding gold go down too.
If Geer can do what he does at Vanderbilt, UCLA should be just as fast. Its all in the attitude of the editors -- Geer is a down to earth guy who knows he has a lot of power over peoples' careers and treats that power with respect.
I don't know how involved Geer is, but some of his graduate student assistants sent my ms. to people named in acknowledgment. It was good for me, but I wish the selection of reviewers could have been more careful.
The troubles at the APSR/AJPS scare the s*** out of me as junior faculty. And these problems are only going to make the JOP more competitive. I hope these issues are taken into account when it comes tenure time. If you look at a lot of faculty 1-4 years out, their CVs are not all that long. Perhaps the rise of the QJPS and PA as outlets will expand the list of "top journals," as well as respected field journals such as LSQ and POQ.
I've followed AJPS for around 8 years now (I'm a relatively junior scholar). I've never tried to submit an article there - but I can tell you as a reader and a scholar that AJPS has definitely declined in quality while JOP has dramatically improved.
I remember reading an AJPS article about 3 issues back where the stats simply didn't make any sense. How this stuff gets published is really beyond me.
And this isn't sour grapes. More of a note of concern from a scholar that wants to see AJPS reclaim its status as a top journal.
Who seriously thinks that editors at the AJPS and APSR are intentionally slowing down the review process to discourage submissions? Who thinks that? Really?
The reason that the process is slow is that they are not running their offices well, not supervising their editorial assistants well, the assistants themselves are idiots, and/or the editors are not attending to their work in a timely fashion. In particular, I can't imagine the cabal running the APSR now actually sitting down and articulating an even unofficial policy of sitting on things to discourage submissions. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I don't disagree that these journals are run poorly but it's for far less sinister reasons.
I agree with 7:48 P.M. I just think the new editors didn't realize that editing a top journal is a full-time, 50 hr/wk job. You have to put you own work on hold, and realize that you are still making a MAJOR contribution to the discipline by determining what gets published.
For the reasons 7:55 just mentioned, there isn't much professional reward in being a journal editor. Putting your research on hold for five years is a lot to ask. (I don't mean this to excuse what's been going on at AJPS. After all, the current editor asked for the job.) I've heard that even some pretty important journals don't get very many proposals to serve as editor anymore.
Has anyone received any news re: American Bar Foundation Doctoral Fellowships?
>>I would send 3 papers out for review every day. Go through 3 sets of reviews every day, and make 3 decisions every day. If this was too much, I'd get extra RAs and use the associate editors more.
>>The reason that the process is slow is that they are not running their offices well, not supervising their editorial assistants well, the assistants themselves are idiots, and/or the editors are not attending to their work in a timely fashion.
You are both clearly clueless. The reason the process is slow the majority of the time is because of those reviewers who refuse or take too long. And, yes, those who take too long/refuse to review are the first ones complaining about how long it takes for THEIR ms to get throught the process. So, get off your butts and REVIEW in a timely fashion.
Sure, the review process can drag out consideration of a manuscript. But based on what I have heard, the APSR and AJPS editors are taking too long before sending manuscripts out for review and there are excessive delays between arrival of the third review and manuscript decisions. For both journals, there are serious managerial problems.
"You are both clearly clueless. The reason the process is slow the majority of the time is because of those reviewers who refuse or take too long."
------------------
Oh really? Then why is the JOP able to turn around manuscripts quickly and provide good quality reviews? Are you really contending that the reviewer pool for the JOP , or other well run journals like APR, are that different from the pools for the APSR and AJPS. I'm clueless. . .
One conjecture: most reviewers for APSR and AJPS can't get published themselves in these journals. They become upset, resort to delaying tactics in reviewing, and even refuse to review ms. any more. In contrast, the threshold for JOP is much lower.
I suspect if you look at authors in recent issues of the JOP, you'll find that they've also published in the APSR and/or AJPS.
7:54, not likely. As recent as 2 years ago, at least in my experience, the APSR and the AJPS were both returning first reviews within 4 months.
At AJPS the decision to slow down the review process is in fact conscious and based on a paper written by an economist. Or so a couple of the demi-editors report.
Now can we cut this out and discuss job rumors if there are any?
7:58 is clueless. Go to the AJPS website. Read the editorial reports from the MWPSA. It cleary indicates a strategy to slow down the review process to solve "The Tragedy of the Reviewer Commons. " I know authors who have papers where the editorial manager shows "all reviews completed" from over four months ago with no decision. I just wish the policies were a little more democratic or at least proven effective prior to implementation.
7:58??? nowhere to be found, it seems
"7:58 is clueless. Go to the AJPS website. Read the editorial reports from the MWPSA. It cleary indicates a strategy to slow down the review process to solve "The Tragedy of the Reviewer Commons. " I know authors who have papers where the editorial manager shows "all reviews completed" from over four months ago with no decision. I just wish the policies were a little more democratic or at least proven effective prior to implementation."
-------------------------
The only thing that that report notes is that the editor is going to screen manuscripts before they go out to avoid sending manuscripts that have no chance of ever landing out for review. That's quite different than what you're talking about. I believe that this occurs. But it's due to managerial problems-not a practice stemming from the report you cite.
So Malhotra to Stanford GSB?
yes
Every one is beating up on AJPS and APSR, which is a bit unfair. They do continue to publish good work. Interestingly, I did just get a rejection letter from JOP. Geer's decision was fair and I am not bitter (well not too bitter). But the interesting thing is that submissions, he claims, are at 900+ this year. If true, that is clear evidence that JOP is gaining and perhaps beating the other two major contenders. That is a lot of interest in JOP! I know I plan to keep submitting to JOP. At least, I feel I get a fair shake and it is such a visible outlet.
personally for me I rank them like this:
JOP>QJPS>AJPS>APSR
Maybe a bit forward looking. But just looking at the fundamentals thats the way it looks to me.
If the Q would find a way to get a wider readership (maybe by cutting a discount to members of the methods or formal sections) they would help their case. I think that we discount how much of the AJPS and APSR's prestige comes from the fact that a large majority of the discipline gets it in their mailbox pretty much by default.
Anthony Madonna Washington Univ, St. Louis ABD is going to UGA
2/14/2008 10:38 AM
-------------------
Another nice institutions score for them. I hear (3rd hand) that they have been bringing in some solid names for a senior institutions search.
I doubt an SEC school is paying people that well down there. Whats in the water down in Athens?
Boy, the UGA/Athens boosters are incredibly active in this board. Don't overdo it. It'll backfire.
Any names to mention in terms of that senior UGA search?
Did Whitford decide to stay at UGA?
How much does a personal subscription to the QJPS run?
I doubt an SEC school is paying people that well down there. Whats in the water down in Athens?
2/18/2008 6:13 AM
--------------------------------
Actually, from what I know (I don't work there, but have second hand some knowledge) I think UG pays VERY well, especially after adjusting for cost of living. It is also a very cool town with good weather and a very good institution. What's not to like?
I know first-hand that Whitford and company at UGA are very well compensated. As for cost of living, Athens is less than dirt cheap but still offers a lot.
I know second-hand that he has not yet made a decision.
Anonymous said...
Any names to mention in terms of that senior UGA search?
2/18/2008 6:42 AM
We have firsthand knowledge that UGA brought in Seymour Butts and his co-author, Phil McCracken. The talk was good, but the presentation stunk.
Other names in the running:
Amanda Hugandkiss
Haywood Jablomey
Long Duck Dong (he's a comparativist, too)
I think UGA has officially reached TAMU status.
UGA ROOCCCKKKKZZZZZZ!
University of Georgia salaries are publicly available on the internet. In political science, assistants' salaries range from 65K to 78K (median 70K), associates' from 63K to 102K (median 76K). That's for 2007.
Those numbers aren't great.
Can someone provide a link where one can look up UGA's salaries?
For what it's worth; in many schools those online salaries typically include summer teaching pay and other monies that aren't part of base salary.
I think the numbers are pretty good...UGA is not a Top 20 program and is a public university. Any idea where it falls relative to other SECs, Big 10, and Big 12 schools....
Remember too that Whitford is in Public Adminstration at UGA, which pays considerably better than political science.
"We have firsthand knowledge that UGA brought in Seymour Butts and his co-author, Phil McCracken. The talk was good, but the presentation stunk.
Other names in the running:
Amanda Hugandkiss
Haywood Jablomey
Long Duck Dong (he's a comparativist, too)"
Don't forget Mike Hunt and I.P. Freely...the latter does really good work on redistricting. And the forbidden dance.
"University of Georgia salaries are publicly available on the internet. In political science, assistants' salaries range from 65K to 78K (median 70K), associates' from 63K to 102K (median 76K). That's for 2007."
That sounds bad, perhaps, unless you translate it into grits, and that will buy you a whole lot of grits.
Georgia is not searching for a senior position this year.
Do policy/PA schools really pay better than PS departments or is this folklore? I am sure their average and median salary are higher but they employ economists and public finance scholars that pull up payroll. Do they pay more to political scientists than PS departments?
Yes. Harris, for example, pays political scientists big $$$.
Georgia is not searching for a senior position this year.
2/18/2008 10:44 AM
--------
Oh, ok lol.
But if you guys are trying to keep it a secret don't put things like this on your departmental calender that is linked to from your homepage:
Senior presentation
When Fri, Nov 30, 3:30pm – 5:00pm
Senior presentation
When Thu, Feb 14, 11:00am – 12:30pm
Faculty meet with Senior candidate
When Thu, Feb 14, 4pm – 5pm
Where Baldwin 302
Description Light appetizers will be served.
Smart enough not to list the names though.
10:44 here. What senior position is that?
Go Dawgs.
Larry Munson still may be the best partisan football announcer I have ever heard.
It's a shame the UGa fans don't show to their football games until the 2nd quarter--and when they do, it's in khakis and dresses.
(though the latter is ok, as the chicks at UGA are hawwwwwt, though not as hot as those at the University of Mississippi...oh my lawrd.)
10:44 here. What senior position is that?
2/18/2008 11:40 AM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I actually have no idea. My guess is they are replacing Brad Lockerbie. Although the earlier poster claimed it was an institutions search. You are the one who was so sure there was no senior search which means that you are either at UGA or have friends there. Why don't you tell us?
Alas, after one thunderous mentioning of Neil's landing a job at Stanford GSB silenced the AJPS/APSR bemoaning, the discussion has degenerated into UGA's pay scale...
10:44 again. I was going by not seeing a senior job listed at Georgia.
Alas, after one thunderous mentioning of Neil's landing a job at Stanford GSB silenced the AJPS/APSR bemoaning, the discussion has degenerated into UGA's pay scale...
While I appreciate the new Ting's prowess, he is still no Herschel Walker.
Anonymous said...
Those numbers aren't great.
2/18/2008 9:31 AM
-----------------------------------
Actually, those numbers are pretty good. I can't think of a public school in the southeast (and excluding Chapel Hill) that has better compensation. They have very good starting packages and many senior people in six figures. FSU may be as good, but probably not. South Carolina is probably a bit behind both. After that, who else?
FSU is definitely not as good as the GA salaries. The Florida universities pay less than those figures. Education is seriously underfunded, and the FL universities are consequently losing good faculty.
Florida State salaries are also conveniently available on the net, although 2006 figures were the latest I could find. Assistants range from 60K to 70K (median at 63K); associates from 45K to 81K (median at 60K).
Do you have a link for the FSU numbers? Thanks in advance.
"Assistants range from 60K to 70K (median at 63K); associates from 45K to 81K (median at 60K)."
I've heard of salary compression, but yikes!
but, you get to live in florida...great weather, beaches nearby, and all kinds of screwed up politics to study.
There are no beaches within an hour Tallahassee, and no good beaches within 3-4 hours. It's not really that affordable either. Plus it's pretty much a dump.
what about gainesville...not exactly the best place either.
>> what about gainesville...not exactly the best place either.
Only someone from Tallahassee thinks putting down Gainesville is a defense. Reminds me of old times when the TAMU brigade said that at least they were better than UT Austin.
that's because austin does suck
Great moments in blogging...back when there were no secrets, and a send-up of the talk by senior candidate X at UGA would have been posted before he got on the plane home.
Now we have to deal with obscurantism and misdirection. Voyeurism is dead.
Gainesville's an absolutely great town, though it may take a while to get to know its good points. No comparison to Tallahassee at all, which is ... not as nice.
Can anyone provide the link to UGA's salary database?
What happened with Nancy Burns? Is she staying at Michigan?
Can anyone provide the link to UGA's salary database?
2/19/2008 4:03 AM
------------------
Post the database where we can find your salary information and maybe I will think about it. ;)
For the love of Pete - use "the Google"! Google "Georgia state employee salaries"!
Who is Pete?
Pete is friends with Tom, Dick, and Hairy, Joe Six Pack, Jane Q. Voter, and Seymour Butts.
When looking at UGA salaries, make appropriate adjustments for those who are still enjoying summer ninths in their pay (typically, Assistants in their first year(s)). It looks as if some of those figures do include summer salary, which might make them look (even) better than they are (and they are quite good for a public university).
https://www.audits.state.ga.us/
esa/index.html
How deadwood are you if you're an associate making 45k, and the lowest-paid assistant at your school is making 15 grand more than you?
Rumor: now that he's available, Fidel Castro, whose considerable real world political experience is valued at the Miami b-school, will be brought in as chair of Pol Sci next fall to clean things up.
Tallahassee is 20 miles from the Gulf -- farther to beaches of interest. But there's other stuff of interest if you're into wildlife, fishing, tubing, etc.
The Chamber of Commerce used to promote Tallahassee as the "hub city" -- just 200 miles from Tampa-St. Pete, 180 miles from JAX, 280 miles from ATL, and 400 miles from New Orleans. Reminds me of that old joke about the University of Wisconsin school of oceanography: "Ideally situated, half-way between two oceans."
While I appreciate the new Ting's prowess, he is still no Herschel Walker.
Meet the New Ting. Better than the Old Ting?
One Ting leads to anudder.
ting rocks
Wasn't Mat McCubbins talking about creating a new journal or two a few years ago? Whatever happened with that?
The key for QJPS is to get authors to submit their best work; otherwise, the journal will become what happened at Public Choice a couple decades ago. Who out there would submit their really excellent paper first to QJPS, and sidestep APSR, AJPS, and JOP?
Castro is also younger and better published than some of the tenured faculty at UM.
The Miami stuff is really, really old. Can we discuss personnel matters?
Miami = old
IP Freely = older
nutTing but a Ting =oldest
The fact that 90 percent of the people on this blog are UGA and TAMU grad students
=
no knowledge about personnel moves
On 1:47's point. If other journals make bad decisions and QJPS makes substantially better decisions then they can succeed even without getting the first crack at papers. But for long run success, yes, they probably need to become one of the first places where people submit new papers.
It would be more fun if the request was
Can we discuss personal matters?
So, I have this student who is really hot. As long I am taking my valtrax and am not having an outbreak, do I have to say anything to him/her about my "status"?
Anybody know how many manuscripts QJPS is getting on a monthly basis? And what their initial reject rate is (how many they don't send out for review)?
Most influential paper published in QJPS to date has been ... ?
Not many applied papers appear in the QJPS. Most of the articles appeal to a very small audience. I'm not sure how it becomes anything more than competitor for PA.
How many applied papers do you see in AJPS, JOP, APSR? What do you mean by "applied" anyway?
If you mean to say that the QJPS only publishes formal theory, you are dead wrong.
I didn't say NO applied papers. I said "not many."
To me, QJPS looks like JLEO. Som marginally interesting formal work, and some somewhat interesting applied work. I've seen nothing that published to this point that I'd include in a graduate class.
QJPS's audience: Princeton, Caltech, Rochester, NYU, and Stanford. And almost nowhere else.
What's the status with EITM? Do we know where it will be this summer?
A lot of the articles in QJPS do seem pretty narrow. More so, in my mind, than what appears in the Big 3.
My hope is that will change. Because I like what QJPS is trying to do.
I agree though with a previous poster. QJPS to this point looks a little too much like JLEO. Too narrowly focused.
To remind us again that this discussion about QJPS or other journals belongs to another thread, I would like to repeat that Neil is heading to Stanford's GSB.
Neil. Neo.
Everything that has a beginning has an end, Neil.
Beware the Agents.
There's no job activity, so there's not reason this can't be a general professional blog.
In defense of the QJPS, if you look at the editorial board, it's not exclusively clubby.
All year long, job activity has been severely underreported, due to the fact that people don't want to pass along a rumor about themselves, their friends, colleagues, or students, knowing that it's likely that the people mentioned would be unfairly criticized.
As far as up-to-date job info, things are heading back to where they used to be, when it was all word of mouth among a few highly-connected people.
QJPS is mostly a high-tech institutions journal. With most of those high-tech articles being pretty narrow in focus. The articles speak to a small group of high-tech institutionalists out there. You can't build a "general" journal on that strategy.
EITM will be at Wash U. just like always
So, 5:15, what is QJPS trying to do? This is a sincere question, and I would prefer an answer from someone who is sympathetic to the journal. I confess I haven't read a single article from it--not out of conviction, but because I am focused on my own research agenda, with which it has (as far as I know) not intersected. I just want to know what's up.
How many EITMs are there--Washington, Duke, Berkeley, Michigan, etc.? I am confused.
There's an EITM at WashU every summer and a "traveling" EITM that moves to a different school every year. This year (I believe) the traveling one is at Duke, but last year was at UCLA, and previous years have been all around.
The one at WashU is more seminar, we-teach-you-learn, in nature, while the traveling one has you work on a project throughout.
>> QJPS's audience: Princeton, Caltech, Rochester, NYU, and Stanford. And almost nowhere else.
Ha ha ha.
If only work in it could get noticed outside of top places, it might have a shot! I wonder if they like it at FSU or Oklahoma. Dare to dream!
On QJPS being an institutions journal, well, as a behaviorist and I have found a few interesting papers in it. Gelman's Red State-Blue State paper will be cited a lot.
So, what's the reviewing experience like at QJPS?
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookkklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plain!
The articles speak to a small group of high-tech institutionalists out there. You can't build a "general" journal on that strategy.
Good point, with the proviso that it's also got some high tech behavior work.
More outlets for low-tech work, please. Low-tech work is the future.
Well, the point was that you can't build a general journal only on high tech work, and that is likely accurate.
It's true. There's lots of senior activity going on, but I have seen almost none of it in the blogs. Just the Fowler rumor a while back. I think that people are holding information for a variety of reasons. Looks like the blog has evolved into a good marketplace for ABD rumors, and that's a good thing from my perspective.
See you in September.
So, a student of mine is trying to appeal his failing mark due to plagiarism...citing Obama lifting campaign speeches from others.
How audacious!
At least your student follows the news...
that, and they apparently learned to cite, if belatedly.
Is Jason Roberts moving to UNC or staying put?
6:43 here again-
Good point, 2/20/2008 6:52 AM. Perhaps I should give him extra credit for knowing the candidates and current events...
In response to an earlier comment, we like QJPS at FSU.
Who is heading to the Bartels center at Princeton?
lack of senior news on the blog (other than the obligatory miami swipes)= over abundance of grad students on the blog -
The QJPS has published an article about the differences between Dem and Rep on the designated hitter. May 2007. Are there still questions of whether this should be a top journal?
Yeah, I was surprised by that one. I thought Keith and Nolan would play it close to the vest for the first 7-8 issues of the journal.
I'm not sure why, but when I look at some of the QJPS articles, I think: boooorrrrriiinnnnnnggggggg. And that's too bad, because I want to like QJPS.
AJPS published an article critiquing remote sensing in 1997 or so. Even in its current doldrums it is a major journal. Editors do weird things.
See Gelman's blog on this DH paper:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1047
As AG points out, it is a nice application of causal inference in a non-political area.
There are PLENTY of nice cases of causal inference outside of political science. Pick up a good economics journal sometime. Hell, guys like Levitt and Wolfers have made their careers on creativity like that. So what? Does that mean a study of the DH belongs in a political science journal? Come on. That's an SSQ article at best.
That issue aside, I hope QJPS sticks around and becomes a major journal. But it has to feature names outside of the Princeton-Stanford-Caltech-Rochester club more than it does now.
In fairness, QJPS nearly always tries to publish a paper by political scientists that is not necessarily a standard research paper but still thought provoking. They do not if I recall correctly have a separate "notes" section but the DH paper appeared in QJPS as one of these papers. Larry Bartels also had a comment on What's the Matter with Kansas.
Even ignoring that caveat I don't think you get very far comparing the weakest paper in a journal to the average in another journal. JOP couldn't beat APR by that standard.
3:18:
Original poster on the DH and QJPS here. I fully agree that this is not a way of deciding the matter, I simply thought it interesting to point out that in the four papers published in that issue, one was only tangentially related to pol. sci. I think it is important that the number of articles per issue is so small which makes the inclusion of such an article that much more unexpected. If we are to believe that journal space is scarce, then why dedicate 25% of the articles published in an issue to baseball? I agree that it is either SSQ or The Political Methodologist if its only relevant contribution is about causal inference as related to baseball. All that said, it is sometimes nice to see pol. sci. not taking itself so seriously.
Journal space isn't scarce. Quality papers are scarce.
In fairness to the AJPS, that 1997 article on remote viewing was one of the funniest things I've ever read.
I'd love to ask the QJPS editors this question (are you trolling Nolan?):
Take the most recent JOP (or any of the last 2-3 issues). How many of those papers would pass muster and make it into the QJPS?
QJPS is a fine outlet and it will get better over time. It has great leadership. But it is not in the league of JOP. It does not, on average, get the quality of submissions the top journals get. With the screw ups at AJPS, it might be a top tier journal in 4 years. But right now it is surviving on the generosity of people like Bartels who give them their essays because he wants to be helpful.
State university salary databases for the following states:
Indiana:
http://www.indystar.com/data/government/statepay.shtml
North Carolina:
http://www.charlotte.com/ncpay/
South Carolina:
http://www.thestate.com/169/story/17442.html
Kentucky:
http://datacenter.courier-journal.com/government/salaries/index.php
South Dakota:
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=DATABASE1401
Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
The 1997 AJPS piece on Courtney Brown's remote viewing (or whatever) book is a classic. How can we replicate Brown's interview with Jesus if we can't find the coordinate points on a map? Just outstanding.
Brown's at Emory, right? Wow.
Emory, one of the places we hear so much good press about here on the blog...
The 1997 AJPS piece on Courtney Brown's remote viewing (or whatever) book is a classic. How can we replicate Brown's interview with Jesus if we can't find the coordinate points on a map? Just outstanding.
Brown's at Emory, right? Wow.
The book you're talking about is Cosmic Voyage. Yes, he documents his talks with Buddha, the Greys, Jesus, etc., via remote viewing in there.
Go ahead and look up the Hale-Bopp/Heaven's Gate/Art Bell controversy too that he was involved in while you're at it.
AJPS publishing Abramson's book review was a mistake, albeit a kind of funny one to everyone not from Emory.
But let's also remember that Courtney also did some amazing work on nonlinearity of political phenomena that was and still is revolutionary; at the end of the day, he's also a frickin' genius.
He is kept away from grad students nowadays at Emory. However, I will attest that one of my best courses in grad school was from him. Great hearted and well-intentioned guy.
He just also happens to have some non-traditional beliefs.
Brown is not kept away from graduate students.
As the one poster points out, I wonder how many of you who criticize Brown have read his work. The guy was generations ahead of his time regarding issues of complexity and political behavior.
And, has it never occurred to some of you twits that he might do those things to make money. Honestly, he's gotten seriously loaded off of his extra curricular enterprises (oddly, more of market for books on aliens than on political science).
I'm not sure we should be laughing at him.
And, I've never been associated with Emory in any kind of way and couldn't pick Brown out of a lineup.
We've had four or five Emory ABDs apply for jobs at our school since 2001 or so, and not a one of them listed Brown as a reference, had Brown on their committee, or cited TA experience with Brown. Given that it's a small group of grad students (according to their website), I'd say he's kept away from the impressionable minds. Which, I should add, is how it should be: would you want to spend your entire job interview discussing "crazy Courtney" in the one-on-ones?
Haha. Now we have Brown-boosters in this blog! What's next? Aliens? Oh, wait, we've covered that one!
Sorry to break the chain of discussion with actual news; Jill Rickershauser (Duke) has accepted an offer at American.
Good hire for AU.
Whatever.
The level of immaturity and the lack of professionalism on this blog is astounding. I'm really very glad not to know most of you personally.
PS-I'll have a little laugh as I watch all you twits at the Palmer House bar trying to suck up to some star scholar who won't remember your name, while I'm off to do something interesting in Chicago. Cheerio!
AJPS publishing Abramson's book review was a mistake
s/a mistake/a deeply unprofessional attack on him for his irrelevant beliefs
I thought publishing that review of Courtney Brown's book in AJPS was obnoxious and embarrassing. It reflected just as badly--maybe worse--on the editor of the journal as it did on its intended target. Jokes and cheap shots belong on blogs like this one, not in the pages of AJPS.
<< Home