Friday, February 15, 2008

American Job Rumors March 28>

631 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

dang. 2nd time in a row I wuz the first poster. Now if only I had the same luck placing my latest work. :)

3/28/2008 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On salaries question:
You can look up some online. For example-Missouri is at http://www.sos.mo.gov/BlueBook/2007-2008/personnel.asp

3/28/2008 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting salary info for Missouri. I don't quite understand why Thies is making so much more than Arce. Both comparativists were poached from LSU at the same time. They also got tenure at LSU together.

3/28/2008 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who knows if those figures are accurate depictions of overall income (base salary, research budget, summer ninths, housing, etc). Resources are fungible.

3/28/2008 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I first thought some of those figures were low. Then I made cost of living adjustments, and realized salaries over there are in fact quite good!

3/28/2008 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I first thought some of those figures were low. Then I made cost of living adjustments, and realized salaries over there are in fact quite good!

That is always an important consideration. My Salary, as a raw number, is not that great, but housing costs are between 1/2 and 1/4 of the prices in big metropolitan markets. Further, the public schools are good, so that drops another cost out (I'm all for public education, but there are some cities where I would not send my kids). Downside, of course, is that there isn't a ton to do.

3/28/2008 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that Thies had offers from both Kentucky and Missouri at the same time--hence the two schools were competing with each other. That no doubt explains the higher salary.

3/28/2008 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please people, have some taste. Posting and then talking about other people's salaries?! Were you people raised by a pack of hyenas?

3/28/2008 4:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a cost of living calculator:
http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html

3/28/2008 4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cost of living is lower in Missouri, but there is a good reason that cost of living is lower there.

3/28/2008 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lower than what?

3/28/2008 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dad was a hyena, actually.

But you'd never know it...

3/28/2008 7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One other thing on the "why lowball" candidates. As a former R2 chair, I NEVER had the authority to decide the range of an appointment. I could go to the dean and REQUEST a range, but he always checked to see what the range was in the region, etc. If he thought our request was too high, he simply imposed a lower cap and there was NOTHING we could do.

If the top candidate demanded more than the dean authorized, I has to schlep over to the dean and beg him/her to give on the range OR on the other intangibles (research $$, travel, course releases, etc.)

State budgets are often so tight that more than once we had to go to our #2 choice because the candidate demands were too high or were too out of line with existing department salary ranges. While big R1s with lots of $$ can afford to pay a lot for new faculty, those of us in the middle tier often have very little flexibility and you can and will price yourself out of a job by demanding too much.

I can't name names, but we had one candidate a couple of years ago whose demands were so high there was no way the dean would OK it. When I told the candidate this, he assured me they had other interviews. I saw said candidate again the following year at APSA--he was still jobless and told me outright that he realized that his demands were too high that is had cost him another position as well before he toned down his demands.

The reality is that the number of R1 jobs is tiny compared to the number of R2 and R3 jobs in political science. Make sure that the advice you get takes into account the kind of institution with which you are negotiating and you life will be MUCH easier!

3/29/2008 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the demarker for R1, R2, etc.?
-stumped newbie

3/29/2008 1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The terms are based on Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifications that no longer exist. There are "Research University (high research activity)," etc., categories but they don't correspond to what schools think of or fancy themselves as being, in my experience.

3/29/2008 1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you have only 1 offer, you have next-to-no leverage. You are basically in the position of accepting or rejecting the offer, with the ability to negotiate around the margins (e.g., an extra course release, a little more start-up money). Even if you have multiple offers, your leverage really only extends as far as the terms of the best combined offer. That is to say, if School A offers the best salary, School B offers the most research support, and School C offers the most course releases, then you may be able to get School A to match School B's research support and School C's course releases (for example).

But this isn't professional baseball, and no dean is as incompetent as Tom Hicks. And, remember, only players like A-Rod can get morons like Tom Hicks to pay ridiculous amounts for them. Most major leaguers are making something much closer to the league minimum.

3/29/2008 2:34 PM  
Blogger American and Comparative Jobs said...

you are welcome to post links to salary tables, but let's avoid discussing the salaries of individual scholars. thanks!

3/30/2008 6:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To newbie: R1/R2 are outdated categories which you will no longer find at the website.

3/30/2008 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be careful when using state databases to determine salary. They usually lag at least one year behind, and they tend to include everything - summer money, travel, etc. Thus if someone teaches 3 courses in the summer their salary will appear much higher than the base of someone who does not teach in the summer.

3/31/2008 5:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a wiki of salary information online:
http://wikifoia.pbwiki.com/State%20Salary%20Database

3/31/2008 8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

geez, i'm really glad i'm at a private school where people can't look up my salary and discuss how over/under paid I am.

3/31/2008 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People are so gossipy that even at private institutions one is not safe.

3/31/2008 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, please avoid discussing salary altogether...it is so gauche and working class. And only those with social capital should have access to such information. The rest should be content to be allowed to share the same department.

3/31/2008 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Choosing to discuss one's own salary is different than having others dredge it up and publicize it.

3/31/2008 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more information available to those on the market, the better. Without information department chairs and deans are at an even greater advantage.

3/31/2008 12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Princeton has listed a junior american and advanced comparative jobs to the higher education jobs Website. Any news on these?

4/01/2008 3:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the truth: for as long as it takes to get a PhD, and for all the hours we spend working, we are all underpaid.

Oh, wait. I forgot the part where we get to spend our entire career having our work criticized while undergrads publicly defame us on the internet.

Its' awesome!

4/01/2008 10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back to jobs...

Does anyone know anything about Denison?

4/01/2008 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re: 3:52AM

Pure conjecture: it's a posting that is required for the issuance of visas/green cards for international scholars

4/01/2008 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was offered an interview at Denison some weeks ago, but declined as I had already accepted a job.

4/01/2008 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Here's the truth: for as long as it takes to get a PhD, and for all the hours we spend working, we are all underpaid."

OTOH, if you can keep your sh*t together through grad school and 6 years on the tenure track (and stay out of your students' pants), you have a job for life. Find a middle-aged man who used to have a nice white-collar job but is now selling cars without benefits and ask him how that sounds...

4/01/2008 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pure conjecture: it's a posting that is required for the issuance of visas/green cards for international scholars"

What? Could you explain what you mean by this in more detail, please, 11:31? Thanks.

4/01/2008 10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pure conjecture: it's a posting that is required for the issuance of visas/green cards for international scholars"

What? Could you explain what you mean by this in more detail, please, 11:31? Thanks.

4/01/2008 10:06 PM


I'm not 11:31, but I'll take a stab. I know of a few US hires of international scholars into professorial positions that caused great difficulty to those who were hired--get this, because the job advert was not in print.

Apparently, in order to get your visa, you have to go through a *cough* rigorous process to prove that you were the most qualified for the position--and that requires an application for the visa, a fee AND a print copy of the job ad (as in NOT electronic per DHS reg).

After the few folks accepted positions and then found they couldn't get a visa, there were quite a few really pissed off folks. Some schools stepped up and paid for legal representation, others did not.

The workaround: list it in a printed copy as well as in the APSA PSN. That way, they have something to send to DHS.

I'm sure there's more to it than this, but that's about what I know of it.

4/01/2008 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, that is the likely reason behind that ad. We, unlike Canada, the UK, Australia, etc do not have a point system for highly skilled immigrants. So hiring highly skilled immigrants is somewhat complicated in academia, and ridiculously complicated in industry.

Princeton must have hired some non-Americans this year.

4/02/2008 12:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any good rumors of any kind as we head into MPSA?

4/02/2008 5:50 AM  
Blogger American and Comparative Jobs said...

well i will see you all at midwest, but you wont know who i am!!! :) i wish everyone a good conference.

4/02/2008 6:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to Notre Dame's senior American search? I haven't heard of any invites. Did the funding get pulled? Did they not like the applicant pool?

4/02/2008 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vanderbilt hired the people Notre Dame wanted.

4/02/2008 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt that. Notre Dame is a stronger department than Vanderbilt. And salary goes a lot further in South Bend.

4/02/2008 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry, 4/02/2008 11:46 AM is right

4/02/2008 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

vandy is the new tamu

4/02/2008 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notre Dame was stronger in American before this year, but, with the addition of Kam and Lewis, Vandy is probably stronger now. Of course, it goes without saying that neither of them are in the same league as TAMU.

4/02/2008 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they surely cannot compete with TAMU when it comes to blogging

4/02/2008 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do courts folks rank journals after the big 3? My colleagues and I, none of whom know anything about courts, are reviewing some files, and it's a bit unclear.

My guess is this:

PRQ, LSR, JLEO, JELS, APR

This, of course, assumes the piece doesn't involve legislatures (in which case my guess is that LSQ moves at least into 2nd) or state courts (in which case my guess is that SPPQ moves into 4th or 5th or higher?).

Does this sound about right?

4/02/2008 6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surely it depends on the particulars of the work and the intended audience, and it just strikes me as foolish to be wedded to such a strict hierarchy. Given an appropriate article, I'd send it to LSR before PRQ, but not all articles are appropriate -- and JLEO would publish things that wouldn't be seriously considered on fit grounds by LSR or PRQ -- or the "top three" for that matter. At the same time, LSI is a very good field journal that covers a completely different territory than JLEO.

4/02/2008 7:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JLEO is far more prestigious than any of the rest.

4/02/2008 8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the situation where LSR > PRQ? In any event, it seems to me that the last poster is right: JLEO wins among these, though fit will often be an issue there. My sense of things is that JELS is where someone with a JLEO type paper should turn next, though I would probably recommend trying PRQ first as it's not clear to me whether JELS is widely recognized by people in the discipline yet.

4/02/2008 8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JLEO is for the star professors at the Ivies and the West Coast. The rest is mostly for the state school people.

4/02/2008 8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JLEO, hands down, unless it's purely qualitative.

4/02/2008 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i'd be reluctant to crown JLEO here, as there is some debate within the law and courts community as to the value of formal work in this area...hence the original poster's gut reaction may be correct

4/03/2008 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I assume there must also be some debate about the value of mindless regressions.I'd place my bets with the fornal stuff.

4/03/2008 6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey midwest conference goers- any good gossip??

4/04/2008 7:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More space for the exhibit hall = good.

The reconfigured lobby = bad.

Staying somewhere significantly less expensive 2 subway stops away = priceless.

4/04/2008 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whitford is staying at Georgia.

4/04/2008 5:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:41, it really depends on which area of law and courts you're searching in. Think of this analogy: if you were looking for a quant Congress person, you'd obviously rank a pub in LSQ way over a pub in SAPD. But if you were looking for a historical institutionalist, your ranking would be reversed.

Law and Society, Law and Social Inquiry, and PRQ in its current iteration would be my top picks for the varieties of non formal stuff (doctrine, theory, historical development, law and society research, discursive analysis, etc.), though occasionally the APSR will publish something good. If you only want formal, then the other journals (JLEO, JELS, APSR) would be higher on your list. Judicature would be somewhere on both lists.

I think, though, that making really detailed distinctions among people based on whether they published in JLEO or JELS on the one hand or in LSR or LSI on the other is hard to justify. The journals within each grouping all publish a range of stuff from excellent to OK. You have to read the articles to make your judgments.

4/05/2008 5:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Whitford is staying at Georgia.

4/04/2008 5:13 PM

-------------------
Wow, what a shocker!

4/05/2008 6:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Palmer House is a disaster. And the surrounding area has gone downhill. Super aggressive panhandlers all over the place.

4/05/2008 6:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The conference room on the 4th floor are dark little cubicles. The exhibit space may be larger but is poorly organized. Some panels were put into converted hotel rooms. The new lobby is a complete zoo. Some friends got woken up by construction outside their room. People are accosted by panhandlers outside the building.

I liked the APSA hotel a lot better. Why can't the Midwest move there?

4/05/2008 7:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't submit anything this year for the Midwest, but I've never been particularly keen on the Palmer house. At least in years past, the lobby was nice and the conference rooms were adequate, but the guest rooms were pretty lousy for the price. I got nicer rooms for 1/3 of the price several times (yay hotwire) and lately have just crashed with friends for free.

4/05/2008 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the other hand, the MPSA bucked up for free food and drinks three of the last four evenings.

4/06/2008 5:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On journals in the courts field, this is very difficult. The poster who noted the division of journals by areas of the courts field has a good point. if a person is making his/her file as a rational choice courts person, then it is not clear how publications in LSR relate to his/her research agenda. at the same time, though, people in the courts field often want to/try to make their research reach the sub-subfield broadly and may have an incentive to publish broadly across these journals. as a junior person, though, it seems the best strategy is to publish tightly.

so, for a formal/quantitative courts person, it is probably JLEO>JELS>PRQ. for an apd/public law person, it is probably SAPD>PRQ>LSR.

i would also note that the claim that "there is some debate within the law and courts community as to the value of formal work in this area" is really not true. there is an argument advanced by apd-types who are hostile towards formal theory. but, by and large, formal/quantitative and most apd/public law folks do not engage in this debate. it is widely overblown by the few who argue so ferociously against formal theory.

finally, the poster who said the reviewers should read the articles and evaluate them as articles has, of course, identified the most appropriate way to evaluate the publications.

4/06/2008 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I overheard serious senior recruitment in and around Midwest all weekend. Don't want to name schools and start a shouting match, but you can probably guess who they were (think: the type of places that bothered to interview Ting and Groseclose and actually thought they might get them).

4/06/2008 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What could be Ting's salary at Columbia?

4/06/2008 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One Million Dollars"

--Dr. Evil

4/06/2008 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bianco has an offer from Georgia.

4/06/2008 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any rumors on who in American is moveable next year? Specifically juniors with at least a year out.

4/06/2008 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bianco has an offer from Georgia.

4/06/2008 4:16 PM
-----------------
looks like GA is playing tit-for-tat ot maybe grim trigger ;)

4/06/2008 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I overheard serious senior recruitment in and around Midwest all weekend. Don't want to name schools and start a shouting match

Come on, we can all assume that there are serious conversations about senior moves at Midwest. I'm sure that happens every year. To make the post worthwhile even in the slightest, you need to give us more info than you have.

4/06/2008 7:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

B.Jones has an offer from UT

4/06/2008 8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boooo!!!!!

4/07/2008 6:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, some of you must really live in rural areas, if you are so freaked out by a few panhandlers in the Loop.
I hate to break this to you, but every major US city (and most non-major ones, as well) have a significant homeless population in their downtown areas. And, hell, if I had to live on the street during a Chicago winter while well-heeled conference-goers walked by all day, I'd be pretty surly too.

As for the conference itself: the cubicle farm was a disaster. The space was claustrophobic, and you could hear presentations in the next cube (or conversations outside) as well as your own presentation. I've said this before, but if the MPSA bigwigs really should use this to demand some sort of renegotiation of their contract with the PH.

4/07/2008 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the poster above. One of my panels was in the cubical farm...and everything could be heard from other panels. The other one was in a converted hotel room.

The MPSA higher ups should renegotiate the contract with the Palmer House, or open it up to other places in the Chicago area, or even rotate the conference to other cities.

IMHO, rotating the conference site is part of the reason why APSA consistently gets high quality sites, and MUCH lower hotel rates than the Midwest gets for us.

4/07/2008 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The cubicle corral was terrible, and the converted hotel rooms were not fantastic, but these were temporary adaptions because the PH isn't done with their rennovations.

It looked like the PH must have ponied up alot for all of the free food and drinks to make the discomfort more palatable. The President's reception in the Red Lacquer Room and the Nightcap Reception were particularly decadent. The fondue, cheesecakes and coffee drinks at the Nightcap were amazing.

4/07/2008 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the law and court journal rankings: As noted, this is really specific to the research in question. JLEO tends to publish more formally oriented work and some work that makes novel empirical contributions (such as new ideology scores). You tend to see more substantive quant work in JELS, JLS, LSI, and especially LSR. I’ll also add that I’m not sure PRQ>APR given the great job Gimpel has done with APR. So, if I was going to send something substantive that uses statistical models, I would say: PRQ/APR>JELS, JLEO, JLS, LSI, LSR (in no order and of equal rank)>JSJ, Judicature, Jurimetrics. For a novel methodological contribution: JLEO>PRQ/APR>the rest. I’ll add that I am making the assumption that the work in question is broad enough to interest a more general audience that will be found in PRQ/APR. If not, the “big 5” judicial journals (JELS, JLEO, JLS, LSI, LSR) are all excellent places.

One thing I think political scientists who don’t study law and courts often fail to recognize is that its often harder to crack the interdisciplinary law journals than PRQ or APR since those journals draw from a wide array of disciplines. I think there is a fair amount of agreement among interdisciplinary law scholars with regard to the equivalence of the five primary law and courts journals and their quality, recognizing that the topic under investigation will often drive the decision of where to submit.

4/07/2008 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Palmer House didn't pony up for those receptions. YOU did.

4/07/2008 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On panhandlers, I'm calling BS.

I have spent time in most major urban areas and currently live in one. The panhandlers around the PH were as aggressive as I've experienced in years.

They stood in your way, followed you, and a few times cursed at you if you ignored them.

No, this is not typical treatment from panhandlers, not what you get in San Fran, NYC, Washington DC, Atlanta, Philly, or other conference venues where I've been in recent years.

That area of the Loop is ratty. It's closed on Sunday, and many things are closed Saturday. it's noisy. And the PH doesn't treat us well.

Let's move to the Hyatt.

4/07/2008 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the other hand, the MPSA bucked up for free food and drinks three of the last four evenings.

Come on now, you are a political scientist, aren't you? If they can afford high priced receptions with open bars three nights in a row, then the Association is flush with cash.

If they are, then why the nickel and diming us if we stay offsite (when the hotel fills up annually)? Why the highest priced hotel rooms of any conference?

4/07/2008 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do MPSA leadership in charge of negotiations get kickbacks? Could they?

4/07/2008 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

re the law journal rankings - LSR is ranked 13th in sociolgy and has an impact rating north of 1.3 so - much like JLEO - it's not hard to make an easy case it's a quite good journal. SAPD has a reputation for being pretty dang clubby and I think it's a more difficult sale. Also - journals like the Election Law Journal are bubbling up - I think an ELJ is a better placement than SAPD any day of the week despite it's reletive youth

4/07/2008 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a non-courts person, this journal discussion is mind-numbingly boring. Now I know how my non-PS friends feel when I start talking about work! =)

4/07/2008 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was far more annoyed by the self-serving Meierpalooza than the panhandlers.

4/07/2008 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"self-serving Meierpalooza"??? What is this?

4/07/2008 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Denison ended its search without hiring.

4/07/2008 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the comment: If they (MPSA) are ['flush'], then why the nickel and diming us if we stay offsite (when the hotel fills up annually)? Why the highest priced hotel rooms of any conference?


Conference rooms at other Chicago hotels (such as Hyatte) are substantially higher this time of year. Other cities don't necessarily have better rates, either (e.g., NYC, SF, etc.) The reason APSA, and Southern, have cheaper rooms is the time of year they are held. Some other cities can't accommodate MPSA with hotels close to each other because of MPSA's size.
Also, lots of people complain that APSA interrupts the beginning of Fall classes, but hotel rooms are much less expensive Labor Day weekend. The Southern, now held in early January, is quite small compared to MPSA. And the Western is somewhat smaller than MPSA as well (and, I regret to say, I've heard a fair number of complaints about Southern and Western for various reasons, as well).

4/07/2008 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Palmer House didn't pony up for those receptions. YOU did."

------------------------------

Maybe but I kind of feel like my university paid for my drinks. So, I'm fine with that. Unfortunately, I couldn't drink enough to make up the gap between what they're paying me and what I think they should be paying me.

4/07/2008 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want to complain about conference hotels, look at the Hotel that the Western and Southwestern put people in at Vegas: The Riviera. That is the abslute worst hotel in all of Vegas; the food is bad, the casino is depressing, the bars are awful, and the rooms smell like old people. Those were over a 100 a night as well. There are a ton of hotels in vegas that can handle any political science conference; God only knows why those got booked there.

4/07/2008 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why is JOP's impact factor dropping so sharply in recent years?

4/07/2008 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a prospective student and I am deciding between most of the top 5 departments in political science. I have visited most of the places, but I'm still confused. I'm not sure where to go. I am an Americanist, but I don't want to reveal more because people would figure out who I am. How should I make my decision? All of the places have given me good funding packages. Where would you go? Help!

4/07/2008 9:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all or none, i say.

4/07/2008 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:45: I think your subfield makes a difference here. Ohio State, Minnesota, UNC, or Michigan would probably be better choices in behavior; Duke or UCSD would probably be better in institutions; if you want methods training and think you can become a Gary King acolyte, Harvard (or if you can stand crazy Australian bloggers, Stanford). Yale is probably jack of all trades. As for Berkeley, why go there when you can go to Stanford?

In terms of potential placement, the Harvard Reality Distortion Field doesn't go as far as it used to. I don't see much reason to go there unless you want to work with King to be honest. You will get a good job from any of these programs (by "good job" I mean some sort of PhD program or low-teaching-load liberal arts college) unless you're a complete idiot. Even then, you'll probably get a better job than I have.

Personally, I'd pick UNC or Duke, depending on whether I was doing behavior (UNC) or institutions (Duke), but that's because (a) your stipend money will go much further in Durham/Chapel Hill than anywhere else in the top 10 and (b) I despise winters, and the Triangle has the least bad winters of anywhere you can afford to live comfortably as a grown-up while a grad student. If (a) is not a factor (e.g. you have a trust fund, lucky you), UCSD and Stanford become possibilities; if (b) isn't, then OSU, Minnesota, and Michigan enter the picture. If neither are factors, go to Yale.

4/07/2008 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL A masterful post, 10:55. Accurate, helpful, self-deprecating, and hilarious. A rare 4/4.

4/07/2008 11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't agree with 10:55 P.M.

The drop-off in placement from the very top AP schools (Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan) + top specialty shops (GSB, Caltech, Rochester, WashU) is severe. Look at the placement records on the school websites--only a few actually show them, which tells you a lot.

4/07/2008 11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:55 here. Where did I say there wasn't a dropoff in placement? Just that AP graduates from all of those places get good jobs, by disciplinary standards. No Americanist UNC* grad is teaching a 4-4 (or even a 3-3) at a directional school except by choice. In other words, I'd probably give my left nut for the worst job a UNC AP grad has. Not that I'm using my left nut for anything important at present, but you get my drift, since I'd expect the left nut donation to be painful.

Now, if you want a job in the end at a "top five," then your advice holds, but I'd wager most folks aren't that picky.

And I wouldn't spend 5-7 years of my life somewhere that sucked just so I could get a job for the rest of my life... somewhere that sucks. My value of "somewhere that sucks" roughly corresponds with "anywhere north of 36-30 N latitude" with a small exception for the San Francisco Bay area and Sacramento; your mileage may vary.

BTW, if you want to consider Ye Olde Wacky Game Theory Shoppes too, I have no strong preferences there. In terms of "suckiness to live there" the rough hierarchy would be Caltech > GSB > WashU > Rochester, while affordability is probably the exact inverse, so it's really a wash. I'd probably pick WashU since St. Louis is reasonably tolerable (not being too far north of 36-30), affordable, has interesting people to work with, and isn't snowed under eight months a year. That they bribed me with a postdoc offer to say that might also be a consideration.

* Replace "UNC" with "top ten but not top five" as you see fit.

4/08/2008 12:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: Grad School

If you got into top 5 programs (Stanford, Princeton, Michigan, UCSD, Duke, Harvard), then you should go to one of those schools. Ceteris paribus, you'll end up with more options on the "other side," at least at first. They're all nice places to live, albeit expensive ones (but you'll survive).

4/08/2008 3:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[i]Come on now, you are a political scientist, aren't you? If they can afford high priced receptions with open bars three nights in a row, then the Association is flush with cash.

If they are, then why the nickel and diming us if we stay offsite (when the hotel fills up annually)? Why the highest priced hotel rooms of any conference?[/i]

I wasn't saying that the Palmer House is tops or anything. I'm just pointing out that at least you could get something back if you wanted to.

Come on folks, stay somewhere else and tell them you're staying in the Palmer House anyway. It isn't rocket science.

4/08/2008 4:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The drop-off in placement from the very top AP schools (Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan) + top specialty shops (GSB, Caltech, Rochester, WashU) is severe. Look at the placement records on the school websites--only a few actually show them, which tells you a lot.

-------------------------------

GSB folks are always well placed, Caltech had the top candidate on the market last year, and WashU has two people placed at Harvard. I'm not sure that the difference between these schools and the others is "severe." Its different, but mainly for candidates at the bottom of their school's placement rung. And isn't that ultimately more about the candidate than the school?

4/08/2008 4:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are we talking about UNC as if it were a top 10 department? I mean, it produces good students and is clearly a department on the rise, but really? Top 10?

4/08/2008 5:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awesome, a department ranking discussion. As for the original poster (9:45) you have the makings of an ego driven academic. As an undergrad you don't want to reveal your research interests for fear of exposing yourself. Reality check future big name.

4/08/2008 6:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:45 p.m., I urge you not to listen to any of these people. If you have been admitted to all of the top graduate programs in American politics, then visit as many of them as you can and talk to the top faculty members in institutions or behavior, depending on your interests. Also take a quick look at recent publications from these people, as well as their ongoing research programs. Then go with your gut. Make the decision based on where you think you will have the best mentors. As long as the stipend is reasonable, don't worry about the cost of living in the area where the graduate school is located. Hopefully you will only be there for five years and the smart approach is to view those years as an investment. Again, make your decision based on your intuitive sense of where you will receive the strongest mentoring and where the value-added from the program is likely to be highest.

4/08/2008 6:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd go for the so-called 'specialty shops' over Yale, Duke, Princeton, and Berkeley. Stanford GSB and Rochester have the records of the best placements in the last 5-7 years or so--significantly better than the list above (Yale, etc.).

Cal Tech and Wash U. also strong (though Wash U.'s placements have been mixed--some spectacular, others not getting jobs. I'd avoid Yale like the plague. I know of smart students who go to grad school there and just never leave or drop out. No mentoring there.

Harvard is still ok in placement, but Yale and Princeton have had surprisingly weak placements. UNC and Duke have had weaker placements too, but they are farther down the rankings. Duke's placements are generally weak and will limit you to second-tier R1s in the South.

4/08/2008 6:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:55/12:58 needs to develop a nickname and post more regularly. Those two posts are a lot to live up to, though.

--A fan

4/08/2008 6:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, make your decision based on your intuitive sense of where you will receive the strongest mentoring and where the value-added from the program is likely to be highest.

I would echo the second part of this advice: 'value-added' matters.

Many top programs get 'good' students and turn out 'good' students having added very little to their skill set.

The boutiques (GSB, Rochester, Caltech etc) add serious value---and you see it in the placement records and the productivity of their former students.

4/08/2008 7:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Many top programs get 'good' students and turn out 'good' students having added very little to their skill set.

The boutiques (GSB, Rochester, Caltech etc) add serious value---and you see it in the placement records and the productivity of their former students."

-----------------------------------

I think this is off base, and just reflects one particular perspective on the idea of value. Good students don't go through any of these programs without learning a ton and adding considerably to their "skill set." People enter with pretty rudimentary methods skills and fairly meager substantive knowledge of American politics. They tend to exit with a lot more of both. A boutique shop might be especially good for building certain methodological skills, but that is not the be all and end all of "value added" and some of those places don't measure up well compared to other top programs in other respects.

You really can't go far wrong your choices. Nobody is going to be able to give you better advice without knowing more about your interests. If you don't want to post more detail, then your best bet is to consult someone you know more closely and can trust with that information (like an undergraduate professor or adviser who is plugged into the field), rather than a message board.

4/08/2008 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A boutique shop might be especially good for building certain methodological skills,

7.08 here: fair comment.

I actually think of methodological skills being the key 'value added' (since I think they allow students to 'branch out' on their own more in terms of research agenda), but I see others might differ---esp on a board about American politics!

4/08/2008 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go a grad program where you will enjoy your life as a grad student, and where you can work with someone you like. If you do that, placement will take care of itself.

4/08/2008 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The most effective way to deal with panhandlers without giving them money? Look them in the eye and say, "sorry, man, I can't help you but have a nice day" as you keep walking by. Most are grateful for the acknowledgment of their humanity and none have EVER harassed me as a result.

Someone who tries to "ignore" the homeless deserves to be pestered and annoyed.

4/08/2008 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:45, sadly, you really can't get unbiased advice about this question on this board.

Any advice people give you will be tainted by their desire to make their program, or a program where people prioritize their kind of work, look better than alternatives. Example: with Duke and UCSD recommended as top American institutions programs, we know we are dealing with someone who works on parties in Congress and thinks this is the quest for truth on this matter is mankind's greatest challenge.

When you ask about top 5 programs and someone tells you to go to Duke or UNC (fine programs but not top 5), they are telling you (a) they didn't go to a top 5 program and (b) they don't work at one, so they are implicitly telling a sour grapes story.

You can't make your decisions based on this sort of advice. Within the top 5 group (really top 6: H Y P S B M), you can't really choose based on placement; they all have the ability to place you at top places. You don't say your subfield but there are differences within the top 6 depending on what you do.

But overally within the top 6 I would put a lot of weight on your gut feeling of what each place was like when you visited. If one place seemed unusually exciting and interesting, with a mix of people across methodological persuasions, ranks, etc. engaged with each other, I would go with that. If one place seemed surprisingly dull or quiet or downtrodden, I wouldn't go with that.

4/08/2008 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm the original poster (9:45) looking for advice regarding graduate school. One of the reasons it's so confusing for me is that I'm interested in both political behavior and Congress, especially the historical development of Congress. I neither applied to the specialty shops people are referring to nor to places like UNC and Duke (no offense). My choices are between most of the top 5 overall poli sci departments in US News (I didn't apply to one of them).

4/08/2008 10:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I'm interested in both political behavior and Congress, especially the historical development of Congress.

In that case Stanford and Berkeley are your choices. The nod for youth & interesting recent changes goes to Berkeley. The nod for stability goes to Stanford.

4/08/2008 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:00 AM is absolutely correct.

Go to one of the top 6 (or 7 if you include Chicago) if you can. To recommend otherwise is a disservice to any applicant.

If you are interested in history of Congress, Berkeley (Schickler), Harvard (Carpenter), Princeton (Arnold and Zelizer in history dept), Yale (Mayhew), Michigan (Hall), and Stanford (Weingast, Brady) are all excellent.

Go with which place felt best to you because you can't go wrong with that list.

4/08/2008 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have to be a little bit careful here though. Carpenter (Harvard) doesn't do Congress and Mayhew (Yale) has to be nearing emeritus status. Hall (UM) and Arnold (Princeton) are great though less focused than the others on historical development.

4/08/2008 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"someone who works on parties in Congress and thinks this is the quest for truth on this matter is mankind's greatest challenge"
---------------------------
Wait... it's not?

4/08/2008 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yale's faculty definitely makes it top 6, but it does not have the same placement. But, I think a lot of that is selection. They compete for the same grad students as the other 5, but living in New Haven on a grad student stipend is not that appealing.

4/08/2008 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm interested in both political behavior and Congress, especially the historical development of Congress.

Well, probably the boutiques aren't for you, anyway...so no big deal that you didn't apply there.

BTW, and this is a general question to anyone who cares to answer it, what is the 'survival rate' of graduate students who are interested in a particular area?

What I mean is, how many incoming grad students say/think they want to work on 'history of Congress' or 'black politics' or 'culture and politics' etc and end up doing something completely different by the time the dissertation is handed in?

Personally, I radically changed my focus/subfield (I got a good job, so it worked out), and I'm just interested to know how common people think it is.

4/08/2008 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I were interested in Congress, I would go to Princeton and work with Nolan McCarty.

4/08/2008 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look, even if you go to a top five program, if you don't get along with or can't work with the folks there, then it makes sense to go elsewhere. The most important factor to consider is who will be your dissertation advisor because your relationship with that person will be the biggest factor in where and whether you get a job. If you have a good relationship, you will get better letters, will publish with them more, and will likely finish faster. You will also get more of their time in effort, which can be divided among several advisees at some of the top programs.

4/08/2008 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would go to Princeton and work with Nolan McCarty

So would I, if Nolan McCarty wasn't doing about a million things other than advising students. I heard the dude has a clothing line coming out this Fall.

4/08/2008 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best people to study under on Congress would be...?

4/08/2008 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the reasons it's so confusing for me is that I'm interested in both political behavior and Congress, especially the historical development of Congress.

It is hard to make a recommendation without knowing a little bit more. But, I won't let that stop me from offering advice anyway.

If Congress is what you are interested in studying, I think three places (in no particular order) stand out very strongly: Duke (Aldrich, Rohde, and maybe Munger), UCSD (Cox, McCubbins, Jacobson, Poole), and Stanford (Krehbiel).

Given that you are interested in Congress and political behavior, I am a bit surprised you didn't apply to Duke. Duke is somewhat weak in behavior, but Aldrich would be a great person to work with for somebody interested in behavior and Congress. He has highly cited and important work in both areas. Not too many folks can say that.

I think that Duke and UCSD would be especially attractive because there are multiple "important" people that could be an adviser, meaning that you have more opportunity to find the right match for you (and a fall back if somebody leaves).

I personally would not go to Chicago, Yale, or Michigan as a graduate student in any subfield of American politics. Students have trouble finishing at all three, as far as I can tell. Though I knew and cared a lot more about this a decade ago.

4/08/2008 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke's placements in Congress haven't been terribly good. I'd be wary of going there. Especially since the department's methods training is a disaster.

UCSD and Stanford GSB are tops.

4/08/2008 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I personally would not go to Chicago, Yale, or Michigan as a graduate student in any subfield of American politics. "

It's interesting that these schools really have placed many more comparativists and theorists in recent years than they have Americanists.

4/08/2008 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Off the top of my head, in the last 2 years alone, Yale has placed Americanists at Northwestern, Washington, Columbia, New School, and Berkeley. I'm probably missing some too.

4/08/2008 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:12 p.m.: Hmmm...not sure about your detective work there. But maybe they are mostly APD, which I don't keep track of closely. Who at Columbia? Rose Raghazian? Wasn't that a few years ago?

4/08/2008 5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:25 pm really does not know what he is talking about. Rose was a Columbia PhD who taught at Yale for a few years. She is now back at Columbia (administration). Dorian is a recent Yale graduate now teaching at Columbia.

not 5:12

4/08/2008 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dorian? An Americanist? Never heard of him/her.

4/08/2008 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:31, perhaps that's why you are teaching at erica state community college, dude!

http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/directory/dw2288-fac.html

4/08/2008 6:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/
directory/dw2288-fac.html

4/08/2008 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh SNAP!!!!

I'm sorry Miss Jackson, but UCSD is *not* top 5. (at least not in American, but maybe in chutzpah)

This designation belongs to, in no order:

Stanford (dept or GSB)
Michigan
Princeton
Berkeley
Harvard

Rochester, GSB, and Caltech are the best "specialty shops" for American. Washington Univ. is a close second tier in that realm.

Good news: UCSD is top *4*...in its state. (I'm looking at you, Bruins...go Klugies!)

4/08/2008 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, no, no...by ranking is *bigger* than yours.

Geez guys, get a life. This is starting to sound like a locker room, only even less evidence is being brought to bear than usual.

4/08/2008 8:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Americanist UNC* grad is teaching a 4-4 (or even a 3-3) at a directional school except by choice.

Some people from even the greatest schools and "boutique shops" (sigh, what a stupid term) who aren't idiots end up doing that. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

I know of an ABD from a top "specialty shop" who just accepted a job where everyone in AP is teaching 3-3 this semester. And there will be no more AP teachers at this university next fall than there are now, despite great needs as far as teaching goes for research methods, organization of internships and senior seminars, etc. Maybe this person is in for a rude awakening, and didn't check out the departmental website and put two and two together? No idea.

4/08/2008 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dgwIn my opinion, UCSD is clearly ahead of Berkeley and UCLA in American politics. Not to say that the other two aren't impressive, but UCSD is rich with top American politics faculty.

I don't have a dog in this fight--I am not employed by, nor did I do my graduate studies at, any of these programs.

4/08/2008 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Americanist UNC* grad is teaching a 4-4 (or even a 3-3) at a directional school except by choice.

That's just plain old false.

http://www.unc.edu/polisci/gradplacement_history.html

4/08/2008 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:43: Thanks.

Also, in 8:35 I was writing not about a "directional school" per se, but the rough equivalent of a better one. Having a direction in your school name is not necessarily an indication of low quality, or no one would crow about getting a job at North Texas, nor would anyone want to hire people with a PhD from same.

4/08/2008 9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been out about 10 years, and I cannot understate how important the a student's personality fit with the faculty is. UCSD has a great faculty, but basically is run by Cox and McCubbins and to be anointed their top student you need to have a a particular type of (obsequious) personality.

Other places do a horrible job mentoring (e.g., UCLA--Ive seen 5 UCLA candidate's job talks in the last 3 years and all were awful).

4/08/2008 9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think for the grad student, there's just about nobody better in the discipline than Eric Schickler. Political behavior and historical development of Congress...that's Eric. Plus he's a great guy, he'd be great to work for.

4/09/2008 12:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:31, perhaps that's why you are teaching at erica state community college, dude!

http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/directory/dw2288-fac.html

4/08/2008 6:50 PM

------

Ah, yes, "Wal-Mart guy." Now I remember.

4/09/2008 4:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"boutique shops" (sigh, what a stupid term)

It's not that bad: I think the idea is simply to reflect that graduates from those programs are something of a niche product. Not all, but many are.

They get hired (at very good places) because they do the 'niche' very well, and every department needs one at some point or another (a methodologist, a game theorist, whatever)

I say this as boutique graduate myself...

4/09/2008 5:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I think for the grad student, there's just about nobody better in the discipline than Eric Schickler. Political behavior and historical development of Congress...that's Eric. Plus he's a great guy, he'd be great to work for.

4/09/2008 12:30 AM

---

Maybe so, but I don't think he's chaired a single dissertation, has he?

4/09/2008 5:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did Eric Schickler go back to Berkeley after a short tenured stint at Harvard?

4/09/2008 6:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, anyone have news of any Midwest "sexcapades" to report? Swingin'? Key parties at the Palmer House? Come on people, I'm not looking for names. Just ideas, concepts, etc. Juicy tidbits, anyone?

Or we can keep posting advice to the "undergrad who doesn't want to be recognized" about the pros and cons of Harvard versus Princeton versus Yale versus UCSD.

My advice along those lines: political science really needs someone to incorporate the "spotlight effect" into the study of American politics and candidate recruitment.

4/09/2008 6:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, anyone have news of any Midwest "sexcapades" to report? Swingin'? Key parties at the Palmer House? Come on people, I'm not looking for names. Just ideas, concepts, etc. Juicy tidbits, anyone?
----------------------
Well if you really must know I had sex with your girl friend while you were getting wasted at the presidents reception.

Seriously...WTF?

4/09/2008 6:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, anyone have news of any Midwest "sexcapades" to report? Swingin'? Key parties at the Palmer House? Come on people, I'm not looking for names. Just ideas, concepts, etc. Juicy tidbits, anyone?

Personally, a quick glance at the assembled throngs in the lobby on Friday night was enough to put me off sex for weeks.

4/09/2008 6:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Boutique" is a word used to describe hotels that fall outside the supposed norm, even though these are increasingly owned and operated by the major hotel chains. The idea is that consumers will see the property as special, what with the bright pastels and platform beds and offbeat DVDs available in every room. It is really, however, nothing more than a dressed-up Hampton Inn. It is just hosting faceless salespeople who fancy themselves too hip for the Comfort Inn. And when these guests realize that the towel rack falls off, the staff is surly (and there are surly homeless people nearby outside) and the closet is too small, the property gets the same sort of scathing review at Trip Adviser that a non-"boutique" hotel with similar problems would, only barbs are thrown out about its pretensions.

4/09/2008 7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Boutique" is a word used to describe hotels that fall outside the supposed norm

Above, I think it was meant in the sense of a boutique law firm: niche product, specialized etc.

4/09/2008 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: I'm interested in both political behavior and Congress, especially the historical development of Congress.

I would recommend Princeton, UCSD, or maybe Columbia. Princeton has "history of Congress" types such as McCarty and Cameron, plus Zelizer and Whittington on the APD side. And lots of people interested in behavior-institutions connections. At UCSD you would work with McCubbins, Cox, and Kernell. At Columbia, Katznelson.

4/09/2008 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I admit it. I had to look up "key party" in wikipedia.

4/09/2008 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the undergrad: go to UCSD. That must be the best choice because that's where I go, and if UCSD isn't the best of all possible departments, I would have to hang myself. And if you say that UCSD is not in the top 5, I would have to shoot you. So for me please go to UCSD eventhough you mentioned that you are only considering the top 5 departments in the overall U.S. News rankings..

4/09/2008 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10 year out UCSD-hater guy, you don't know what you're talking about - the best placements from UCSD have been from folks outside the McCubbins shop - and Cox has mostly different students and is not really co-runner of the cabal- skim the placement list and you'll see what I mean. Lake, Jacobson, Shugart, Lupia & Gerber (now at Mich), Bridges, all have done very well for their students. Also, there is tremendous variation among the UCSD people - and the recent placements include yale, princeton, dartmouth, columbia, rice, UC Irvine, UC Davis, UNC-CH, Boulder, Iowa State, lewis & clark, u of toronto, vancouver, on and on - there isn't really the hegemony there that people who dislike some of the folks think - McCubbins shop is there is you want to be in but it is by no means a requirement

4/09/2008 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not a UCSD lover or hater. But 12:36 is absolutely right. That dept. has lots of people doing many different things. It is not NYU (my apologies to people there), not a "boutique". There are behavioral people (Popkin, Hajnal), historical people (Bridges, Erie, Kernell), as well as many strong people outside of American doing all realms of politics. That's a full-fledged department and certainly deserving of a ranking in the top 10 (and I'd say second in the UC's to Berkeley).

4/09/2008 1:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not NYU (my apologies to people there)

Wait: is NYU now in a category on its own?

4/09/2008 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So UCSD places a lot of students. Outside of the top 5-6 places you mention those jobs would have to be seen as unspectacular if not disappointing placements for a top 5 program, no?


Really that record isn't so impressive for even a top 10 program over a 4-5 year period (I happen to know several of the people of whom you speak).

4/09/2008 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having visited both NYU and UCSD, NYU has way more energy. For future performance, I would bet on NYU.

4/09/2008 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what's the address to the blog about prospective students and graduate school choices?

4/09/2008 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

True, but placement is based on reputation, which is a lagging indicator.

4/09/2008 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> True, but placement is based on reputation, which is a lagging indicator.

Lord, the UCSD people will say anything to make their place look good. NYU is better than UCSD now, but it didn't used to be! So go to UCSD!

Placement is based in part on reputation, but other factors can overcome it, like energy. It's not just a regression equation.

4/09/2008 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

True, but placement is based on reputation, which is a lagging indicator.

Placement is based in part on reputation, but other factors can overcome it, like energy.

I assume this is a discussion about UCSD and NYU placement in American politics, rather than in general?

4/09/2008 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you wanted to focus on Congress, you would go to UCSD over NYU. UCSD is stacked with Congress scholars; to my knowledge, NYU has none.

4/09/2008 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is NYU is better than UCSD? Really? On what basis? I assume we are talking about AP here (we are on the AP board).

I can only name two people doing AP at NYU and they aren't particularly important scholars (though they are very productive).

Perhaps this says more about me than it does about NYU, so please, educate me.

4/09/2008 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the interest is Congress, and one doesn't gain admittance to a top five or boutique, what about George Washington?

4/09/2008 4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the interest is Congress, and one doesn't gain admittance to a top five or boutique, what about George Washington?

Well, for a two-term President, he was alright. He hasn't placed many students well, though. And, though I don't follow his field as closely as I would like, I don't believe he has published much, if anything, in like 200 years.

4/09/2008 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, this blog really needs some heavy duty bug spray.

Don't like UCSD? Don't go there.

Don't think much of NYU? Slam down the phone when they call.

Never hearda some guy hired by a top five? Welcome to the wonderful world of google.

4/09/2008 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(( popping popcorn, grabbing a beer... this is getting fun ))

4/09/2008 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NYU is, and will for a long time, just a wannabe. Go to UCSD.

4/09/2008 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GWU has first rate people studying Congress (Binder, Maltzman, Deering, Young). It would be a good place to go if a top 15 program is out of reach for you. They are also fairly strong in courts, behavior and other fields. Overall, I think GWU has been under-rated (and no, I have no connection to the place).

4/09/2008 7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to get us back on track, the prospective is looking at the top 5 (not NYU/UCSD/GW/etc.).

The consensus advice is: you can't go wrong, great people everywhere, good placement across the bored. Go with your gut and where you want to live.

4/09/2008 7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only is that not consensus, nobody has given that advice. There are big differences between Harvard and Yale, Michigan, and Stanford and Berkeley.

4/09/2008 8:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the admit is smart enough to get into one of these programs, why isn't he/she capable of making his/her own decision? What can we possibly say? To the OP: If you're willing to make your decision based on advice from an anonymous board, then maybe you're not the budding "big name" that you clearly think you are.

4/09/2008 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus, perhaps the poster is just an undergrad looking for more information! Do you remember just how little you knew about political science departments when you made your decision about grad school last year? The information people are offering is potentially helpful to someone who knows little about the differences between say Stanford and Berkeley, or Stanford and Michigan. I know I was pretty clueless about those distinctions when I was making my decisions about what program to go to, but hey, that must mean that I am a nobody who has never published and that any observation I make about the discipline should be ignored. (Well the last part may be true, but not for the reasons alluded to by 9:08!)

4/09/2008 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I were a smart undergrad reading all these comments, I'd decide that academia was too petty and contentious. But maybe truth in advertising is a good thing.

4/09/2008 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yabut if I were a really smart undergrad I'd know this is a highly selected sample of the discipline posting on this board. Apparently, for both pettiness and fealty to UCSD.

4/09/2008 10:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sex" and "Political Science" mentioned in the same sentence?

Do academics even have sex? I get a lot more action elsewhere. We're way too tight.

4/10/2008 1:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to clarify, when we talk about the top-five, that's not including TAMU which as we all agreed on several years ago is the best place to go to graduate school? So were talking about the top five that are tied for second place since TAMU is #1.

4/10/2008 4:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do academics even have sex? I get a lot more action elsewhere. We're way too tight.

LOL

...shouldn't that be 'way too up tight'?

4/10/2008 5:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^ best thing posted on this board in ages.

Lovin' the freudian slip from 1:25

4/10/2008 6:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to get us back on track, the prospective is looking at the top 5 (not NYU/UCSD/GW/etc.).

I posted the advice saying Duke, UCSD, and Stanford. I recognize that only one of those would be considered "Top 5." But, the student wants to study Congress. In my mind, those are the top three places to study Congress. My feelings are not hurt if the student goes elsewhere. My main point (I should have been more direct) was that restricting oneself to the Top 5 cuts out at least two of the best places (yes, IMHO) to study Congress. If going to a Top 5 over going to a top 3 in your main area of interest is that important to you, then do it. (I hope the reason is not because it will sound cooler at a high school reunion or some other ego driven reason, because it will never be as impressive as you want it to.)

If studying Congress is the goal, I would advise my best students to choose Duke or UCSD over Harvard or Chicago. But, that's just me.

I'm just some anonymous dude posting on a stupid blog. There is no reason to believe that I am right.

4/10/2008 7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can we all agree to stop this department ranking garbage and get to some good ol' rumors garbage. Does anyone really think at this point they will change somebody's perspective on department rankings. As for the undergrad. if s/he is smart enough to get in to a top 5 s/he will be smart enough to filter through what has been posted already and information from legitimate sources to make a decision.

4/10/2008 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Thought Police,
How about we stop making posts telling other people what they should and should not post about?

Best as I can tell, no named person was maligned in the preceding thread.

And its awfully easy to just scroll down.

Of course, if you have some job rumors to report, then report them. No one is stopping you.

Yeah...I didn't think so.

4/10/2008 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OOOOH snap!!! You got me there. Isn't it a bit contradictory to tell someone to stope being the thought police while acting in such a capacity yourself? Expressing one's preference is hardly restricting, unless of course you become abrasive. Yeah...that's what I thought.

4/10/2008 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

paragraph 4, meet paragraph 1.

dang, and i was so ready to post between paragraphs four and five. you didn't give me the chance!

4/10/2008 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best as I can tell, no named person was maligned in the preceding thread.

Well, with the exception of Freud
(4/10/2008 6:58 AM)...

4/10/2008 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Best as I can tell, no named person was maligned in the preceding thread."

Yes, because a department is a singular, monolithic entity (sort of like "the state") and not merely a grouping of individuals who all happen to work and study in the same place...

4/10/2008 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, because a department is a singular, monolithic entity (sort of like "the state") and not merely a grouping of individuals who all happen to work and study in the same place...

*cough* Further vindication for the public choice/unitary actor approach, eh?

4/10/2008 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know who the APSA Congressional Fellows will be next year?

4/10/2008 6:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, anyone have news of any Midwest "sexcapades" to report? Swingin'? Key parties at the Palmer House? Come on people, I'm not looking for names. Just ideas, concepts, etc. Juicy tidbits, anyone?
------

I was hit on by "Mr. Big Name in the Field" from the blogs.

4/10/2008 6:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No way! You mean "the one who publishes in the big three"?

4/10/2008 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So is he as big as he's billed?

Yes, I went there.

4/10/2008 8:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

huh. that's odd. i'm mr. big name in the field and i did not go to MPSA. i was hitting on hot undergrads by giving them my CV

4/10/2008 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps there are a couple "mr. bnitf"'s?

4/11/2008 5:53 AM  
Blogger American and Comparative Jobs said...

so i was there at midwest and not one of you offered to buy me a drink. given that there are so many mr. big names, you should have been able to deduce who i was since i am not a mr. big name!

4/11/2008 6:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a question which I know has come up around this time in earlier years: Is there a firm disciplinary standard for the date by which one should notify their institution that they will be moving to another university? My university says they want notification by 4 months prior to the end of the academic year (for tenured faculty like me, 3 months for untenured), but will grant waivers in cases of hardship or in the new job results in significant career advancement. This leads me to think that this is not a big deal, but I would be interested in knowing what others think.

4/11/2008 6:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

scratch "disciplinary" from the first sentence of the last post - don't know why I put that in there....sorry

4/11/2008 6:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:51, from the AAUP:

3. Termination of Appointment by Faculty Members

Faculty members may terminate their appointments effective at the end of an academic year, provided that they give notice in writing at the earliest possible opportunity, but not later than May 15, or thirty days after receiving notification of the terms of appointment for the coming year, whichever date occurs later. Faculty members may properly request a waiver of this requirement of notice in case of hardship or in a situation where they would otherwise be denied substantial professional advancement or other opportunity.

4/11/2008 7:46 AM  
Anonymous usa jobs said...

thanks very mush

4/11/2008 8:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if anyone still on the market has reason to be in Maine next year, this came up on some regional job sites. I have heard its a very friendly department and a nice school right on the ocean:

Visiting Instructor, Political Science

The Department of Political Science at the University of New England invites applications for a one-year Visiting Instructor position in American Politics for 2008-2009. Master’s Degree is required, (Ph.D. preferred). Duties include teaching a core course, Human Traditions, and Political Science courses such as Constitutional Law, Presidents and the Presidency, US Congress, Campaigns and Elections, Political Parties, Introduction to American Politics, The Media and Politics. Please contact Ali Ahmida, Ph.D., Chair, Department of Political Science at aahmida@une.edu for more information.

Interested candidates should submit a letter of application detailing teaching experience and scholarly research, curriculum vitae, unofficial copies of graduate transcripts, and names and contact information of three references to Cindy Locke, Human Resources, University of New England, 11 Hills Beach Road, Biddeford, ME 04005. Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled. Visit our website at www.une.edu for more information about the University and the Political Science department.

The University of New England is an Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity employer.

4/11/2008 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When are APSA dissertation awards like the Schattschneider and Lasswell are announced?

4/11/2008 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ahh, i remember winning my Schattschneider award. Those are good memories.

4/11/2008 8:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

June or July, in my experience

4/12/2008 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am really appalled by the careless copyediting in recent JOP issues (countless errors of citation, even author affiliation, etc.) Little wonder the slide in SSCI impact factor ranking.

4/13/2008 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What author had the wrong affiliation? (Just curious.)

JOP, like most journals, does not do in-house copyediting. So you can rest assured that the quality of the editorial decisions is not reflected in the copyediting.

As far as journal quality goes, the only thing you learn here is that all of them SUCK. APSR, AJPS, now JOP -- all CRAP! Oh yeah, and QJPS too!

4/13/2008 8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To avoid AJPS / Courtney Brown, Spirling / UNC time travel whiplash ... this is the 200th Comment. Click "Newest" for more.

You're welcome.

4/14/2008 2:03 AM  

<< Home