Political theory and public law job market: Political Theory Junior Job Thread 2008-2009--Part 5

2/06/2009

Political Theory Junior Job Thread 2008-2009--Part 5

Job market rumors and news--Part 5.

Please don't name particular junior candidates for particular jobs until an offer has been made--no lists of who's been longlisted or shortlisted or interviewed. Please keep this thread for job market information and discussion.

635 Comments:

Anonymous said...: did michigan sof cancel its postdoc? they had the earliest of the sof deadlines...

and how about that harvard humanities postdoc?; 12:32 PM, February 06, 2009
Anonymous said...: Michigan Society of Fellows has made offers.; 6:48 PM, February 06, 2009
Anonymous said...: http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/forum.php?id=11

migrate people, migrate.; 12:46 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: Why? The theory discussion there is practically non-existent, and frankly I don't care for the adolescent company on that forum. Could be the two things are related?; 1:10 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: I agree with the above poster. While I think the no-names policy here now makes no sense (given the availability of names elsewhere), I've stuck around because the quality of discussion is *generally* much better than over there.; 1:17 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: I've tried that other forum and have really come to HATE quantitative political "scientists." Bunch of tools. So I stick with this forum instead. On the other hand, I am also on the fence about the no-names policy as well. I realize that this is the way it has been done for years, but it might be worth thinking about some new policy for next year's market.

On a jobs-related question, there is a rumor that Brown has made offers in late January for the PTP postdoc. Can anyone confirm this? And have they been accepted already?; 1:33 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: ^ So true. I get on fairly well with most of the non-theorists in my grad program. But there are some huge tools among them. Just the sort of people, in fact, who would post long into the night on the other board about such inanities as qualitative vs. quantitative methods. Losers. And to think, one day, these will be our colleagues ...

Verification: Peenog. Like, egg-nog, but purchased in times of economic hardship.; 1:42 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: so brown ptp made offers, huh? bummer.; 1:43 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: 1:33 here: Oh no! I have no idea one way or the other that offers were made by Brown (or whether they will even actually make offers at all). I'm just saying that I did hear a rumor (unreliable one at that), but I was just curious to know if anybody else could confirm, that's all.; 1:55 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: 1:17 and 1:33: I don't want to start another long discussion about names here, and I think if we do re-open the issue, we should have a separate thread for it, or at least do it on the General Discussion thread. Administrator, would it make sense to have a separate thread, maybe about the blog itself or blog policies?

That said, as someone who supports the current no-names policy, if we DO reopen this discussion, I would ask people to think very hard about what concrete benefit, exactly, they think they would have from getting names at the interview stage and even at the offer stage (beyond the knowledge that some unknown person that is not you is interviewing or has been offered the job), and also to think very hard about the disadvantages for individuals and departments of having names publicized at that stage. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for names.; 5:02 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: here are just 3 FOR names:
1. it would provide an actual window into the hiring that's going on - reality check on not all, but a lot of, the random, inane, and false things people post here.

2. to see what kind of work is getting noticed by which searches is invaluable to all - regardless of the idiosyncratic things that can, and often do, come into play. this is valuable info regardless of who gets offers and who accepts. (i.e. if someone is getting an interview at 8 places, i'm interested to see what work they're doing, if all 5 people that one search calls in works on 'islamic p.t.' or some such, then i get a better sense of what they were looking for.)

3. poliscijobrumors.com allows for names and though that site has its own problems, the relevant point is that this blog isn't able to actually protect any of its own aims by not allowing names here.; 7:01 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: maybe if theorists all migrated to the other website AND started posting names there, then a) the theory discussion there would be saved from non-existence, b) we could try not to be so adolescent ourselves, c) we can stick to our threads and ignore the quanties who post late into the night should they want to post on the theory threads in the first place, of which i am doubtful, d) anyone who wants to continue the policy of no names can just bury their heads and stay here.; 7:09 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: well, I that's it for me! I think it was back in '06, I told myself "The day that names debate comes up for the 23rd time, that's the day to stop following the rumor mill." And here we are. Best of luck to everybody...; 7:17 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: This debate is beyond worthless (seriously, people, go do your actual work). There's another forum where people can read and post names if they like, so these people (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that it actually is more than one) who show up periodically and demand names are not only pathetic, they're weird and really a little creepy. Go read the other board, and stop wasting our time with your inane postings.; 7:52 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: Ok I'll bite. None of the advantages in 7:01 are actually anything you don't get from finding out who got hired at the end of the year.
When names have come up, both on this blog, and on the other one, it frequently leads to despair, jealousy, personal attacks; effectively, it gives people a target for all their insecurities, frustrations, and hostility. Not a few discussions on the other blog recently have involved some junior person's character being impugned, or someone deliberately trying to mislead a department about someone else's desire to go there. Names invite that. No names cannot.

As for 7:09, that site has been around for months, links have been posted here, people obviously seem to know about it, and still the theory discussion is dead. I don't think we'd be able to ignore or keep out the trolls as easily as you think. I remember one theory thread in which someone happened to mention Stanford and which then got hijacked by 3+ pages of Stanford-bashing posts by the idiots that lurk over there. No thanks.

Still, neither of your posts considered the disadvantages to candidates and departments. Candidates may want to keep their moves relatively private, whether their departments don't know they want to move, or because they don't want to become the object of personal attack. Departments too may want to keep their shortlist private, and certainly might not want it publicized that they've made an offer, until it's accepted. Note that publication on an internet site is qualitatively and quantitatively different from some people in the discipline knowing by word of mouth. Basically, I still don't think knowing names provides any benefit except for satisfying people's desire to gossip and pry into other people's business, and their feeling that they're entitled to know everything about everyone, whenever they want to know it, cost to anyone else be damned.; 8:00 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: I don't really care either way whether we have names or not. I actually think it would be kind of an ego-boost to have one's name on a board like this (C'mon, you know those "classy" people who sign their names on this board after they get a job offer just love the attention--and good for them, I say!). And I actually think there are pros and cons both ways, and it's certainly not as clear-cut, contrary to what the no-names caucus might assert. My point is simply that this remains a better board than the other available alternatives, and thus, there's no need to migrate, as 12:46 pleads.; 9:50 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: The only real argument that's been advanced for giving names is that if offers a kind of "window" onto the hiring process, as if committees have some secret preferences that will only become apparent when you see who they've decided to interiew. This is simply nonsense. If a department wants to hire in Islamic political thought, or ancient political thought, or liberal critiques of liberalism or whatever, they'll say so in the ad.

Look, I know the job-seeking process is difficult, but seeing hidden agendas and murky conspiracies where there aren't any will not make it better for you.; 10:08 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: For those of you who want to name names, here's Merle (and that's Haggard not au Ponty):

If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this entry that I'm postin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my theory blog,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.; 10:24 PM, February 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: Any word on when the "Classics in Contemporary Perspectives" (USC) will be getting in touch with finalists?; 3:02 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: NO!; 3:06 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: yeah, go away!!!!!!!!!!!; 3:06 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: I heard USC made contacts today.; 3:24 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: wow, this place is incredibly helpful. thanks. now let's get back to the pressing question of naming names and rehearse the tired arguments for & against. it would be crazy to let this place become overrun with actual job market rumors.; 3:28 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: We haven't ranked departments or even journals in a while. Maybe that would be productive.; 3:30 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: Ranking journals and departments is just a proxy for what we're really interested in: ranking political theorists.

I say we just jump to the heart of the matter. Who's #1?

I, for one, probably slot in at just about 6438th. Not a bit lower, though.; 4:11 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: That's my spot. Back off.; 7:49 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: what do people think of contemporary political theory. I just got a piece accepted there; 9:07 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: shouldn't you have asked that before you submitted it?

and haven't you asked that question before?; 10:32 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: Where are all the "Straussian" departments--outside of the big ones like BC, Harvard, Claremont, Toronto and Chicago? I am just wondering if there are any hiding in "not-top" programs that seem worthy to apply for in the next cycle.; 10:37 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: For Straussian work there's Yale. Steven Smith is there and Brian Garsten will likely get tenure this year.; 10:52 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: For Straussian work there's Yale. Steven Smith is there and Brian Garsten is likely to get tenure this year.; 10:53 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: University of Toronto still has Straussians? Hmm...; 11:01 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: I'm not sure I'd be betting on Harvard, Chicago or Toronto for Straussians. Texas is a good option, however.; 11:03 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: Who has the Duke American Values and Institutions postdoc this year? There seems to be very little information about the program online.; 11:21 PM, February 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: Notre Dame has a number of Straussians - both Zuckerts, and some minor Straussians as well. They are moving to balance the department, too, it seems, from recent hires (e.g. Dana Villa).; 12:52 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Congratulations on an article accepted at Contemporary Political Theory. It is one of maybe 4 journals I make sure to always read as soon as it comes out. If you are hoping to be read widely by theorists doing work on contemporary political theory you could do far worse. However, it is not likely to have the same level of recognition and respect with non-theorists as, say JOP or AJPS (even though you'd be less likely to be read by the relevant audience in those). SO if you are on the market, ask your references to make a point of explaining the significance of the journal in their letters, which should help.; 1:09 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: The place with the greatest number of Straussians is probably Michigan State. Melzer, Weinberger and Kautz (semi-Straussian) in polisci, and Zinman and others in their James Madison College. It is also a place where Straussianism is the only thing going. So if you wanted a place where you wouldn't have to do anything else besides Straussian inspired history of political thought, that would be the place.

And they have placed people in recent years, albeit self-motivated and diligent people.

[Oh, and Bryan Garsten is neither a full-fledged Straussian nor up for tenure this year.]; 9:27 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: 10:37: For "sleeper" Straussian programs, I would try Berkeley's Rhetoric program, Duke's comp lit department, Cambridge's history of political thought crowd and maybe some of the political philosophers at Oxford.; 9:31 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: ah, yes, michigan state is the place. but the devout should take note: the crowd out there has rejected (transcended?) both Athens and Jerusalem in favor of Sparta. it is a decidedly muscular forms of philosophy they wage, and there is not much place for women. (it helps to like basketball as well.); 9:43 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Hello everyone, it's 10:37--
Thank you. I will take these schools into consideration. I am a "Straussian" but I owe this mainly to my training. That said, are there programs where Strauss is at least taken seriously, but not necessarily "Straussian"? Because--although it may be the persecution complex--I have been led to believe that Straussianism is always on the defensive and always dwindling. Ah, persecution...; 10:04 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: 10:37-cum-10:04: What do you mean that you are a Straussian? At what point in your undergraduate education did you begin to self-consciously identify with a school of thought? How did this occur and was there a deliberate holding up of this school with other possibilities, or, indeed, with the very idea of self-identification in this way?

These questions are not meant to be hostile or patronizing? Consider them earnest and curious inquiries on the part of a teacher?

And as to your main question: you should know enough at this point (a) to know who the senior Straussians are, (b) where senior Straussians teach, (c) where they are in the minority in a department and (d) where you think you could get in to. That is your answer. (Hint: Yale, Toronto, Chicago would be the main places which are great programs and have a place for Straussianism.); 10:15 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: [Sorry, 10.15 here. In my last post I did not mean to put questions marks at the end of "These questions are not meant to be hostile or patronizing? Consider them earnest and curious inquiries on the part of a teacher?." Should read:

These questions are not meant to be hostile or patronizing. Consider them earnest and curious inquiries on the part of a teacher.; 10:17 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Texas has the Pangles and Devin Stauffer, but there are other theorists as well. Russ Muirhead is excellent and writes on Arendt. Ben Gregg is a very good critical theorist. Juiliet Hooker is an excllent applied theorist, doing work in comparative. And they have an excellent philosophy dept. (Brian Leiter, A.P. Martinich). Texas is much more than a Straussian haven. Anyone doing any kind of work could thrive there.; 11:16 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: and Bryan Garsten is neither a full-fledged Straussian nor up for tenure

verily, but a fledgling, he is, to one day take flight, we hope...; 11:45 AM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Actually, much of this discussion should be over in the grad programs thread, not the job rumors thread.; 12:22 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Any word on UCSD?; 12:56 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: 9:43 wrote: "ah, yes, michigan state is the place. but the devout should take note: the crowd out there has rejected (transcended?) both Athens and Jerusalem in favor of Sparta. it is a decidedly muscular forms of philosophy they wage, and there is not much place for women. (it helps to like basketball as well.)"

What the hell? What does that even mean?; 1:05 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: THIS IS SPARTA!!!; 1:07 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: For you non sports fans out there, Michigan State's mascot is... the Spartans.

Still, I'm not sure what to make of that comment about women.; 1:17 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: "and Bryan Garsten is neither a full-fledged Straussian nor up for tenure

verily, but a fledgling, he is, to one day take flight, we hope..."

His book certainly didn't strike me as Straussian, either in method or substance. But perhaps he is so clever a Straussian that he hid his meaning from me without me knowing it?; 2:02 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: 9:43 here.

Straussians love to talk about the conflict between "Athens" (reason, philosophy) and "Jerusalem" (religion, revelation).

Michigan State are, yes, called the Spartans, hence, Sparta.

The Spartans of old weren't very nice to women. It was also a very unserious reference to the "manliness" theme popular amongst Straussians.; 3:00 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: I also took it as a jab against the demographics of the Michigan State department (although I have no idea if they are actually all guys or not). In any case, I thought it was a well crafted triple or quadruple entrendre. Bravo!; 4:09 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: This must be the last place in the blogosphere to hear that Brian Leiter is no longer at Texas - he's at Chicago, since last summer.; 6:09 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: further testifying to the reliability of information provided in this forum!; 6:55 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: this forum is awesome! the lack of names on this forum has produced such a mature and well-mannered discussion! we should really pat ourselves on the back, political theorists! we're so much better than the other fields where they do low things like use names on their blog!; 8:43 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Please go away, troll. And learn how to use proper capitalization while you're gone.; 9:28 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: It's me, 10:37.

"10:37-cum-10:04: What do you mean that you are a Straussian? At what point in your undergraduate education did you begin to self-consciously identify with a school of thought? How did this occur and was there a deliberate holding up of this school with other possibilities, or, indeed, with the very idea of self-identification in this way?"

To answer these few questions, I have had the opportunity to closely study with the few theorists in my polisci department from my the end of my freshman year to right now, months before graduation. Over the many indpendent readings I have had with them, I spent a year focusing on "methodologies in normative political philosophy"--namely Skinner, Pocock, and Strauss. After that course, I decided that Strauss was compelling. Since then I have devoted the past years on reading his canon (as he would want us to read him). I think Strauss is compelling, but I fear I am not a "Straussian-Straussian."

"These questions are not meant to be hostile or patronizing? Consider them earnest and curious inquiries on the part of a teacher?

And as to your main question: you should know enough at this point (a) to know who the senior Straussians are, (b) where senior Straussians teach, (c) where they are in the minority in a department and (d) where you think you could get in to. That is your answer. (Hint: Yale, Toronto, Chicago would be the main places which are great programs and have a place for Straussianism.)"

Thank you. I should have been more clear as to my intentions: I have met with the Straussians from the programs you have named, and I thought it would be helpful if I were to try to break away from that crowd. In other words, I wanted to know if there were programs out there that, while not "Straussian", still took Strauss seriously. I did not mean to ask for the Straussian "usual suspects," which I tried to filter out in my first post.

Thank you, I apologize for the long post, I just thought I should answer you promptly and give my apology.

Word Verification: Tramprep; 10:01 PM, February 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Re: 3:00pm

It seems to me that Spartan women were treated better than Athenian women...; 12:46 AM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: I don't want to bemoan this point......but if those are the only methdologies that you have been exposed to (Skinner, Pocock, Strauss) you might want to consider that there are a wide range of methodological approaches you haven't approached- for example, most of contemporary normative theory. I don't intend to start an argument over which are "better," just to let you know that there are a lot of other methods out there before you decide for sure you are a Straussian.; 9:08 AM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: "After that course, I decided that Strauss was compelling."

I'd recommend reading Bevir, since he's got pretty strong criticisms of Pocock, Skinner, and Strauss.; 9:29 AM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: Although the student identifies as "Straussian" I think he or she simply means "interested in doing work in the history of political thought." The student explicitly rejects orthodox Straussianism, so I assume that the student is actually not a Straussian (with all the baggage that goes along with that) in the sense that we on this board usually mean.

For job market reasons, I would go with the usual suspects (Princeton, Chicago, Harvard) along with places like Duke and UCLA that are strong in historical approaches. Maybe add Georgetown or Notre Dame to that mix.

The real question you should be asking is if there are any top programs that you shouldn't consider because they might be overtly hostile to historical approaches.

If your goal is to get an academic job, even teaching a 4/4 load in the middle of nowhere, I would not consider "not-top" departments because the odds will be strongly against you finding employment.; 9:31 AM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: Once Garsten gets tenure, Yale will be the only top department with two senior Straussians (Steven Smith being the other one there). It will be THE place to study political theory from a non-dogmatic Straussian perspective.; 11:17 AM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: "non-dogmatic Straussian" = FAIL; 11:19 AM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: "Once Garsten gets tenure, Yale will be the only top department with two senior Straussians (Steven Smith being the other one there). It will be THE place to study political theory from a non-dogmatic Straussian perspective."

To repeat: Garsten is a Straussian?; 11:32 AM, February 10, 2009
administrator said...: Since this discussion has developed here, I'm not going to delete. But in the future, please post questions like this to the prospective graduate student thread. And don't use this space for just riffing off your word verification or insulting each other.; 12:10 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: I don't want to bemoan this point......but if those are the only methdologies that you have been exposed to (Skinner, Pocock, Strauss) you might want to consider that there are a wide range of methodological approaches you haven't approached- for example, most of contemporary normative theory.
---

To my mind, this is a mistake. Contemporary normative theory is not a different methodological approach, it's a different (sub)field. It's not a matter of answering the same questions in a different way (e.g. how should we understand X thinker when he said Y), but a matter of asking entirely different (albeit related) questions (e.g. what does a commitment to the equal status of all imply for us now?). So, the suggestion to take seriously contemporary normative theory as a possibility seems more similar to the suggestion to take seriously the possibility of a quantitative game theoretic approach to the study of politics than a suggestion to take seriously the cambridge-school method. It asks the student not just to consider a different way of thinking about what is interesting to him/her, but of changing the relevant questions. I, for one, would leave the subject matter to the student so long as an argument about approaches within the subject matter is open to debate (as she/he indicated).; 12:11 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm feeling earnest and well-meaning this morning, so here's a serious proposal. Instead of distinguishing "dogmatic" from "non-dogmatic" Straussians, let's distinguish:

(a) people whose intellectual horizons are overwhelmingly organized around the writings of Leo Strauss and the conversations they've spurred.

(b) people who take Strauss and/or students of Strauss who are closely identified with him as the primary examples that they try to follow in their own scholarly practice. I suspect that almost all (a) are (b), except for totally obsessive anti-Straussians, but that a significant number of (b) are not (a).

(c) people who take Strauss and/or students of Strauss who are closely identified with him as examples, but not the primary examples, that they try to follow in their own scholarly practice, and who have been influenced significantly by people and traditions of scholarship that have little to do with Strauss or Straussianism too.

(d) people who take Strauss seriously as one important figure in the history of 20th-century political thought, and read him attentively if sometimes also critically.

I don't know either Garsten or Smith well, but I'd guess that both of them belong to (d) and probably (c), just by virtue of intellectual genealogy. I also think that there an increasing number of (d) in the US who are not (c). As a consequence, I think the key question for a lot of people like 10:01 will increasingly be: do I want to be in a department where people read Strauss and take him seriously, but who don't necessarily identify with him or claim even a weak genealogical affiliation to him? Or is that identification and connection, even if it's weak and dilute, still important to me?; 12:19 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: Let me second 12:19. I would clearly place myself in the D category, even though my primary scholarly interests are in Heidegger and contemporary Continental thought. Strauss is taken very seriously by people working on such thinkers as he shares a disposition about the importance of textuality, history, tradition, and language/writing in the study of political theory. The fact that the conventional politics of "Straussians" and "postmoderns" tend to diverge, with the former tending toward conservatism and the latter liberalism (using American idioms)is utterly irrelevant to the deep intellectual and theoretical similarities.

Notre Dame is a good example of this, as a department where high church Straussians (the Zuckerts, Nicgorski) co-exist with committed Continentalists (Dallmayr, Villa), with all equally committed to doing excellent historically grounded and textually informed work.; 12:40 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: Very good points by both 12:19 and 12:40, but students considering different graduate programs may want to use a simpler rule of thumb: are you allowed to criticize Strauss, to say, "I think Strauss was wrong about this." There is, of course, a difference between saying that Strauss deserves a careful and respectful hearing (in which case a faculty member may be skeptical of a student's pronouncement on such questions) and an ethos in which that statement is simply not permissable because Strauss is seen as a more or less infallible authority.; 12:47 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: You're right about Notre Dame but a bit off on the particulars because both the Zuckerts and Nicgorski are somewhat heterodox and suspect among (some more doctrinaire) Straussians. Michael Zuckert moves away from Strauss on Locke in particular and modernity in general: He thinks they are good things. And Catherine Zuckert has a critical reading of Strauss's understanding of Plato.

I suspect that this open-minded Straussianism lets them mesh better with continental types (including Ruth Abbey, who's also there and does some great work).; 12:49 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: Oh, come now. Name a graduate program where you're "not allowed to criticize Strauss," and provide evidence. (I'm in category d, too, for what it's worth.); 12:53 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: I don't mean that your funding will be cut the instant you question Strauss (or that there are entire departments pervaded by this ethos--but as a graduate student you're really only worried about two or three professors). But there are Straussian pockets within various graduate programs where criticism of Strauss is simply not "allowed" in the sense of not being takne seriously (and, yes, viewed with hostility), just as in other pockets criticism of rational choice theory, (Rawlsian) liberalism, etc. provoke the same reaction. And if you routinely make those criticisms, you're no longer in those pockets, which can be a difficult (non-)place to be as you're trying to write a dissertation, find a job, etc.; 1:55 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: I think 1:55 makes a good point.

As to the Yale question, Garsten is definitely a (D) at most, Smith probably an (A)/(B) with occasional moves towards(C). Strauss is without a doubt his main lens, filter and lodestar.

Garsten was a Mansfield student (amongst others) and likes Aristotle. That doesn't make him a Straussian in any meaningful sense of the term for the purposes of identifying the future of the department.

If you are a student who wants to study religion and political theory with or without a strong focus on canonical texts and thinkers, Yale is an outstanding place for that and Garsten an outstanding resource. He won't shun you for asking Straussian questions but probably won't pose them to you either. That is the important point.; 2:58 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: "He won't shun you for asking Straussian questions but probably won't pose them to you either. That's the important point."

Dang, 2:58, you make it sound like leprosy. I thought the "important point" was that he wouldn't shun you for not asking Straussian questions.

1:55, I see your point more clearly now. If you're interested in Strauss but you don't fall into categories A or B, it's probably better to be somewhere with at least some faculty who fall into C and/or D, so that you're not caught between people who don't take you seriously if they don't think you're thoroughly on board, and people who think... well, who think that Straussianism is like leprosy, I guess.; 3:42 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: I've said this elsewhere on here, but it's an anonymous forum so I can say it again without anyone really being sure if I'm repeating myself or not:

It seems like a bad idea to go to graduate school in order to study with Straussians. If you're just looking into graduate schools, the chances are good that you don't have a very good idea of a)what it means to be a Straussian; b) whether you "should" be one or not, whatever that means; and more importantly, c)what other approaches are out there that might be--GASP!--also interesting and useful. It's fine to go somewhere that has some sort of Straussian around because you think you might be interested in that sort of thing, but picking a department on that basis alone is a Very Bad Idea.; 5:07 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: fascinating as this conversation is, i am wondering if anyone can confirm that brown PTP extended offers.; 5:48 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: poliscijobrumors.com also says that brown ptp has contacted candidates. can anyone else out there verify?

or, on a more general note, is it safe to assume that i didn't get any of the postdocs i still haven't received rejections from? are we at that point yet?

gotta figure out a way to pay the bills...

that guy who got the hunter job in nyc whose work is on homelessness was on to something after all...; 7:08 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: someone said it before, but seriously people, go read mark bevir on historical method and political theory... it'll take the air right out of this whole stupid tired discussion about strauss, and 'straussianism'; 8:11 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: So can others confirm that Brown made offers?; 8:23 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: I was told I was a finalist sometime in December and haven't heard a word since.; 8:27 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: "someone said it before, but seriously people, go read mark bevir on historical method and political theory... it'll take the air right out of this whole stupid tired discussion about strauss, and 'straussianism'"

True that, dogs.; 8:43 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: i heard third-hand that brown has made an offer to an economist and a historian, but no political theorists yet. like i said, it's third-hand, but that's what i heard.; 9:56 PM, February 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: "someone said it before, but seriously people, go read mark bevir on historical method and political theory... it'll take the air right out of this whole stupid tired discussion about strauss, and 'straussianism'"

--
Citation? For those of us still in the dark, to what piece are you referring?; 8:49 AM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: Mark Bevir. The Logic of the History of Ideas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.; 9:04 AM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: Except I don't think that Bevir would argue that Straussian approaches are completely useless or uninteresting - technically he can't really given his anti-foundationalism. What he really says (I think) is that some of the claims they make about the nature of interpretation (esp. about sincerity) are groundless both philosophically and as a rule-of-thumb for historians. It doesn't follow from this, of course, that Straussians can't come to convincing interpretive claims using Strauss's techniques. Or so it has always seemed to me.; 10:20 AM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: "It doesn't follow from this, of course, that Straussians can't come to convincing interpretive claims using Strauss's techniques. Or so it has always seemed to me."

Sure: he seems to grant that many of Strauss's techniques may be useful heuristic devices. But the Straussian version of esotericism must, then, rely on premises (especially a norm of sincerity) that would tell against the kind of esotericism Strauss detected in most thinkers.

Bevir's point seemed to be that the only way Strauss could come up with instances of insincerity was to assume the norm of sincerity. So one can be an esotericist, it seems, but this must always be a result of particular investigations, but not the starting point of investigations. That was my take, at least. If that is the case, Strauss provides heuristics and tools of inquiry, but not a philosophically defensible way of doing the history of thought. (Nor, to be fair, do Skinner and Pocock, for Bevir).; 10:35 AM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: The Capital University job that was just posted--is that salary range right?

$35,000-$42,000 for a TT-Assistant Professor? My sister-in-law teaches fifth graders two miles from Capital's campus and started at $10 grand more than that.; 10:54 AM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: That is definitely low, but I have no idea what the cost of living is like in Columbus. In general, though, 5th grade teachers make more than junior professors.; 12:13 PM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: The Capital University salary range sounds reasonable, if on the low end for non-elite schools. I started a couple years ago at $42,000 as a TT assistant in a high-cost of living area. We pay full-time visitors $33,000. My stepchild's father, who teaches in the local public school, makes substantially more than I do.

Of course, he has to deal with pre-teens, so I don't begrudge him the cash.; 12:15 PM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: The salary strikes me as on the low end, but not at all not surprising. Plus they offer free parking! Anyone who is surprised by that needs a wakeup call about salaries at the vast majority of higher ed institutions. You can be sure that they will find someone reasonably competent willing to work for $35k and live in Columbus. I remember interviewing at a place a couple years ago that would have offered $45k to live on in New York, and I received an offer of $35k from a state college in the South, and that was a few years ago when the market was relatively good.; 12:50 PM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: And the general rule of thumb is: the more you teach, the less you get paid.; 2:48 PM, February 11, 2009
Anonymous said...: harvard humanities center sent out rejection letters for post-docs today.; 11:41 AM, February 13, 2009
Anonymous said...: I would like to wade briefly into the "Straussian" debate as it relates to job placement. It seems to me that Straussians control a small number of departments. For students doing very "Straussian" dissertations, these are the ones they can get jobs at. What is so amusing about this is that simply put, Strauss himself would counsel surely that people he has helped to understand philosophy and politics through his writings do whatever is required to make their way professionally. Stanley Rosen reports that when he finished his thesis with Strauss and got ready to go off as a junior prof, Strauss declared to him, "now, disown me!". It was easier then, as Strauss, not a legion of Straussians, were what was on the scene. Still, the counsel holds true, to a point. Those who think that Steven Smith and Garston (and there are other examples) are in the D) category, taking Strauss, along with other 20th century thinkers, seriously, are mistaken. Of course, like Strauss himself, they take many thinkers seriously. But Strauss' approach to matters, if not his conclusions or his heterodox view of ancient rationalism, is their pole star.; 11:36 AM, February 14, 2009
Anonymous said...: So there is no word on the eight schools listed on the wiki as having interviews underway or scheduled?; 4:59 PM, February 14, 2009
Anonymous said...: Wow, I think 11:36 is really on to something. Come to think of it, when was the last time you ever saw two Straussians together in the same place, or talking about Strauss in the open, or organizing conferences, or writing for the same journals, or quoting each other...; 7:52 PM, February 14, 2009
Anonymous said...: Vanderbilt news?; 8:17 PM, February 16, 2009
Anonymous said...: Why do people keep begging for news? Clearly the folks in the know aren't sharing, and pleas for "Otterbien?" aren't going to change that. I know people who've interviewed for 3 of the open positions, but each has made it clear they didn't want the news shared. That's likely the case with all the remaining positions.

Given the small number of openings it's pretty easy to figure out where leaks come from. I know in our non-theory search last fall it was obvious which candidate was sharing news and it didn't help her with some of the older members of our department (rightly or wrongly, and wrongly I think -- but the fact was that it hurt her). So the remaining candidates are just being wise by being quiet.; 9:41 PM, February 16, 2009
Anonymous said...: 9:41, who ARE you?; 11:55 PM, February 16, 2009
Anonymous said...: 9:41. Did you or your judgmental department consider the possibility that a friend of your candidate went public with her news?; 1:23 AM, February 17, 2009
Anonymous said...: or that a member of the department leaked.; 1:45 AM, February 17, 2009
Anonymous said...: 9:41 here:

As I said in my post, I think it was wrong to hold the leak against the candidate, and said as much in our meetings. But it clearly bothered a couple of the senior faculty and they didn't care who did it; they were upset that the finalist had become public.

All I'm saying is that the people interviewing at this point are clearly keeping their own counsel, and are smart to do so. It doesn't help THE CANDIDATE to be known and it can hurt them, so why risk messing up one of the few remaining jobs?; 2:23 AM, February 17, 2009
Anonymous said...: Vanderbilt news?; 7:09 AM, February 17, 2009
Anonymous said...: i thought for a second that 9:41 just single-handedly killed the already limping "no names" rumor mill...

but people who get interviews love to blab. and people who hear someone got an interview love to blab even more... so i think everything's ok.

what i don't get is what the problem is with a finalist for your dept's job gone public?; 8:13 AM, February 17, 2009
Anonymous said...: There isn't a problem, in any sense that the people who were upset could defend. I think it's a combination of distaste for publicity and self-promotion, on the one hand, and irritation that such knowledge isn't confined to the (from their perspective) "proper" channels.

For the first, once the senior folks learned about the rumor mill from the junior faculty conversations, they found the whole thing upsetting. Search committees are drilled on confidentiality from day one of the search, and it stuck some faculty as a violation of norms for the candidate to breach that.

FOr the second, I know at least one of the irritated old fellows was annoyed that we all knew information he wanted to be able to share, as his network had informed him this candidate was also interviewing elsewhere.I think he was even more irritated to have his network's incompleteness shown to him, as he didn't know about third interview, while some less important junior people with web savvy did.

THere was a third issue that went beyond the senior people, which was a generalized discomfort with the level of self-promotion involved. We knew one of our candidates had multiple interviews because she had mentioned (appropriately) them to the Dean in their meeting. But none of those interviews were listed on the wiki. The second candidate was listed multiple places as an interviewee, in a couple of those as the only name. This candidate was also the only interviewee listed for our search. We could infer from that that we weren't the source and it was likely the candidate was actually placing his/her own name on the board. We've had problems with self-promoting jerks in the past (see dinosaur with network, above) and it made most of us uncomfortable.

I realize this norm is not one shared by most people currently on the market, but for faculty older than, say, 35, the facebook ethos can be unsettling. In general I think the wiki is a good idea, but the fact remains that, in my department at least, it was a clear boundary violation for some powerful decision-makers. I suspect other faculty have had similar experiences.

That's all -- not trying to kill anything or make a judgment. But there is a possible clash of professional norms here, and candidates should be wary.; 11:04 AM, February 17, 2009
Anonymous said...: FWIW, I'm under 35 and will be on the market soon, and I share the ethos described by 11:04 AM, and a distaste for the publicity of the wiki and the blogs.; 1:06 PM, February 17, 2009
Anonymous said...: Info on Chicago Harper?; 11:32 AM, February 19, 2009
Anonymous said...: No decisions yet.; 9:31 PM, February 19, 2009
Anonymous said...: Texas State has made an offer; 12:57 PM, February 20, 2009
Anonymous said...: I know Stanford post-docs rejected some people, but have they made any offers yet? Does anybody know how many there will be/when?; 3:38 PM, February 20, 2009
Anonymous said...: I used to be Straussian.

Until I re-read his Intro to Thoughts on Machiavelli and realized that he wrote it under the cloud of 1957 Cold Wars, to write a very Pro-USA, "US is freedom and justice" BS...so much for being a detached timeless philosophical observer.; 6:09 PM, February 20, 2009
Anonymous said...: Any word on whether Columbia will do a search next fall?; 6:10 PM, February 20, 2009
Anonymous said...: the real question is:

who do all the other poli sci blogs/wikis for IR, American, and Comparative DO NAME names, but ours doesn't?
what makes Political Theorists special or perverse?; 6:28 PM, February 20, 2009
Anonymous said...: the real question is:

why do all the other poli sci blogs/wikis for IR, American, and Comparative DO NAME names, but ours doesn't?
what makes Political Theorists special or perverse?; 6:30 PM, February 20, 2009
Anonymous said...: The secret is that we are both special (unique, adventurous, unscientific) and perverse (polymorphously so, I believe). So, 6.28/6.30, go back to the quotidian and oh-so-normal world of ir/comp pol/am pol blogs if you want names.

Sic semper tyrannis, and all of that.; 9:02 PM, February 20, 2009
Anonymous said...: If that's the silly argument want to make:
APA fields don't name people. MLA fields don't name people. AHA fields don't name people. And they do just fine.; 12:41 PM, February 21, 2009
Anonymous said...: I just asked a simple question:
within Poli Sci, all other fields put names on.
why not us?
just a question.
can anyone answer why we are different?; 1:37 AM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: Oh. My. God. Do you have a reminder on your computer to post this same exact question every few days? Give it up. Or better yet, please read the archived posts from the first three years, where this was discussed many, many, many times. Or answer this: why is it that you feel you are so special that you deserve to know names?; 1:45 AM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: 1:37: The day I start taking my norms from mainstream political science is the day that I rethink my place within the order of the universe.

Please go and find a new hobby.; 2:28 AM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: SAVE YOURSELVES. Troll alert. Do not feed.; 3:48 AM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: We have more in common with historians and philosophers than with statisticians, mathematicians, and social "scientists."; 11:31 AM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: New Grant Competition

A New Science of Virtues
In what ways might the humanities and the sciences cooperate to develop richer understandings of virtue for modern societies?

The Arete Initiative at the University of Chicago is pleased to announce a new $3 million research program on a New Science of Virtues. This is a multidisciplinary research initiative that seeks contributions from individuals and from teams of investigators working within the humanities and the sciences. We support highly original, scholarly projects that demonstrate promise of a distinctive contribution to virtue research and have the potential to begin a new field of interdisciplinary study.
2010 Research Grants

In 2010, about twenty (20), two-year research grants will be awarded ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. Scholars and scientists from around the world are invited to submit Letters of Intent (LOI) as entry into a research grant competition. For a description of the required Letter of Intent and more information about a New Science of Virtues, please read the content within the sidebar links.

Application Deadline: March 2, 2009, 5:00pm Central Standard Time; 11:46 AM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: James Madison College at Michigan State University invites applications for a postdoctoral position in American politics, American political thought, history and institutions. This is a full-time one-year position beginning in August 2009. The successful applicant will have teaching responsibilities in the American founding and principles as well as other courses related to their more specific areas of interest. We are especially interested in candidates who, while grounded in the theories of the American founding, possess a substantive interest in the institutions of American government. Alternatively, we would also be especially interested in candidates who have bridged their background in American constitutionalism with a substantive interest in comparative constitutionalism. The postdoctoral fellow will be expected to maintain an active research agenda and teach 3 courses a year in James Madison College. As an undergraduate college within Michigan State University, James Madison combines a small liberal arts environment with the rich diversity and resources of a major research university. The successful candidate must have completed all requirements for the Ph.D. degree by August 2009. Applicants who do not yet have their PhD in hand should provide evidence, i.e. statements from their committee, that they will have it in hand by August 2009. Applications with a letter of interest, curriculum vitae, statement of teaching philosophy, writing sample, three letters of reference, and evidence of teaching excellence should be addressed to Dean Sherman Garnett, James Madison College, 367 South Case Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48825-1205. The deadline for applications is April 16, 2009. MSU is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. MSU is committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity. The university actively encourages applications and/or nominations of women, persons of color, veterans, and persons with disabilities.; 1:30 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: lol
no one can give me a straight answer as to why we are different

no straight answers....hmm...sounds very much like most of our work.; 2:22 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: 2:22 must lack friends with whom to talk....; 3:08 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: You got it wrong. The burden is not on us to show why members of this board need to publicize names. We don't need to defend ourselves, as current policy is the norm (as it has been for years). The burden is on you, and if you don't like it, you can leave. No one is forcing you to be here.

And the earlier poster makes a good point: We have more in common with people in humanities fields, who also have abided by no-names policies for years. Not only does it totally undermine your thought that we are somehow self-segregating ourselves (clearly, we're not), but it shows that, if they can do it, so can we.; 3:42 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: We can give you answers, we just don't want to waste any more of our time on you, when you obviously are too lazy and entitled to look the answer up for yourself in the many previous discussions.; 4:48 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: as far as i can remember the discussions on the names issue has never been settled on the merits... rather, people (or probably one irate person) continue to point to the default no names rule and things remain unchanged.

But the level of ire that bringing up the names issue is met with is completely unwarranted. so what if it comes up again? people bring it up because they (and I) think there is still good reason to change that rule. Until it is changed, it is unlikely that people will stop bringing it up...; 5:40 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: Here's a new reason for no names: wankers like our troll here would likely use the information to try and torpedo candidates by generating rumors and spreading gossip. It's clear our troll doesn't understand or respect professional norms, as adopted within the blog he or she chooses to frequent. Why would we expect better behavior off the board? If I had any doubts before I don't now. I don't want this jerk to know where I or anyone I know is interviewing.; 5:51 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: 5:51 sounds really paranoid.

what makes the previous poster a troll anyway?; 6:42 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: Maybe not a troll, but definitely a tool.; 8:24 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: This is the sad state of the political theory job market: there are no rumors, so people resort to this sort of nonsense. Great. Are there really no rumors? Lots of places are in the hiring phase, or so the wiki says.; 10:52 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: there are rumors, they just can't be posted on the no-names blog...and I'm sympathetic to the policy of no-names...I'm just talking about the effects of the policy; 11:18 PM, February 23, 2009
Anonymous said...: We can do rumors without names. Here's one: Otterbein has completed its interviews.; 1:42 AM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Otterbein has made its decisions.; 10:34 AM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Who did they decide upon?

Hi-yo!; 10:46 AM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Wer can't say it here.; 12:08 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Yes we can. The rule is that names are OK once an offer has a been accepted. I would assume whomever has the information will post it once she has signed and returned the contract and thus has a secure job. Until then, no reason to take any risks.; 2:38 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: wait, seriously?? then what is the problem with saying who these interviewees are *before* they are offered and accept a post?

really. somehow before they accept a job, but not after they do, this blog says we have to keep people from being able to talk about their merits here...

what a contradiction.; 2:56 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Let's try it Yoda-style: The troll do not feed.; 3:11 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Claremont has scheduled more interviews...at least one Straussian is in the running.; 3:16 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Feed, the troll, do you not.; 3:17 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Wait, seriously?! You mean in the last 2 days you haven't gone back and read the old threads where reasoning behind this is discussed and explained? I thought you were serious about this discussion. I'm so disappointed.; 3:20 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: Maybe the internet lingo goes too far over some heads around here. Don't feed the troll means this:

In the case of a "troll"--someone who relentlessly "trolls" threads such as these in the hopes of doing whatever it takes to annoy, cajole, or otherwise piss off everyone involved--"do not feed," meaning do not respond or acknowledge in any way, including well-meaning but counterproductive attempts to point out logical errors or failures to adequately digest previous conversations. It is precisely these exasperated responses that provide our troll with nourishment.; 3:33 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: who's the troll??; 5:20 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: You folks clearly don't know your Yoda:

Feed the troll, you must not. Only THEN true Jedi you be.; 5:28 PM, February 24, 2009
Anonymous said...: to all those people who posted here saying brown ptp made offers, please NAME NAMES to verify.

cause a very reliable source just told me 5 minutes ago that they made no new offers due to the budget crisis, etc.; 3:56 PM, February 26, 2009
Anonymous said...: Following the wiki, it appears there were 38 advertised tenure-track political theory jobs in the US and 8 eight of them were closed due to budget problems.

Any opinions on how this compares to previous years?

I also wonder how many people are on the political theory job market. From what I've heard, it seems there has been between 100 to 300 applicants per positions.

Seems pretty tough to me...; 7:08 PM, February 26, 2009
Anonymous said...: It is indeed tough, and remember that the more desirable the job, the more people with TT jobs will be applying for it, in addition to all the people without permanent employment. Still, 300 apps even for an Ivy League job is higher than what I've usually heard.; 7:44 PM, February 26, 2009
Anonymous said...: Any news on whether American has made an offer?; 9:52 PM, February 26, 2009
Anonymous said...: 30 searches is pretty low. I came to expect 35-40 over the past 5 years. That's only 5-10 less, but that's a 10-20% drop.
MLA reported a 20% drop in job listings this year -- and this was (I believe) before a lot of cancellations. Though the MLA job market is later than ours, so maybe they had fewer cancellations.

On the dimmer side: our dean just offered to pay people to take early retirement, but nobody can retire with TIAA-CREF in the toilet.; 7:45 AM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: Three questions from a job-market novice:

1. Will there be more "post-doc" / one-year gigs posted before the summer?

2. As for the "one-years" already posted, when do they decide? (I am thinking like Reed or UWF, etc..)

3. When do the late-posting TT jobs start screening. (like Vanderbilt)

Oh, and it really seems like more than 8 searches were canceled, but maybe that is because I am counting ones that didnt really start like Depaul.

Thanks in advance...; 7:59 AM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: to 3:56 re: brown, if you were notified about being on the shortlist of candidates at brown, maybe you should think about just emailing the head of the political theory project or an administrator there to find out whether they've made decisions or to get a sense of their general time table. or have your advisor do this.

i think it's acceptable given that the deadline passed three months ago, and it might give you more certainty than sifting through conflicting rumors on the blog.; 8:39 AM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: 8:39, that is good advice, although i suspect that 3:56 was just the troll trying a different tack.

ps - what is MLA?; 9:31 AM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: MLA is the Modern Language Association. APSA for the languages. (Difference being that people in MLA seem to think they represent the profession -- or at least the humanities and liberal arts -- as a whole.); 10:05 AM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: RE: Closed Searches

In my count of eight closed searches, I counted DePaul as closed.

I also removed Missouri State from the "closed" list on the wiki. I received an email from them on 1/30/09 that the search will proceed and that they "expect to invite candidates to campus and make a decision before the end of the semester."; 10:44 AM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: Who got the claremont job? Cannot find anything on that.; 2:01 PM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: Ben Storey; 3:06 PM, February 27, 2009
administrator said...: No calling each other idiots.; 7:42 PM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: Ben Storey did not get the Claremont position...that must have been a joke.; 10:54 PM, February 27, 2009
Anonymous said...: according to past foundations newsletters, there were about 90 jobs advertised in apsa ejobs in 05-06, 120 in 06-07, and 80-100, depending on how you count, last year

but this includes post-docs and some jobs advertised in multiple fields

if you take these into account this year, you probably get up to maybe 60 - 70 positions this year, though that is just a guess

still, significant fall off from past years, very significant from the peak year; 11:49 AM, February 28, 2009
Anonymous said...: Even last year, many positions that were advertised were not ultimately filled due to funding issues, so that number underestimates the drop off.; 12:07 PM, February 28, 2009
Anonymous said...: Did Saint Michael’s College complete its search?; 4:48 PM, February 28, 2009
Anonymous said...: Claremont is either jerking me around OR it has not hired yet.; 4:25 PM, March 01, 2009
Anonymous said...: Yes, the Ben Storey line is a joke. A few years ago there was a rumor about him getting a job that great play on this board; ever since then, people joke that he's gotten any number of Straussian jobs. I mean, he may for all I know have gotten the Claremont job. But I'm assuming this is another joke.; 4:45 PM, March 01, 2009
Anonymous said...: Three questions from a job-market novice:

1. Will there be more "post-doc" / one-year gigs posted before the summer?

2. As for the "one-years" already posted, when do they decide? (I am thinking like Reed or UWF, etc..)

3. When do the late-posting TT jobs start screening. (like Vanderbilt)

Oh, and it really seems like more than 8 searches were canceled, but maybe that is because I am counting ones that didnt really start like Depaul.

Thanks in advance...; 11:09 AM, March 02, 2009
Anonymous said...: what, are we just re-posting old detailed questions when we don't get satisfying answers?
Thanks in advance.; 12:55 PM, March 02, 2009
Anonymous said...: 1. I would think/hope so.

2. That would depend on their individual time tables, but I would imagine they would start screening a couple weeks after the deadlines? That seems usual.

3. Late posting TT job search committees are already screening or have completed the screening process and are down to short lists.; 1:26 PM, March 02, 2009
Anonymous said...: Does anyone know if American has made an offer? If so, please speak up.; 2:36 PM, March 02, 2009
Anonymous said...: Has anyone heard anything about the Political Theory position at Georgetown university? (It was an open-rank position for their campus in Qatar). Thanks.; 4:01 PM, March 02, 2009
Anonymous said...: Reed has already scheduled an on-campus interview.; 12:18 AM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: Any word from Houston?; 10:19 AM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: St. Michael's has made a hire already. My source is someone on the faculty there.; 1:33 PM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: If they made a hire, then we can get a name, eh?; 1:44 PM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: Based on past experience as a candidate, and what the "short list" people were told, Brown has almost definitely made their first round of offers. If some of those candidates end up getting a better offer or job somewhere else, the next in line will be offered, and so on. But if you haven't already been offered a position, it's a total crapshoot and not one I would count on at all, if I were you.; 4:43 PM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: Has Univ. of Houston invited any campus interviews yet?; 4:45 PM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: I got a rejection letter from Brown today indicating that they had filled the positions (2).

Anyone know who got these? Who got the McGill post-doc or who, if anybody, got a post-doc at Stanford?; 5:07 PM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: two? yikes.; 5:23 PM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: The wiki says Centre made any offer. Any idea who?; 9:16 PM, March 03, 2009
Anonymous said...: Hi all,

I'm happy to answer any questions about the job below. A short summary: the teaching load is 7 courses a year, split into a 2-2-3 trimester system. Classes are small (typically 12-25 for upper level courses, 30-35 for intro classes). There are lots of young faculty at the college that have been hired over the past few years, so it's a pretty vibrant place to work.

Feel free to email me if you have questions or want more information about the job, the department, the college, etc.

Best regards,

Margaret Farrar

*

POLITICAL SCIENCE - AUGUSTANA COLLEGE invites applications for a one year visiting position in Political Theory and American Politics for the 2009-10 academic year. The position is renewable by renewable agreement for up to 2 additional years. The successful candidate will be able to teach modern and contemporary political theory courses; specialization in the field of American Politics is open. There is a possibility that the candidate will also contribute to Augustana's general education program. Successful candidates will be able to demonstrate teaching effectiveness and an understanding of the nature of a liberal arts education. Preference will be given to candidates who will have completed their Ph.D. by the time of appointment, although ABD candidates will also be considered. Augustana College is a selective liberal arts college of 2,500 students, most of whom live in residence halls on a wooded 115-acre campus. Rock Island, Illinois is one of the Quad-Cities of Illinois and Iowa, a diverse metropolitan area on the Mississippi River with 400,000 residents. Augustana College is an equal opportunity employer and actively encourages applications from women and persons of diverse ethnic backgrounds. We do not discriminate based on age, race, color, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability or creed. Details about Augustana, our expectation of the faculty, the selection process, and the Quad Cities are all available at the Faculty Search website; http://www.augustanafaculty.org/. Send a letter of application, curriculum vitae, graduate transcripts, statement of teaching philosophy, evidence of teaching effectiveness, and three letters of recommendation to: Search #119-09 Pol. Sc. Committee, C/O Jeff Abernathy, Dean of the College, Augustana College, 639 - 38th Street, Rock Island, Illinois, 61201. Questions may be directed to the chair of the department, Margaret Farrar, at MargaretFarrar@augustana.edu. Review of applications will begin April 15, 2009.; 11:55 AM, March 04, 2009
Anonymous said...: Not that I'm expecting positive news on this, but has anyone heard anything regarding the Chicago Harper fellowship?; 1:57 PM, March 06, 2009
Anonymous said...: Has anyone heard about the Democracy and Diversity Postdoc at Queen's University?; 3:24 PM, March 06, 2009
Anonymous said...: I also got the letter from Brown, and can confirm is said that they had only two positions to fill, due to budgetary cuts plus the need (due to job market, I assume) to keep a bunch of their existing post-docs on for another year. So, only two places, across a range of disciplines. If you weren't already notified in December, then don't wait for a letter from them...; 7:53 PM, March 07, 2009
Anonymous said...: just curious, re: brown. why do you think they'd want to keep the same people on for another year if they clearly had ample opportunity to invite new people to the university?? i can see how it's clearly in the fellows' interest to stay, but i can't quite see why brown would decide to keep them.

not trying to stir shit... just wondering.; 3:46 AM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: 3-year Lectureship in Political Theory/History of Political Thought, in the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge

http://www.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/vacancies.html; 6:55 AM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: The Brown theorists are really great people: that's why they kept on their postdocs who didn't get jobs this year!; 8:41 AM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: Strangely I was just about to say the same thing before I even read the first response. They're good people, and they probably like and respect the fellows they have (I've had some interaction with the Brown faculty and they seem like fantastic people, I don't know any of the post-docs, so I'm presuming the second.) Though if they were fair, they might realize that though this is very kind and good to the fellows they've got, it may be hurting other people who don't have a chance at the postdoc as a result. But kudos so those who don't want to sent people out into the cold hard world when they can avoid it.........; 9:26 AM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: Their postdocs probably didn't get jobs. They have made a significant investment in support of the person's agenda, and they realize that it might take another year for that person to be successful. It also reflects poorly on them if their postdocs end up unemployed.; 10:04 AM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: it's also a renewable post-doc.; 10:10 AM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: As someone who has known (two) of their post-docs, they are outstanding researchers and wonderful teachers. Brown benefits from having them work and teach there.; 12:02 PM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: "it's also a renewable post-doc."
Right, and if I'm not mistaken, some previous recent postdocs have also stayed for more than one year, so that would not be abnormal. The key words here are budgetary cuts.; 12:21 PM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: no, i think they are "renewal postdoc."; 1:46 PM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: Houston has called for interviews.; 3:46 PM, March 08, 2009
Anonymous said...: who got the texas state job?; 5:01 PM, March 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Vandy?; 6:21 PM, March 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Vandy interviews in progress.; 8:06 PM, March 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: I was unaware the UConn had a political science PhD, let alone a political theory, but, especially because of that, kudos to the guy who got the Centre job.

I think it should give all of us hope?

(I mean that seriously, not to be snarky); 10:01 PM, March 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Paul Dehart got the Texas State job.; 10:53 PM, March 09, 2009
Anonymous said...: Congratulations to Paul! He's certainly one of the more interesting people doing American Political Thought today. And a nice little score of the University of Texas program,; 11:16 AM, March 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: I just heard from a reliable source that Arkansas State University (Jonesboro) will soon have a one-year position in political theory open. I am not sure if they will post on APSA e-jobs, but when it opens, it will appear at https://jobs.astate.edu.; 8:54 PM, March 10, 2009
Anonymous said...: Is Dehart -> Texas State accepted & confirmed, or still at the offer stage?; 11:09 AM, March 11, 2009

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Political theory and public law job market

2/06/2009

Political Theory Junior Job Thread 2008-2009--Part 5

635 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts