Political theory and public law job market: General Discussion 3/10-??

8/01/2010

General Discussion 3/10-??

For: Discussion of topics other than the job market

Restrictions: The site's general standards--no grossly uncivil posts, no throwaway criticism of scholars/programs/approaches--will be enforced.

Have a comment about this thread? Email me at poltheorist@gmail.com. Your anonymity is assured.

Previous General Discussion thread

433 Comments:

Anonymous said...: I've watched the American hires over the past five years, and there have been 3-4 candidates each year who dominate the market (6-10 offers; ps. they are all teched up, not in APD!). That is less likely in political theory, for the reasons named, but mostly because there are so few jobs.

That said, I know of theory candidates each of the last few years getting 3-4 offers. Seems mostly connected to the subfield and the approach.; 10:45 PM, March 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: Who got 3-4 offers in the last few years? And what was the subfield/approach?; 12:08 AM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: It might have been more like fourish years ago, but Andrew March (who took a job at Yale) got at least three offers, and I think maybe more. His work is on "comparative"/historical/Islamic thought, but his work is also conversant with and in conversation with contemporary analytic work.; 1:05 AM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: 10.45 here. I meant that there was a different theory sub-subfield that benefited each year. Not the same one over time.; 9:42 AM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Multiple offers to a few individual candidates does not suggest anything about a consensus within the field of what counts as good political theory scholarship. This might happen for a lot of reasons that have no direct relationship to the candidate's particular brand of political theory: pedigree, a dissertation on a hot topic, a nice journal placement, etc. To take an example from this year, just because George C-M got a couple of offers does not mean that whatever he does is now the dominant school of thought. If George C-M and Ryan Pevnick were doing the same thing, then you might have a case, but they aren't. Perhaps you could say that there is a consensus that George C-M's approach is acceptable, but there are a lot of other reasons for his success.

A better metric would be if hiring across the field favored a specific method or area of political theory, but I don't think that is anywhere close to the case.

For better or worse, political theory is a pluralistic field that does not come anywhere close to the Kuhnian ideal of "normal science." I think that is a good thing intellectually, for dialogue and debate within the field, but unfortunately it is a bad thing professionally, because it makes it more difficult to communicate the value of our work.; 9:56 AM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Often, the top schools are open with regard to specialty and want to hire the scholar with the most promise, irrespective of specialty. This isn't always the case, e.g. NYU wanted someone more analytic.

Harking back to a post on the previous thread, I don't understand why pluralism is itself a problem. When we don't appreciate excellent work outside of our approach, the result is balkanization. When we have a healthy appreciation for one another, we get fruitful intellectual exchange and hopefully more jobs.; 10:56 AM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: I didn't post about berkeley abds sweeping this year, but i suspect the person who did was not talking about G C-M.

But if you want to talk about G C-M, who as an abd has books out or under contract, he only got 2 offers from people wanting cpt, one was cross-listed with cp, which is the job he took. not an exemplar case of anything about political theory writ large, imho.; 11:42 AM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^My mention of George CM was related to the discussion of candidates with multiple offers (not to Berkeley). I agree with you that his offers don't say anything about the subfield as a whole -- that was indeed my point.; 11:46 AM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Well, wrt the comment from 10:45 yesterday that "I know of theory candidates each of the last few years getting 3-4 offers," so far we know of one person 4 years ago who got "at least" 3 offers, which is a different kettle of fish.; 12:13 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: I guess I'm blessed with unusually theory friendly, sensible and pluralist colleagues. I've never encountered an argument that begins with "subfield has no singular dominant approach" and ends with "subfield is worthless". I can't imagine how to construct the steps between that observation and that conclusion in a remotely compelling or persuasive way. Indeed, I can construct a much stronger, more sensible argument for the precisely opposite conclusion.

I'll venture a proposition here; those with more experience with these kind of people can weigh in on the plausibility of my claim: The vast majority of those would would make this argument against political theory just don't like theory, and are shopping for arguments against it.; 1:08 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Well, if you treat "not liking theory" as an exogenous variable then sure, your conclusion follows. But if the *reason*, or one reason, why they don't like theory is that from the outside it looks like an incoherent hodgepodge with a lot of internecine sniping and very little bearing on what they see as the "real" world of politics, then the case gets harder to make.; 1:32 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Sounds like you don't care much for your subject matter, either.

But seriously, all that that's been established here is that the power/prestige balance between different approaches to political theory is more even than it is in other subfields. The only reasons to dislike this I can see are (A) you are a partisan of "political theory type a" to such an extent that you think "type a" scholars should crowd out and marginalize types b and c, or (B) you're looking for a reason--any reason--to dismiss theory as a legitimate part of the discipline.

If you're (A), just make the intellectual case for your version of theory, and promote that version with whatever institutional power you have (The Rehfeld approach). If you're (B), though, you'll often find (A) category people to be quite useful.

Making the case that our pluralism is a source of value is rather clearly the best way forward--unless you're trying to use the discipline's skepticism about the value of theory to score points against the "wrong" type of theory.; 2:04 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: There are three issues here that need to be kept distinct:

(1) whether it's a good thing that there are multiple approaches to the study of political theory.

(2) whether all of the various approaches that are currently influential are valuable, or even equally valuable.

(3) whether we theorists are able to reliably distinguish better work from worse work, where reliability is measured by our tendency to reach the same judgments about the same work.

The answer to (1) is, I think, obviously yes, as it would be in almost any field of scholarship.

The answer to (2) is, I think, obviously no, though it's equally obvious that we're going to disagree about which approaches are more or less valuable. (Would you hire a Straussian or a Rawlsian just because that's one of the currently influential schools of thought? Would a Straussian- or Rawlsian-controlled department hire you?)

I'm suggesting that the answer to (3) is also no, and that that's where we tend to hurt ourselves in terms of how our non-theory colleagues perceive us.; 3:04 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: As long as there is substantial pluralism, many people will believe that pluralism is a problem, even if it's actually not. This is true in society and academia, but we as political theorists would do well to appreciate what we've got.

Myself, I read, learn from, and draw on the insights of, and put myself in conversation with analytic and critical/pomo scholarship, and I think my work would be much worse and more boring if I were properly 'disciplined' into one camp.; 6:28 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: 1:32--Though I am relatively unfamiliar with the debates in IR and comparative, I can tell you that the various factions in American fight just as much as we do. And, as for being removed from real world politics, that is a charge against the entire field. At my alma mater, the president even mentioned at a fundraiser that the two fields that are in the worst shape are economics and political science. The reason? They are too quantitative. So, if people think theory is too abstract or irrelevant, this is not unique to us. Perhaps others are blaming us for their sins.

We theorists should pay attention to the current political debates. But, to defend my game theory and rational choice theorists as well, we are not a current events department. It is OK if some or even many of us aren't trying to solve all the world's problems. Educating students has considerable social value as well.; 7:15 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Wow, I wish I had your president. But that sounds very counter-trend.

I wasn't calling for political theory to be about current events, obv. But let's face it, a lot of political theory is about other political theory rather than about anything discernibly connected with politics.

But again, my bottom-line claim is not that there shouldn't be pluralism in political theory, or that there isn't pluralism in other fields. It's that political theorists can't seem to agree among themselves what constitutes good work.

In my experience most Americanists agree that there's a place for rat choicers and quantoids in the field, and for institutionalists and behaviorists. What they fight about is priorities and resources. More than that, they tend to agree about WHY those people all belong in the field, how they should or could work together -- AND they agree, or are at least willing to trust each other, about who the best candidates in each of those fields are in a given year. That's much less true, if it's true at all, in theory.; 8:19 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Andrew March did not get three offers in 2007. He only got the one, from Yale. He only got an interview at one other school (U-W), and that was in a year with about 30 jobs on the market. Seems to prove the consensus here: Theory has no market stars.; 8:31 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Wow, I wish I had your president. But s/he sounds like an outlier.

I'm not saying that political theory should be more about current events, obv. But less face it, a lot of political theory is about other political theory rather than anything discernibly connected with politics.

My bottom-line claim is not that political theory shouldn't be pluralistic, or that other fields aren't. It's that political theorists don't seem to be able to agree about what constitutes quality work.

To take your example, most Americanists these days would agree, I think, that there's a place for rat choicers and quantoids, institutionalists and behaviorists, in the field. They also more or less agree about why that's the case, and how those wings of the field could or should be working together. AND they more or less agree, or at least are willing to trust each other, about who the best candidates are in each of those areas in a given year. What they fight about is priorities and resources. None of those things except the last is true in political theory.; 8:31 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: OK, very reasonable concern. But I don't think Americanists agree any more than we as to what constitutes good work. Perhaps it was only my grad dept., but the quants had the APD folks and visa versa. They had zero respect for each other. And, when they got tired of bashing each other, they turned their sights to us. But mostly, they had it in for each other. It was quite nasty--they would even flunk each other's grad students on the comps.

As for judging the value of other approaches in political theory, it is difficult. I do know what I like and what speaks to me. But simply because I cannot tell you who the best analytic folks are doesn't mean I don't find analytic work that appeals to me--and that the approach has value.; 8:57 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Right, APD is an outlier within American: most depts, including mine, which has a very good American program, don't have it at all.; 9:47 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Right, APD is an outlier within American: most depts, including mine, which has a very good American program, don't have it at all.; 9:51 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: RIght -- APD is an outlier within American: a lot of depts, including mine, which has a good American program, don't have it at all.; 9:59 PM, March 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.; 8:30 AM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: Sorry, the posting system was wonky last night.; 8:39 AM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: Simply not true that Americanists believe that other Americanists are legitimate. Name one mainstream R1 department (not Oregon, Mass or Albany) that has hired an APD person in recent years.

I can think of Northwestern. Any others?

As for other stuff, the behavior guys and the formal guys are in a death match.; 11:10 AM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: Princeton hired in APD

If you mean that behavioralists and formal theorists disagree severely, then yes. If you mean that people who study political behavior and people who work from formal theory approaches disagree severely, then not necessarily.; 11:40 AM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Name one mainstream R1 department (not Oregon, Mass or Albany) that has hired an APD person in recent years."

I think this kind of makes my point. Most Americanists, especially at elite schools, agree that APD work isn't worth taking seriously. I happen to disagree, but that's not the issue.; 2:19 PM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: I still agree with the broader point (that mainstream Americanists don't value APD, and that indicates broad agreement in the field rather than disagreement -- there is a "mainstream"), but I'm still thinking about the claim that no APD people have been hired in recent years. More examples: Michigan, Virginia, Berkeley, Penn.; 4:09 PM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: Part of the problem is that APD is a pretty nebulous category...; 5:02 PM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: Who did princeton hire in APD? (besides Whittington, which has been a while, and they didnt/wouldn't tenure Kersch); 8:20 PM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: Does anyone know whether any videos of lectures by or interviews with Rawls exist on line?; 9:16 PM, March 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^Paul Frymer; 12:41 AM, March 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: going back to Theory...
any opinions or inside info about Stanford's Theory program in the poli sci dept?
possible hires/lines?; 2:11 AM, March 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: I think disagreement about the best theory candidates on the market is being overplayed here. Many of the young assistants at good R1s had interest from other similar schools. They don't get huge numbers of offers because there just aren't lots of offers like this to get.

Recent people who had lots of interest from multiple top places: Rogers, Klausen, Lee, Pevnick, Landemore, and Stilz. There are others too. There just aren't enough jobs that even these people will collect many offers (or even necessarily get one good one). It's less because of disagreement about quality than lack of positions.; 12:34 PM, March 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: ...and by "interest" you mean...offers? interviews? short lists?; 4:18 PM, March 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: 9:16 - I have no idea about the existence of video footage of Rawls online. But I'd be interested in seeing it too, if there is any.

Your question prompted me to do a bit of googling, and I found an interview Rawls gave for the Harvard Review of Philosophy. No video, but very interesting.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hrp/issues/1991/Rawls.pdf; 9:58 AM, March 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: screw rawls.

its time for his ghost to disappear.

its been 39 yrs folks.

we need new stuff.

get over this old boring wasp.; 4:36 AM, March 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: You might as well ask for Hobbes to disappear. Not going to - and shouldn't - happen.; 8:03 AM, March 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ No caps--now THAT'S exciting! You're so transgressive--can I have your number?; 5:58 PM, March 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: What top schools are having disappointment placement seasons? (Princeton/Chicago?) What changes in people's perceptions of the top 10 this past year?; 7:30 PM, March 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Nothing changes in one year. Sample size is way too small to draw any worthwhile conclusions.; 12:06 AM, March 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ Could it be possible that people at schools with more resources are delaying going on the market?; 1:14 AM, March 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ They're foolish if they are. This ain't getting better any time soon.; 1:35 AM, March 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: about no caps...i wasnt being transgressive, i was just lazy.

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.; 3:43 AM, March 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: and a wasp is a wasp is a wasp. you are an idiot; 10:37 AM, April 01, 2010
Anonymous said...: you didn't capitalize "And", and you didn't place a period at the end of your second sentence.

lol

it boggles the mind why aholes correct people's writing in his meaningless blog as if it were a major publication lol

as if lack of caps reflected someone's intelligence lol

dorks; 5:44 PM, April 02, 2010
Anonymous said...: Idiot, I wasn't the one who complained about the caps and punctuation--only the mean-spirited "boring old wasp" line.; 12:02 AM, April 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: Wow. Talk about a late comeback. The equivalent to "The Jerk Store called, they're running out of you."; 11:20 AM, April 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: Anyone other than me underwhelmed by the theory offerings at WPSA this year?; 3:02 PM, April 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Several of the panels I saw were excellent. It would have been better if they'd had discussants, but since I didn't volunteer I'm not going to complain about that.

What were you looking for you didn't get? A general topic or approach? Or just better papers?; 7:42 PM, April 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: The panels I attended were a mixed bag, maybe a notch worse than previous years but about what I expect for this sort of conference. Of course, my panel was awesome.; 5:21 PM, April 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: the theory panels this year were noticeably worse than previous wpsa's. even more masturbatory bs than usual.

who's program chair next year?; 6:34 PM, April 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: How many panels does somebody have to attend at a conference in order to evaluate the conference as a whole? Is three enough? Six? Nine?; 3:28 PM, April 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Yeah, there were 80 theory panels, plus a bunch more in the environmental theory and interpretation sections. I seriously doubt anyone attended more than 10% of them. It's every bit as likely that the panels had a similar distribution of quality as usual, and you got unlucky.

If you only read 5-10 out of 80 student papers for each assignment, you couldn't draw any reasonable conclusions about whether the class as a whole is improving or not.; 7:55 PM, April 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: Does anyone know why the Foundations section website has become the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy homepage? Is the foundations page gone, or just hiding? Is Jacob Levy behind this somehow? Or have they merged?; 2:09 PM, April 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Is anyone getting lots of admin. pressure to adopt learning outcome assessments? In particular, people are pushing us to adopt pre-and post tests of core courses insuring students have mastered basic knowledge.

I am very skeptical. This looks like No Child Left Behind. If we are assessed on minimal knowledge, then the courses in time will be come basic skills courses.; 10:24 AM, April 10, 2010
Jacob T. Levy said...: "Does anyone know why the Foundations section website has become the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy homepage?... Is Jacob Levy behind this somehow?"

"Behind this?" I'm having trouble seeing what nefarious thing you're imagining.

For the past several years-- 6 or 7, probably-- I've held the domain name political-theory.org and let Foundations use it rent-free, while using political-theory.org/asplp for ASPLP.

Foundations had trouble finding someone to keep up its full website, and it was a burden on one Foundations officer who hadn't expected it to inherit that particular hassle, as well as on me years after I'd stepped aside from my formal role with the Foundations site. (This has all been discusse dopenly at Foundations business meetings.)

Last year the Foundations officers and Council (of which I'm not a member) to stop trying to maintain a complicated website and just have the APSA page that lists officers and prize committees and so on.

So, yes, I'm involved in this at all stages: I created the original Foundations website from scratch in the 90s, hosted its successor for free and kept stepping in to help it be maintained because I was reluctant to see it end, was behind the sharing arrangement between Foundations and ASPLP. I wasn't "behind" Foundations taking itself off the site, though-- that decision was reached entirely without my involvement.

Once the Foundations site came down, I opted to duplicate the ASPLP page on the front page rather than leaving it empty. No merger, and the old FPT website is gone, not moved somewhere else.; 10:11 AM, April 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Thanks. (That's more or less the kind of narrative I meant by "behind this", not anything nefarious.

I guess I should go to a foundations business meeting sometime.; 12:22 PM, April 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: pat on the back and on top of yer head Jake; 3:45 AM, April 13, 2010
Jacob T. Levy said...: ^^ Sorry that I gave a defensive and touchy reading to "behind." But, well, ^ . I've had occasional reason to be defensive here.; 2:19 PM, April 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: To the Admin (and others):

Aside from the personal attacks and the nonsensical posts that sometimes mar this website, there is a lot of useful professional information archived on this website, primarily in past threads. Is there any way to make this searchable and easily accessible? Every year or so, we go through similar discussions of presses, journals, review processes, tenure questions, etc. But these past conversations are hard to find. It would serve the subfield and the theory community well to have these resources searchable.; 11:48 AM, April 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Anyone heard from APT?; 1:39 PM, April 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Fwiw new US news rankings are out. Top 10 theory programs:

1 Harvard
Chicago
3 Princeton
4 Yale
5 Berkeley
6 Duke
7 Northwestern
8 Johns Hopkins
9 Columbia
10 UCLA
Notre Dame; 1:03 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: What do people think about the Review of Politics?

I am a newly-minted Ph.D. and I have a HPT piece that got rejected from Political Theory, and which I want to submit elsewhere. It consists of re-reading a canonical text, but it's not historical enough for HPT or JHI.

So my question:
- Does ROP publish non-Straussian HPT?
- How is ROP ranked compared to other second-tier journals (JOP, Polity, European Journal of PT)?; 2:21 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: USN only re-runs its survey every three years for liberal arts PhDs. In between it republishes the same results. This is an in between year-- results were new in 09.; 3:23 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ ROP is Staussian; 3:40 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: "So my question:
- Does ROP publish non-Straussian HPT?
- How is ROP ranked compared to other second-tier journals (JOP, Polity, European Journal of PT)?"

Others might have a different experience, but I'm not a Straussian and have given up trying to publish in ROP because my pieces were unceremoniously rejected for not satisfying what appeared to be Straussian criteria. For what it's worth, I subsequently published the rejected pieces in journals I thought superior to ROP.

This being stated, I do occasionally see pieces in ROP that don't strike me as obviously Straussian, so perhaps it's all the luck of the draw? It's not "Interpretation" or "Perspectives on Political Science."; 4:09 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: OP here.

Thanks. If I may ask, where did you place the pieces that ROP rejected? As I mentioned, I just finished my doctorate and am trying to find appropriate places in which to publish.

Also, what do you mean by It's not "Interpretation" or "Perspectives on Political Science."?; 5:23 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Thanks. If I may ask, where did you place the pieces that ROP rejected? As I mentioned, I just finished my doctorate and am trying to find appropriate places in which to publish."

I've had pieces subsequently accepted at JHI and HPT -- though from what you've said, your pieces may not work there. But certainly, I would consider the "big three," as well, which also publishes a fair amount of history of political thought.

"Also, what do you mean by It's not "Interpretation" or "Perspectives on Political Science"?"

Those are simply notoriously doctrinaire Straussian journals. To my mind, there is simply no chance of a non-Straussian publishing in one of those journals.; 6:06 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: My impression, for what it is worth, is that ROP is both better than and not as doctrinaire as "Straussian" outlets like Interpretations. I think the reviewing process at ROP can be idiosyncratic, which can sometimes mean hitting the Straussian wall, sometimes mean hitting some other wall, and sometimes mean going through with no obvious issues of that sort at all. You probably have low odds if you are writing against a position associated with people at Notre Dame or their immediate circle, however.; 9:46 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: ROP is like JHI and HPT: each is somehwhat unpredictable in terms of process and a little clubby, but each is ultimately solid. Also, the reviewers in each are more clearly stakeholders, in the sense they gave published on that topic for that journal, so it's harder to break new ground than say PT or APSR or JOP.

So sometimes its harder to publish in the 2nd tier HPT journals.; 11:51 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: stakeholders, in the sense they HAVE published on that topic for that journal, so it's harder to break new ground than say PT or APSR or JOP.; 11:52 PM, April 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: For what little it's worth, I haven't published in ROP, I am not a Straussian, and I've served as a reviewer there. (I found the process quite nice as a reviewer, but am not sure what it's like for a reviewee.)
I also, independently of that, generally think ROP is quite good, though it doesn't have the visibility/impact of PT or the "big three".; 5:50 PM, April 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: I've published in RoP and am not even close to being a Straussian. (In fact, I mostly do analytic work--though not in this case, obviously.) I didn't have any problems during the review process--and the only thing about my paper that was even remotely "Straussian" was a footnote on esotericism!

That being said, I was publishing on a canon thinker that the editors were not heavily invested in, so to speak. As others have noted, things might be different if they think they have more at stake. You'll just have to make a judgment call, perhaps in consultation with your advisors.; 6:00 PM, April 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm not a Straussian and review for RoP a lot. But I have not looked at the journal in years. I must say that, having recently looked at Perspectives, the review board is outrageous. This is supposed to be an institutional journal, not a Straussian clique.; 10:43 PM, April 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ I think you're confusing Perspectives on Politics (institutional journal of APSA, edited by Jeff Isaac, no discernable evidence of Straussianism on editorial board) with Perspectives on Political Science (unranked, largely unread Straussian-controlled journal).; 2:12 PM, April 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: Earlier, 6:06 referred to the "big three". What journals would be included here? APSR? AJPS? JOP? Polity? PRQ?; 3:11 PM, April 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: This is 10:43. Thanks, 2:12.
That's a relief.; 3:40 PM, April 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: Can anyone explain why both Perspectives on Political Science and Interpretation exist? They seem indistinguishable -- and pretty equally undistinguished.; 1:07 AM, April 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: My 2 cents...

RoP has been discussed here before in these terms: I think the best advice someone gave a while back was don't bother sending something that is blatantly anti-Straussian on a couple of specific thinkers (Plato, Machiavelli and maybe another couple) because they will likely send to Straussian reviewers who will kick it into touch. However, it has published a whole bunch of non-Straussian stuff in the last few years, including on canonical thinkers like Locke and Rousseau, so it's definitely worth a shot. Furthermore, the review process is so, so much more efficient and transparent than HPT, JHI or PT - usually between 4 and 6 reports in total, in less than three months. Finally, I don't think HPT, JHI and ROP should really be considered 2nd tier theory journals - the gap between them and the supposed top tier or APSR, PT and JOP is really illusory when you actually read the articles themselves, though obviously they count for far more in terms of reputation.; 10:06 AM, April 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^

I presume they exist because Straussians want to read what other Straussians write, and they also want a place to publish their work beyond ROP and the occasional hit in a general political science journal.

Straussians are strange birds, but in many ways they are just like the rest of us.; 12:33 PM, April 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: 10.06 is basically right.; 5:15 PM, April 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: "However, it has published a whole bunch of non-Straussian stuff in the last few years, including on canonical thinkers like Locke and Rousseau, so it's definitely worth a shot."

My memory may be faulty, but I'm not aware of any works on Rousseau published by non-Straussians in the past several years in ROP.; 6:18 PM, April 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: for some reason this story about historians and anonymous online trashing of rivals struck me as worth sharing here...; 12:04 PM, April 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: Any APT notifications yet? We are departing "mid April" in a few hours, after all....; 5:08 PM, April 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Very soon. The program committee is just finalizing the panels.; 10:12 PM, April 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: If I were a Straussian,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a Straussian man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy Straussian,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.; 12:09 PM, April 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^hilarious. Love it.; 3:51 PM, April 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: what's they faculty dynamics in Theory at Berkeley?
is there a tension between Bevir and Brown? or do they get along grandly.; 1:25 AM, April 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ More tension, than getting along grandly. But because they work in such different areas of scholarship it shouldn't really matter for grad students.; 3:17 PM, April 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: so there is no REAL issue?
such as resources/centers/funds/journals?
between them; 7:45 PM, April 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ More likely would be conflicts over admitting grad students and hiring junior faculty, although that is not so likely to happen now anytime soon.; 8:00 AM, April 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: So, after the APT rejection, I'm looking for a conference to attend in the Fall/Winter that's good for political theory. I hazily recall someone saying the Northeastern is a good theory conference, and it's in Boston, which I like. How is this conference for theory? Is it difficult to get in? Other good conferences for theory in the October--December time frame people can recommend?; 9:31 PM, April 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: I too got stung by APSA and APT rejections this year. Last year I tried Northeastern as a fallback and was pleasantly surprised. There was a lot of stuff going on in my area (Greeks) in particular. After that, the Southern is a decent option, I believe in January.; 10:19 PM, April 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Agreed. Looking over the NPSA programs for 2008 and 2007, there does seem to be a lot of ancient political theory. If I recall correctly, there were about 50 political theory panels at both conferences.; 4:02 PM, April 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: SPSA is very hit or miss, and depends a lot on who the chair is.

That being said, it's worth going when it's in NOLA.; 5:49 PM, April 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ It would be difficult to overstate the extent to which SPSA 2010 was a complete and utter waste of time.; 6:02 PM, April 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: SPSA was better in 09, when Dan O'Neill organized it.; 6:34 PM, April 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: When you say that the Sourthern was a complete waste of time, it makes me wonder what exactly consistutes a worthwhile conference. Do you generally come away from these things knowing more than when you got there? Are there usually eye opening or eye popping panels?; 9:54 PM, April 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ The theory panels were few and far between. Those that existed were on obscure topics. About half the theory/public law people there were ABDs from Claremont. There was an interesting sounding panel, but three of the four papers cancelled. The hotel was in the middle of sprawling suburban Atlanta, so you couldn't even slip out and go to Museums or whatever downtown ATL may have to offer. There were tons of no-shows because of the snow/cold snap. No one was around. I've been to (glancing at my CV) about 15 conferences, big and small. This was the most pointless on all fronts by a significant margin.; 12:11 AM, April 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Part of that - though only part - has to do with having a conference in Atlanta. Unless you have it in midtown, or perhaps Buckhead, it is not going to be in an interesting area. (Not that midtown or Buckhead are interesting, either.)

I think the SPSA should stick to New Orleans and Savannah, maybe Miami or Charleston.; 7:50 AM, April 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Section head for upcoming SPSA is James Stoner, FWIW.; 9:14 AM, April 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Having been a section organizer for multiple conferences (though not the Southern), I can tell you that the biggest factor affecting panel/paper quality is the quality of the submission pool. The organizer can do something to solicit submissions, and submissions will vary by location at some of the regionals, but if you really want to change what the Southern (or Midwest) looks like in theory then submit a proposal and get your friends to do the same.; 9:54 AM, April 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: You are a professor at a department with a top 15 PhD program, but little in the way of theory. Your graduate course is likely to be the only serious exposure your students (who will go on to get jobs at good departments) will have to political theory. What would you teach?

Note: there is no requirement that they take the course, and so making it useful to the students is a precondition for getting many students in the first place.; 10:38 AM, May 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: Huh, I was in a virtually identical situation. (And there can't be that many top-15 schools or so without a real theory program, so I wonder ...) I chose to teach democratic theory: some canonical texts, some contemporary work, organized thematically. The course drew primarily comparativists and a few Americanists. It worked pretty well; I emphasized topics that I thought would be valuable to them (e.g., legitimacy, constitutionalism, expertise). It means that you have to be prepared to draw out and discuss linkages with other fields (perhaps even assigning salient pieces in other subfields to point out the connections/the places in which theory can help to clarify concepts). It can be rewarding: with a little effort, you can learn a lot while producing political scientists who are appreciative of political theory.; 10:57 AM, May 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: Top-15 departments that have little by way of theory?

Stanford? MIT? NYU? Rochester? Wash U St. Louis? Ohio State?; 1:28 PM, May 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: I liked 10:57's answer.; 2:03 PM, May 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: You could also do something IR-ish, if that's your department's strong suit-- just war theory, democratic peace, global justice, Hobbes, etc. Or something theory-and-game-theory, if your tastes run that way. Or American political thought for Americanists who never read the Federalist Papers, or classics of social theory (Smith, Tocqueville, Marx) for comparativists.

Of the ranked top poli sci programs, a lot are thin on theory one way or another-- often they'll have good theory faculty (Michigan, UCSD) but inevitably the grad student population will be mostly non-theorists, so the theory faculty have to teach in the ways we're talking about here. Of the top-25 US News schools I'd guess that theorists teach mainly or entirely non-theory grad students at

Michigan
UCSD
MIT
UNC
Wash U (though may be changing)
Rochester
Madison (used to be different)
OSU
UIUC
TAMU
UC Davis; 2:18 PM, May 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ I suspect that's definitely not the case at UCSD, where theory is almost completely ghettoized. Most non-theory faculty would pretty strongly steer their students away from having anything to do with theory. (Gerry Mackie may be an exception).

Michigan seems to have a good group of theory students these days.; 2:07 AM, May 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: Re: 1:28

Lots of theory at Stanford these days.; 2:27 PM, May 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: Not knowing anything more about your top 15 dept, I would teach the nature, justification, and authority of democracy.

Possibilites:
Dahl, "Procedural Dem," Dem & Critics, Preface to Economic Dem
Young, Inclusion and Dem
C. Gould, Globalizing Dem and Human Rights
Barry, "Is Dem Special?"
Wollheim, "A Paradox in the Theory of Dem"
Arneson, "Dem Rights at National and Workplace Levels"
Hardin, "Public choice versus dem"
Christiano, "Social choice and dem"
Christiano, Rule of the Many
Estlund, Dem Authority
Cohen, "Delib and Dem Legitimacy"
Cohen, "Procedure and Substance in Delib Dem"
Mackie, Dem Defended; 3:06 PM, May 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: Moore's survey of political theorists just came out in the April edition of PS--extremely useful and interesting. The three responses to it, however, provide definitive evidence of why our subfield is going down the tubes: lots of bitching about the "normalizing" effect of surveys, the absence of female political theorists in the rankings, the possible use of this survey by enemies of political theory within political science (so maybe the survey shouldn't have been done at all), etc. Too much like your modal theory panel at WPSA for my taste.

Also note that Rawls got the most votes (279) for "Scholars Who Have Had the Greatest Impact on Political Theory in the Past 20 Years." Also note that this is greater than the combined vote (270) for the next two: Foucault and Habermas. This seems about right: Rawls > Foucault + Habermas. :-); 9:49 AM, May 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: I agree about the responses. Embarrassing.; 11:58 AM, May 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: Yep.; 6:49 PM, May 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: Hey, at least we got to see the phrase "Big Other" used in PS, albeit kind of randomly and arbitrarily.; 8:17 AM, May 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Yes "big Other" was kind of reflexive ("note to self: drop in phrase 'big Other'") but I thought JD raised some important, if obvious, questions. I also would have been much more interested in learning more about what people are teaching, what they regard as the business of "theory."; 10:43 AM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: I have a talented student with an uneven track record, who would like to get a PhD in political theory. He has demonstrated that, despite some moderate rough patches in the past, that he is absolutely capable of excellent work. But I think he'd make a better case by picking up an M.A. first, where he can compile a pristine two-year record and then move on. (Or if he doesn't, he can move on with his life in another direction.) Incidentally, his overall record at his undergraduate institution is good (about a 3.5) -- it's just not representative of his true abilities.

At any rate, is it bad advice to have him seek out an M.A. program (on the condition that it is funded, naturally)?

Further, could anyone recommend sound M.A. programs in theory that offer funding? His interests are fairly broad over the course of the history of political thought.

Thanks!; 12:37 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: I can't think of any MA programs that offer funding themselves.; 1:29 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: In addition to the concern about funding, there is also the question of extending a process that is already too long by an additional two years. Does this person really want to spend 10 years getting a degree that might not result in a job?; 3:40 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: My institution offers an MA with a possibility of funding, but I wouldn't recommend it.; 4:27 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: I highly recommend it. We take a number of students like the one you are describing, and many go on to get PhDs and law degrees. We have had students accepted at GW, UVA, Washington, Claremont and a host of University of California schools.

The problem is we have no funding for students. But, we have no funding for students, though the tuition is reasonable.; 5:53 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Back when I was first applying for grad school (over 10 years ago now), Virginia Tech had a MA program that had funding--they offered me 2 years of funding. I went to a PhD program instead (they were my backup plan if I didn't get into a good PhD program). They had Stephen White back then, but there are still some good theorists there. Not sure if they still have the funded MA, though.; 6:51 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Western Washington University has a small MA program and a couple of good young theorists. Ages ago, when I as briefly affiliated with the department, they typically offered most students partial funding (that is, 2/3 quarters of TAship each year.) Of course Washington's budget-pocolypse may have ended that.; 6:53 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Why not have the student apply to a mix of PhD (funded) and Masters (unfunded--I don't think there are such a thing as funded masters). If he gets funding in a big boy program, great, good for him, he should do it. But if he can't, go to the masters. Whatever money he has to shell out now will more than be made up for later once he leverages the MA to get into a funded PhD program.

You could also point him towards a one year program like MAPSS.; 8:57 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Agreed. A 3.5 is not great, but neither is it prohibitive if the other signs are very good. He should at least try.; 10:37 PM, May 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: The Canadian theory schools-- Toronto, McGill, UBC, Queen's-- all have some funding for MA students. Minimum of TAships and RAships, maximum of fellowships.; 11:29 AM, May 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Chicago's MAPSS program does offer funding to some students, although I don't know whether it's full or partial, or how many students get it.; 9:44 AM, May 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: They offer partial funding to a large number of students, but that partial is most often 1/4 to 1/2 (a handful of students receive more than this, but my understanding is this is rare). Given the remaining tuition and need for a year's worth of living expenses, most students end up taking out substantial loans.; 10:13 PM, May 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: Toronto does not fund MA students.; 5:36 PM, May 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: so what is wrong with the PS survey of political theorists??

I dont see any issue; 11:49 PM, May 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: Not even the ranking of PhD programs in political theory from colleges that don't offer PhDs?; 8:49 AM, May 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: Folks,
John Protevi, from LSU, and I have just created a petition for an
academic boycott of Middlesex University until it reinstates the
philosophy program there. Most of you are familiar with the background
of the issue, but for more detail, here's the website of those seeking
reinstatement:

http://savemdxphil.com/

I know many of you well, others less well. Please excuse the intrusion of
this mass email, but I am sure all of you recognize the urgency and the
stakes (for philosophy in particular and universities in general) of what
is happening at Middlesex.

Here's the petition. Please spread it as far and as widely as possible,
both inside and outside philosophy. The faster we get press on this, the
more likely the chances of reinstatement.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/academic-boycott-of-middlesex-university.html

or if this link is broken:
http://tinyurl.com/35j8e2l

Thanks much for your efforts.

Sincerely,
Todd May; 4:44 PM, May 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: Has Foundations announced their book award winners yet?; 7:10 PM, May 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: No.; 3:29 PM, May 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: When do they?; 5:57 PM, May 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: Taditionally, Foundations makes their decisions in the early summer. I am not sure if there is an official means for notifying winners. But their identities are made public in the newsletter, which generally comes out in July.; 9:44 PM, May 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: Here's a question for those who have gone up for tenure recently: what databases did you use (apart from JSTOR and Google) to find citations of your work?; 6:01 PM, June 02, 2010
Anonymous said...: Use Thomson Scientific's Web of Science or Scopus. JSTOR has a rolling wall, so you won't pick up recent citations.; 10:27 PM, June 03, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Use Thomson Scientific's Web of Science or Scopus. JSTOR has a rolling wall, so you won't pick up recent citations."

Unfortunately, I can't say that the SSCI is any better than Google Scholar. In fact, it's clearly worse in my limited experience, missing most all known citations. But maybe I don't know how to use it very well.

My advice: contact your reference librarian and get his/her help with this task. This is what they're paid to do.; 11:42 AM, June 04, 2010
Anonymous said...: Dear political theorists,

I don't care about your present location and summer plans, even if you have a clever way of telling me about them.; 8:58 AM, June 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Amen. (Also, we learned that Bill Connolly is not as witty as he is insightful.); 9:59 AM, June 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Dear political theorists,

I don't care about your present location and summer plans, even if you have a clever way of telling me about them."

What does that even mean?; 6:19 PM, June 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: Over the past 4 days or so, there's been a flood of e-mail on the Foundations e-mail list. It started with our older and less-e-mail-literate colleagues hitting reply to the list about being on the wrong list, or "take me off the list," or "who are you people?" But a couple of the accidental repliers who thought they were replying just to one person started talking about where they were/ what they were doing. Then a few people decided that this meant we'd accidentally created a Community.

And then it became e-mail after e-mail of people supplying facebook-status-update-like notes on their summer travel plans, usually using the word "biopolitics" for no good reason.; 8:24 PM, June 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: It means that you are lucky you are not getting a bunch of tiresome emails. Be thankful you are not on the list.; 8:25 PM, June 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ When you actually explain it like that, it somehow seems even lamer than it did in real time.; 9:11 PM, June 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: well at least it finally stopped.; 9:21 PM, June 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^^^ Small addendum: Some of them also used "governmentality."; 8:33 AM, June 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: What's with this whole biopolitics thing, anyway?; 9:02 AM, June 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Foucault...politics as the regulation of life processes. Populations, sex, health, movement, fear, etc.; 11:19 AM, June 08, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Also, we learned that Bill Connolly is not as witty as he is insightful."

Those of us who never found Connolly particularly insightful learned that he is also not especially witty.; 8:49 AM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Not that that sounds enticing, but how do you subscribe to the list? Can't seem to find anything on the Foundations site, which is hosed.; 10:44 AM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: You subscribe by paying Foundations dues with your annual APSA membership.

Having written that, I suddenly feel tempted not to renew my dues this year.; 10:56 AM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: I've paid Foundation dues for the last couple of years but have never been added to the listserve. Aside from this recent kerfuffle, does anything of interest ever happen on it?; 10:58 AM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Not that I've ever seen. You do get the end-of-year "here's what happened on the job market this year" email/newsletter, but most if not all of that info has already been posted here, and the rest will be shortly after the email goes out. Oh, and that Wendy Brown/Anne Norton "let's save Political Theory" letter went to the Foundations list, but that was quickly posted here too. So maybe 10:56 is right, this could be an easy way to save ten bucks.

Anyone from Foundations want to defend its relevance?; 12:45 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ For a while, it looked like foundations was going to move towards an on-line review publication, akin to the "Law and Courts Book Review" which would have been cool, and worth supporting with my $$. Now that the website has been essentially abandoned, I'm not at all clear what my 10 dollars is doing. At some point in the next few years, if I continue to see no demonstrable product from foundations, I may consider spending that 10 dollars elsewhere--perhaps donating it to APT, which has done a lot more for the political theory community than foundations in the last decade, and seems to have quite a bit more vibrancy.; 3:17 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Your $10 pays for the annual reception and the Foundations prizes. That's all it ever paid for; the website wasn't supported by the budget.; 3:42 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Well, I've never won a Foundations award, and I've definitely never gotten ten bucks worth of cheese & crackers at the reception, so I guess that answers my question. APT it is.; 4:31 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Maybe if the reception was ever in a room that you could actually get into...; 4:32 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Aren't the awards endowed?; 4:38 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Ah yes, I forgot about the reception--probably because Foundations never accepts my paper proposals, so I can't get departmental funding to transport me to APSA, where I could skip lunch in an effort to be hungry enough to eat ten dollars worth of hors d'oeuvres.; 6:46 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Seriously, does Foundations do anything worthwhile? I guess I never stopped to think about it. I'm ready to hear an argument if anyone has one.; 9:27 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: I believe the Easton Prize is the only one of the three Foundations prizes that has an endowment.

Of course, it's also the only one that's *awarded* every year-- the first book prize wasn't given in '08, and according to this site the paper prize hasn't been awarded since '06.; 10:25 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: So, ten dollars well not-spent. I guess they'll double the prize next year?; 10:43 PM, June 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: Is anyone willing to say yet why no first book award was given in 2008? There were some very good books that year.; 12:59 AM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: The committee gets one book per press. While there were a lot of good books, as usual they were concentrated at a few presses. Imagine that one press sends a book that one member of the committee hates on methodological grounds, one press has a nonspecialist staffer pick the nominated book and they just pick one that isn't as good as the others on the press' list, etc. It's easy for a lot of excellent books not to get before the committee's eyes at all.; 7:24 AM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Congratulations to Samantha Frost - she seems to be the latest 1st book award winner. Was that just announced?; 9:50 AM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: No-- she won last year. The dates on the list are dates of award. This year's winners haven't been announced.; 11:40 AM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Was that before or after she was Miss Australia?; 12:04 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Seriously, does Foundations do anything worthwhile? I guess I never stopped to think about it. I'm ready to hear an argument if anyone has one."

chirp, chirp...; 12:18 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Doesn't it organize the APSA panels?; 12:37 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Yes, how could I forget? Foundations has rejected my proposals a bazillion times.; 1:32 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: I guess that someone from Foundations probably picks the person or people who put together the panels for APSA. But there are several other APSA theory sections, none of which collect dues. And needless to say section organizers don't get paid (I've been one, though not for Foundations). So that's hardly a raison d'etre.; 2:06 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm somehow always rejected by Foundations (and then sit there and listen to the complaints at the business meeting that there weren't papers for the paper prize), I've never won a prize, and I haven't been particularly thrilled with the political choices (like the Penn State letter) or the organizational choices (the encyclopedia) that the section has made in the last few years.

But I still pay my dues. Foundations is the only organized institutional voice for theory within APSA, and one of the few things it can say on its own behalf is that it's one of the largest sections-- maybe the largest if you don't count sections whose membership dues also bring a journal subscription. I'd rather that there be that one signal within APSA that there are lots of theorists and they're active and committed to the profession. APT or CSPT or ASPLP can't duplicate that intra-APSA effect.; 2:35 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Foundations is the only organized institutional voice for theory within APSA, and one of the few things it can say on its own behalf is that it's one of the largest sections."

That's some voice.; 7:41 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Yes, and when I "speak out", as my students say, I'd like to have a dues paying organization (full of summer lovin' weirdos who hate their rich students parents) behind me.; 11:35 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: cuz' I hate the way they drive suv's to the eastern shore.........; 11:37 PM, June 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: What exactly are people worried that their $10 is NOT getting them??; 9:04 AM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: I think the "worry," so far unrefuted, is that it's basically getting us nothing except for an overcrowded reception and awards that aren't even given half the time.; 9:32 AM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: And a "voice" within APSA. Sounds about $10 worth (of your department's money) to me.; 9:52 AM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Can you explain what it means to have a "voice" within APSA? What voice does Foundations give us collectively that we don't already have individually? What table does it give us a seat at? What tangible results have we seen?; 11:06 AM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: I have to admit that I'm not currently a dues-paying member of Foundations. I pay dues to a few other sections of APSA, but I dropped Foundations. I wonder whether anyone here doing the complaining about Foundations ever attends the business meeting? Hears the treasurer's report? In my experience in other sections, you can get some sense from the business meeting as to where dues go by listening to the public presentation of the treasurer's report (you can get a more detailed sense by actually talking to the treasurer -- I've been on executive committees of other sections). Some sections are more responsive than others on how money gets spent, but funding awards and receptions is pretty standard -- and probably not the whole budget.; 12:11 PM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: I've been to many foundations business meetings. The dues go to pay for the awards and the reception.

And there's an annual discussion of how costly it is to have the reception, how much the hotels charge in mandatory service fees, and how expensive shrimp are.

The encyclopedia is allegedly going to make the section rich beyond our wildest imaginings. Of course, it will also directly compete with Sage's, and Sage (through PT) currently cosponsors the reception, so that might not turn out as intended.; 12:18 PM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: $10 is relatively cheap, but I'd be surprised if the reception and awards really do eat up all of that. Other sections don't spend all of their budgets (with comparable dues) on those expenses. I wonder what the expenses associated with the newsletter are? Could be steep. I suspect they pay for a lunch or something for the executive committee, though hopefully that isn't too expensive.; 1:15 PM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: No expenses for the newsletter now that it's electronic.

700 members, $7000 budget. 2 prizes = $1000.

6 grand doesn't seem at all unlikely to me as a cost for the reception. I estimate there are 250-300 people at that thing, and Foundations does tend to order a lot of expensive food by conference-reception standards.; 2:12 PM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Discussion question from the other blog: did you ever have a mentor you could ask about professional tactics and strategy and presentation-- not the same as an advisor you could ask about big ideas? Someone who helped you pick journals to submit to, or presses to submit to, or who edited your CV or tenure file or whatever? Did you have one as a grad student? as junior faculty? Both? neither?

Those of you who had one: do you think it mattered?; 4:41 PM, June 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Yes. Yes.

Of course, it helps.; 7:34 AM, June 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: It's very important to have someone who can show you the ropes, both professionally in general and at wherever you are hired. For the latter, it need not be a political theorist. For the former, if there is no one at your new place, if you have a good relationship with your advisors, you should ask them for advice on journals, etc.; 9:45 PM, June 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: I had the dubious honor of arranging catering for the Foundations receptions for a couple of years. It is incredibly expensive and, as one of the above posts has gathered, takes up most of the annual budget. It is not so much that the food itelf is expensive, but the hotels tack on exhorbitant surcharges. Everything ends up costing around twice as much as it should.; 9:48 PM, June 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Well my experience over the last several years has been that the room is so small that you can't even get in -- people end up hanging out in the hallways. So this really sounds like a lose-lose.; 10:16 PM, June 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: any info on what Stanford is looking for?; 9:01 PM, June 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ You.; 9:42 AM, June 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: What is Stanford looking for? I have no inside information, but in reference to frequent discussions about where one should go to grad school, what are the odds that Stanford will hire someone who does not come from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or maybe Chicago?; 6:48 PM, June 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Small. Who would YOU hire?; 7:08 PM, June 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: Definitely not you, even if are from Haavaad. I'm sorry, that was mean. You are so superior.; 7:19 PM, June 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: Congrats to Jeff Green for winning the first book award this year for Eyes of the People.; 9:23 AM, June 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: congratulations.

But is it OK in your bio to describe your own book this way: it "pursues a novel model of democracy that, unlike dominant paradigms, understands the everyday citizen primarily as a spectator of politics rather than as a decision-maker."

This is an honest question, from someone who is tenured and has published a book. Isnt "novel" a little much?; 10:04 PM, June 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: I guess it depends whether your understanding of what the "dominant paradigm" is shaped by what most people actually believe or what most political theorists write about. Haven't read the book though.; 10:07 PM, June 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ hmmm ... I think you missed the point.; 7:49 AM, June 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: I did? The quoted synopsis suggests that it's novel to portray citizens as spectators rather than decision-makers. I think that most ordinary people probably already think of themselves that way. Much of the political theory literature argues otherwise. So it depends whose "paradigm" you're referring to.; 11:58 AM, June 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: Congratulations to George Shulman, whose 2008 book AMERICAN PROPHECY just won the David Easton Award!; 7:06 PM, June 30, 2010

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Political theory and public law job market

8/01/2010

General Discussion 3/10-??

433 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts