Political theory and public law job market: 2010-11 Prospective Graduate Students Post #1

8/07/2010

2010-11 Prospective Graduate Students Post #1

For: Prospective grad students in political theory/philosophy to ask questions about different programs, different specializations, and anything else that might come to mind.

Please note: As has been observed in previous iterations of this topic, it is impossible for this conversation NOT to turn into a comparative discussion of different programs and, thus, the chance that there will be uncivil/unhelpful replies is high. In order to keep the discussion on point, I will moderate with a heavy hand. Personal attacks and unsubstantiated, throwaway criticism of a program or approach will be deleted.

701 Comments:

Anonymous said...: very vague question...regarding the top 15 programs, how large (generally) is the applicant pool, and how many applicants are admitted?; 1:20 PM, August 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: That question isn't vague at all--it's quite specific.

I expect most of the top schools have between 300-600 applicants. They probably admit about 7-10% of them.; 2:13 PM, August 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: That obviously is not the case for theory applicants in particular, which constitute a much smaller pool.; 2:27 PM, August 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: At most schools with good theory programs, applicants in theory are overrepresented in the pool relative to the accepted students. Ratchet those percentages down a bit for theory.; 3:19 PM, August 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: Sample data from good theory program: total applicant pool 411, theory pool 112 (27%), admitted 5.6% of total and 4.4% of theorists.; 2:06 PM, August 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: admitted or enrolled?; 4:57 PM, August 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Are those Northwestern's statistics?

As to the question, I think the rate of 4-5 percent is accurate for top schools. After that, it probably increases dramatically.; 11:34 PM, August 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ admitted. ^ no.; 12:44 PM, August 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Two questions. Are there any second tier schools that are known for being good in Continental Thought, but particularly Critical Theory?
How friendly/unfriendly is critical theory to an application as a potential specialization (does it set you apart, or does it further pigeonhole you into a niche?); 6:32 PM, August 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Cornell and The New School come to mind right away, for not-top-ten-but-still-great programs that can cater to critical and continental thought.

My thought on c/c applications is: make your research interests clear, but don't pigeonhole yourself. You should be specific enough about your interests to let the committee know what you want to study, but vague enough not to insult anyone or make yourself look insular or stubborn. But departments know what they specialize in, and you won't be surprising anyone if you say "i want to study critical theory at Northwestern/Hopkins/Cornell."

Since there is alot of bad c/c theory out there, there is also alot of oppurtunity to make yourself look like a decent potential scholar by not falling for the classic trip-ups (i.e., jumbled language, drifting interests, projects better off in a humanities department). If you avoid problems such as these, and are able to coherently articulate your interests, you may put yourself in a better position by being specific rather than vague.; 8:57 PM, August 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: I served on a search committee (as a graduate student, and the only "theorist" on the committee) and the 4 faculty members deferred to me on borderline theory applicants a bit more than I would have expected.

Critical/Continental types are a majority of our graduate students and faculty, so we (and myself personally) were certainly open to good students. One thing that often became a bit of a sticking point, I'm afraid, was the personal statement. Amongst these students, some of them with sterling records overall, there was an unfortunate tendency to string together a bunch of annoying buzzwords where a statement of research interests should have been. When I made the case for some of these applicants, I was asked to explain what all this stuff about the intersection of postmodern subjectivities and biopolitics actually meant, and sometimes I really couldn't give them a very persuasive answer.

It's hard because often by the time you graduate you're just getting the hang of using that language, and you're not yet very good at doing with specificity and clarity (it doesn't help that some of our leading scholars aren't very good at that either, but that's a rather different topic altogether). This was certainly the case with me--looking back at my own work from my first semester of graduate school, it was embarrassingly jargon-filled nonsense. But I learned to use the language well and effectively in the next year or so.

So, upshot: I suspect critical/continental students would do well to make sure their statement of research interests is clear and precise and connected as much as possible to actual politics. Show it not only to your theory profs, but your non-theory professors as well. Even if it doesn't make the difference in your applications, the sooner you learn to do this in your career, the better off you'll be.; 12:35 AM, August 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: "an unfortunate tendency to string together a bunch of annoying buzzwords where a statement of research interests should have been."

gee, I wonder where they picked that up...; 9:55 AM, August 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: A couple more questions.

I'll dispense with the bogus hypotheticals for these. As a student who languished in advertising for a year, and then tried my hand at languages, I didn't really discover that I liked and was good at political theory until my third year started. After that, I was at or above 3.75 (out of 4.0) the last four semesters gpa-wise.

First, though it would obviously vary from institution to institution, how important a role do measurables like GPA, and GRE play in the evaluation of an applicant compared to the more intangible aspects like personal statements/statement of research interests, recommendation letters and writing samples play ? Are numbers merely used to narrow the field?

Second, for PhD aspirants, would it be advantageous to do a master's program first, and then apply for a PhD program rather than attempting to make the jump with only a bachelor's?

Along the same lines, would it be better for a student to go to a midtier theory program (where getting in isn't a 5% chance) , or go through a master's program and then take another crack at applying to the higher tiers?; 4:33 PM, August 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: (1) GPS plays a big role in winnowing the field in my experience, as you suggest. It's possible to explain away a sub-par overall GPA as you have here in your personal statement, but even so it's likely to hurt your chances at some places.

(2) Depends what you mean by advantageous. On the one hand, assuming you do well it can definitely help you to wipe out whatever blemishes are on your undergraduate record, develop a stronger writing sample and more focused interests, etc. And you might learn something. On the other hand, it's generally quite expensive, and the payoff from that investment is very uncertain, to say the least -- even if you do get into a top Ph.D. program.

(3) The latter, with the big caveat mentioned in (2).; 10:01 PM, August 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ GPA, not GPS, obv. That would be a weird way to winnow the field -- gives a new meaning to "directional university."; 10:02 PM, August 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: Depending on your letters and your undergrad institution, you might be able to get into a decent PHD program without an MA. It couldn't hurt to try.

An MA might make sense if there is a decent program that you can get for in-state tuition. Otherwise, do not go into debt for an MA because the PHD will keep you in borderline poverty for the next 10 years and is no guarantee of a job at the other end.; 9:06 AM, August 18, 2010
Anonymous said...: @6:32 PM, August 16, 2010

Rutgers, Cornell & Bronner are both critical theorists...; 1:37 PM, August 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: At the levels we are discussing, I suspect percentages are misleading. More accurately, most top programs set a number of theorists they will accept with a sense of how many of those will choose another school. Depending on past years, that number could be something like three. Or six. So percentages don't tell the whole story -- what you really want it to be one of those five people.; 11:12 AM, August 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: It should be said that there are people working in the fields of "postmodern" political theory and critical theory who are crystal clear prose stylists: Jane Bennett, Wendy Brown, and Jason Frank all come to mind. Occasionally Brown uses key terms (e.g., democracy) in an underspecified way, and I consider that to be a weakness in her generally excellent and interesting work. But I still think she's a good example of someone working in a field with a reputation for obscure, jargon-filled prose who goes out of her way to write clearly and beautifully (and I'm a liberal, BTW).; 12:02 PM, August 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Bonnie Honig, William Connolly, Linda Zerilli - I think rigor and clarity are becoming the norm for Po-Mo thought, and so the substantive issues and views are becoming the major difference between po-mo theorists and those in other traditions.; 9:27 AM, August 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: did you just use connolly and rigor in the same sentence?

uhh, ok, right.; 10:29 AM, August 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ ROTFL; 5:38 PM, August 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: In fairness, I don't think "rigor" is a value those kinds of writers particularly aspire to, although all of them write perfectly clearly. This myth of a jargon-filled, incomprehensible, po-mo writer is more accurate in comp lit or the other cultural studies fields.; 2:46 PM, August 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: Oh please!!! Can someone please reproduce the passages from Wendy Brown's work that were posted on the other site?! Incomprehensible drivel.

And Connolly, Honig, Dean, etc are even worse. Yuck.; 7:43 AM, August 25, 2010
Anonymous said...: Oh please - this sounds like a canned response. Dean is nowhere near the level of Connolly and Honig. Personally, I feel like bennett and connolly's work can get pretty far afield, though it is all very good, whereas honig and brown usually investigate philosophical questions that have direct bearing on contemporay political theory and make these links explicit and forceful. Dean is off writing about blogs, etc. Butler is not a political theorist.; 1:03 PM, August 25, 2010
Anonymous said...: There's enough of this discussion on the other board. Can we go back to being relevant and useful?; 1:47 PM, August 25, 2010
Anonymous said...: Yeah! As "relevant and useful" as the work of Brown, Connolly, Honig, and Dean is for the study of politics....; 6:55 AM, August 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Who let the jackass out? Go back to the other site and hang out there with the other ignornat morons.; 3:40 PM, August 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm interested in UVA, any thoughts? They seem like they have a good collection of theorists.; 8:01 AM, September 02, 2010
Anonymous said...: This has been asked before, but yes, UVA is regarded as a solid "up and coming" program. They have had a couple of good placements in recent years. I have a friend in the program who speaks very highly of his experience.

That said, you are taking a risk in pursuing a political theory PHD, and compounding the risk by going outside of the Harvard- Princeton-Berkeley-Chicago tier.

Keep in mind also that a program like UVA can be devastated if one of their senior theorists leaves.; 9:30 AM, September 02, 2010
Anonymous said...: any program can be devastated if a top senior theorist leaves. even if berkeley belonged in that group before (which i doubt), the departure of brown means that it certainly doesn't anymore.

uva is a good program, with a group of theorists with unusually diverse interests. you could do much worse, but it'd be hard to do much better.; 9:39 AM, September 02, 2010
Anonymous said...: A few questions from a prospective grad school applicant:

First, what is the impact, if any, of taking a year off between undergrad and grad application on your chances of being accepted and/or obtaining a fellowship? Do they like to see you do certain things with your time off, or could they care less?

Second, how frequently are fellowships awarded? I know the size of the fellowship is often based on your GRE score, but is this also the case for getting any package at all?; 11:59 AM, September 09, 2010
Anonymous said...: 1. Doesn't matter.

2. Totally depends on the school

Sorry!; 12:39 AM, September 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Is it better to have three very strong letters from the professors with whom you took the most classes, or is it better to give up one of those letters for someone with a better title (i.e. president of your college or city official you interned with versus your academic advisor with whom you took 60 credit hours); 12:15 PM, September 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^I doubt you'd get a strong letter by asking the president of your college. The city official might be a good idea, depending on how well he or she knows you and your work, and how relevant the internship is to graduate study in political theory. If you wrote a thesis or worked as a research assistant for someone, then you should have your advisor write for you.

Honestly, though, focus on studying for the GRE. Unfortunately your score will function as a weeding out mechanism at the best programs, even if your qualitative materials are very strong. Verbal is obviously very important in political theory, but having a good math score as well will help distinguish you from other applicants.; 1:07 PM, September 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Unless you actually worked in the president's office in some capacity, I'd find a letter from a college president to be completely bizarre. Your audience is a committee of faculty. I would go with letters from faculty, preferably in political science, and the more senior/famous the better.; 1:37 PM, September 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Dear Political Philosophers,

What insights can you lend for the following little-discussed Ph.D. programs: Northern Illinois, Baylor, UNC, Penn, USC. I am applying to these schools and need to know if a job is a realistic option for me upon graduation.; 1:33 PM, September 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: I think if you did good work coming out of Penn or UNC, you'd have a decent chance of getting a shot. With the other programs, you'd probably have to do exceptional work to get a good job.; 4:50 PM, September 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^oops, should read "decent chance of getting a job."; 4:50 PM, September 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: Theory at Baylor and Northern Illinois are fully controlled by Straussians. If you're not fully committed to the strange, strange world of Straussian theory, you shouldn't consider them. As far as placement--Straussians coming out of Baylor occasionally land jobs at minor Straussian liberal arts colleges. I'm not aware of a Northern Illinois theory student with an actual job, but I'm not particularly tied into Straussian circles.

I can't think of a student, or indeed a faculty member in political theory at USC.; 7:57 PM, September 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: Which is more attractive/desirable to see in a candidate for graduate school: published work in an undergrad-specific journal or presentations at conferences?; 11:54 AM, September 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Neither. I've served on admissions committees, we generally ignore stuff like that.; 12:25 PM, September 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: Anyone any ideas on decent political science departments where there are people doing work related to Bourdieu/subaltern studies/empowerment?; 4:35 AM, September 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Those areas aren't my forte, but off the top of my head I would suggest Northwestern, Chicago, and UCLA. I would have said Berkeley but Brown & Butler are rumored to be leaving to Columbia (though it's not clear that you should base an application to Columbia on that rumor). I would also avoid Hopkins, which has a reputation for continental approaches, because Connolly is more or less retired.

If you're not wedded to political science, the Duke literature program may be a good option for you to consider.

A bit further down the reputational ladder, you might consider UMass, CUNY grad center, and the New School (though you are not likely to get funding from the New School or CUNY).; 10:02 AM, September 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: In regards to undergraduate publications and presentations: neither is going to make an application, but either can contribute to an overall sense that the applicant is serious about pursuing an academic career.; 10:26 AM, September 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: To the poster above, here is information on Baylor's recent placements:

http://www.baylor.edu/political_science/index.php?id=73493; 12:01 PM, September 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: Is Larmore available to poli sci students at Brown?

In general, how would people rate Brown as a place to do a PhD in PT?; 4:15 PM, September 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: >Is Larmore available to poli sci students at Brown?

More or less depending on the kind of work you do, but, generally, yes

>In general, how would people rate Brown as a place >to do a PhD in PT?

You will get noticed coming out of Brown. Its a small program without a long track-record in placement.

BUT the theorists there are very well known, well respected and well liked by other theorists throughout the discipline.

One could do very well there.; 6:16 AM, September 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^Is this why I am having trouble finding average GRE scores for masters/PhD applicants at Brown?; 9:20 AM, September 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: So are Brown and Butler leaving or not? They're still at Berkeley, it looks like, but should students who want to work with them apply there?; 12:33 AM, September 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ They're not leaving. I can't believe how many people fell for that BS; 6:07 AM, September 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^Over on the senior thread, the claim is that they would leave next year. I don't think this should stop you from applying, but I would think carefully before accepting an offer, especially over another good school.; 6:45 AM, September 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: you should certainly still apply to berkeley, just as you should still and always apply widely. IF you get in, THEN you can ask brown herself whether or not she is staying.

take note, if the rumors turn out not to be false, berkeley's program may not support critical and continental thought at the level that is used to. consider also chicago or northwestern, for example, two programs whose prominence in those fields are in little risk of decline.; 9:28 AM, September 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: New NRC rankings:

1 1-3 Harvard University Government
2 1-3 University of California-Berkeley Political Science
3 2-5 Columbia University in the City of New York Political Science
4 3-7 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Political Science
5 2-9 Stanford University Political Science
6 4-8 Yale University Political Science
7 5-12 New York University Politics
8 6-17 Duke University Political Science
9 7-16 Princeton University Politics
10 8-17 University of California-Los Angeles Political Science
11 6-20 University of California-San Diego Political Science
12 7-20 Ohio State University-Main Campus Political Science
13 8-19 University of Chicago Political Science
14 8-18 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Political Science
15 9-22 University of Maryland-College Park Government and Politics
16 10-22 University of Wisconsin-Madison Political Science
17 12-27 Cornell University Government
18 11-30 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Political Science
19 10-38 University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus Political Science
20 12-27 University of Southern California Politics and International Relation; 10:26 PM, September 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ totally useless; 11:01 PM, September 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: Quick question: I just wanted outside input. I have some good ideas of programs I see as strong in quality feminist theory, but are there some that stand out to a general blog audience more than others? I just want to see if other people's impressions match my own. Thanks!; 11:52 PM, September 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ A 5 second trip to their website would answer this question, but i'm lazy, so I'll just throw it out there. I think I remember seeing quite a few feminists onboard at Penn. Where's Butler at? Columbia? Go there. Otherwise I'd go to a giant 31 flavors department - Toronto, UCLA, Michigan, Texas - and serve yourself.; 12:16 AM, September 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^The above poster is right about Penn (Hirschmann, Norton), and if the Brown/Butler rumor turns out to be true, then Columbia will also be a good place (although you should anticipate only being able to work with Brown, not Butler). UCLA would be a good place (Pateman, McClure), although I am not confident about the other departments listed for feminist theory (at Michigan you'd have Saxenhouse, sure, but it's generally a weaker theory program and more a place for empirical poli sci, and at Texas I think you would *not* find a hospitable climate for feminism). To that list I'd add Northwestern, maybe Chicago considering Zerilli's move there, UNC, and the New School (though don't expect funding there). In general, though, you should weigh the strength of these programs in feminist theory against their overall strength--the latter is probably more important in helping you get a job.

If your main interest is feminist theory, you might also consider applying to women's studies programs, though if your ultimate goal is to teach in a political science department then this is probably not the best route.; 8:25 AM, September 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Why should someone "anticipate only being able to work with Brown, not Butler"?; 10:31 AM, September 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^I was suggesting that it's reasonable to expect, given her superstar status, that Butler doesn't spend a lot of time working with grad students and advising dissertations (although she may teach classes, honestly I don't know). Brown is also a superstar, so maybe the same should apply to her, but I know of people coming out of Berkeley whom she's advised. Perhaps I'm wrong about Butler, but absent contrary evidence, I think it's safe to assume she's relatively inaccessible (as are a lot of superstars, like Sandel at Harvard, for example).

Anyway, until the dust settles on the question of where Brown and Butler are going next year, I think it's wise to be cautious about making big plans involving them. You might apply to both Berkeley and Columbia, though, in hopes of ending up wherever they are.; 10:39 AM, September 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^Also, it's unclear what department at Columbia will house Brown and Butler. At Berkeley, they're in different departments, and I would assume that Brown is more accessible to graduate students in political science. Obviously you can take classes in any department and put whoever you want on your committee, but generally speaking it's easier to cultivate a relationship with faculty in your home department.

At any rate, it may be the case that Butler is involved in many dissertations, but I rather doubt that she's the kind of person you can pin down for a cup of coffee every few weeks.; 10:43 AM, September 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: Any prospective graduate students should be aware that the rumor that Brown and Butler are potentially moving to Columbia has absolutely no basis in reality. I was concocted by a an anonymous fabulist on internet rumor sites. However, unlike most made-up false rumors about senior faculty movement, this one struck a particularly wide and deep reserve of credulity. I'm not sure why that happened, but I am very sure the gullibility of the above two posters doesn't make it any more true.; 1:14 PM, September 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Stage One: Denial.; 3:46 PM, September 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ You confuse denial with actual knowledge of the situation. Obviously, I'm just as anonymous as the idiots who promote this false rumor, so there's no particular reason I should trusted here. But listen--they're not moving. I'm not an interested party--I don't care what they do--but I can say with absolute certainty that the B's are not planning a move to Columbia or anywhere else for several years, if ever.; 10:12 PM, September 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: The impression I am getting from the experienced parties on this blog is, essentially, go big or don't go at all. Am I correct in saying that the general attitude, at least among those here and at most among the entire political theory community, is to either attend a top-tier program or you might as well not even go into a graduate program?; 1:16 PM, October 03, 2010
Anonymous said...: What is Boston College's political theory program's reputation?; 2:26 PM, October 03, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Straussian. Within those circles, though, I understand it's fairly well-regarded. You'd better like Rousseau though.; 4:59 PM, October 03, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Who doesn't like a little amour-propre every now and again?; 5:14 PM, October 03, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^^^ if your aim is to get a tenure-track job in an R1 department or SLAC, then yes. Some lower-ranked depts have success placing into regional/directional schools, etc -- in fact better success than the elite schools.; 8:24 PM, October 03, 2010
Anonymous said...: I have no information as to what Brown/Butler have decided on doing, but I can say with just as much certainty as the poster above that rumors were NOT entirely made-up. Maybe the buzz that they were seriously considering following through was, but the rumor that a Columbia option was on the table was not at all "concocted by an internet fabulist".; 3:16 AM, October 04, 2010
Anonymous said...: Agreed, the rumors about B&B were certainly not just concocted by people without any evidence. I've heard senior people from both universities discussing it as a real possibility. Who knows whether or jnot they will move, but it was/is a serious possibility.; 1:57 PM, October 04, 2010
Anonymous said...: Re question about Boston College.

As a Straussian teaching at a top liberal arts college, this question comes up quite often. I have friends who teach at BC and have had some exceptional students go and do very well. But today, I do not generally recommend BC in the top three Straussian programs, for reasons discussed below.

My top choice program for study of history of political philosophy, now that Harvey pretty much does not take students, is University of Texas. Tom Pangle is the most productive and interesting Straussian scholar of his generation, is in top form, and has created a wonderful program at UT with Tulis, his wife, Stauffer, and an extension of other teachers who are excellent, albeit not Straussian. Second choice would probably be Yale - there is more of a "limitations" on teachers, but Steven Smith is very good, and third choice Duke, with both Michael Gillespie and Ruth Grant being excellent.

I generally place BC in the next category of options, along with Notre Dame, Michigan State, Brown, and potentially Baylor, where you will have a larger group of Straussian teachers, but I believe less critical exposure to political science broadly and to challenges that our methodology faces. I think you may also be limited in what you are able to study and how. This is not to say that the Zuckerts are not wonderful teachers and mentors, they are, and same can be said about a great group at MSU and Mary Nichols at Baylor. At BC, there are also very good teachers (Chris Kelley especially), but Bruell's retirement has left a void in the department, which they are filling but its impossible to replace Bruell, and a couple of prior departures / retirements have left their American political thought group weaker than it deserves. Most of my friends would disagree and would place BC at the very top - indeed, Tom may as well. But if you are looking for a long term career, I would recommend the other options over BC.; 3:20 AM, October 05, 2010
Anonymous said...: Does top-tier include only the top 10? Top 50? Top 100?; 9:32 AM, October 05, 2010
Anonymous said...: I have an undergraduate background in both political science (on the theory side) and philosophy. My current professors are urging me to consider applying to programs for political philosophy as well as political theory. What is the difference, if any, in the nature of the programs? And what is the advantage, in terms of job placement, competitive edge, etc. of choosing one over the other?

From what I can see, the top ranking programs are almost completely different for political philosophy, which makes me hesitant since I don't want to spend the money applying to 20 programs just to equally include both focuses.; 9:48 AM, October 05, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Going to a philosophy program will give you a set of technical skills you won't get doing theory in a poli sci department, a background in other areas of philosophy such as epistemology and metaphysics, and the ability to get hired in a philosophy department. Going to a political science program will give you a robust background in the historical "canon" of political thought (which will not be stressed in most philosophy departments), hopefully some background (depending on program requirements) in what empirical political scientists do, and a greater chance of being hired in a political science department.

Generally speaking, it is almost impossible to get a philosophy job coming out of a political science program, while it is very rare but not impossible to get a political theory job coming out of a philosophy program. However, political science departments tend to be larger and to almost always have at least one theorist on the faculty, so in a given year you will usually see a larger pool in political science. That situation might be different, though, if you also specialize in moral philosophy/ethics, which I would expect increases your chances of getting a philosophy job.

If you are applying to philosophy programs mainly to do political philosophy, there are only a few programs that you should seriously consider (although if you are also interested in ethics/moral philosophy that probably expands quite a bit). I'm not an expert on this, but in my understanding there are only a handful of philosophy departments that have good political philosophy PROGRAMS (as opposed to having one or two good political philosophers on the faculty). Arizona immediately comes to mind, but I'm not sure what else (Pitt?).; 10:01 AM, October 05, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ For political philosophy programs, not sure about Pitt. Arizona, yes indeed. Also Harvard, NYU, Brown, Duke, Stanford.

But really, you should get a sense of the intellectual approaches in political theory and political philosophy. And (as you should expect to have to teach in a secondary field) think about whether you'd rather teach, say, critical thinking/logic or American government to freshman.; 10:42 AM, October 05, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm not a Straussian, yet I'll agree that the Texas program is impressive, especially when including useful related faculty in other departments.; 1:40 PM, October 05, 2010
Anonymous said...: For the person who posted at 9:48 AM, October 05, 2010 regarding philosophy and political philosophy - two quick thoughts....

First, if the market for political philosophy hiring is bad, philosophy market with a political focus is even worse. So if a job matters, this issue should matter a great deal.

Second, take a look at the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. May offer you a very good compromise, while keeping you open to teaching possibilities in both political science and philosophy, depending on what you end up pursuing.; 11:42 PM, October 05, 2010
Anonymous said...: If you want to do hardcore political philosophy in a politics department (as opposed to a philosophy one), then Oxford, and also the LSE, are great.; 10:15 AM, October 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: 11:42 makes a very good point - there were less than half a dozen jobs in political philosophy (in philosophy departments) last year. This makes the political theory market (in political science departments) look great by comparison.

Another factor is related to your interests. If you are at all interested in contemporary democratic theory, continental political thought/philosophy, or critical theory, steer clear of philosophy departments. These areas of inquiry have shifted almost entirely to political science. If you are mainly interested in the history of political thought, ethics, or analytic political philosophy, then the situation is a bit different (but political science departments still might be a better bet).

Finally, take good note of the previous poster's advice re: which you would rather teach, "critical thinking"/what is philosophy? Or introduction to American/Comparative/International politics. You won't get away with just studying political philosophy in a philosophy department and you won't get away with only teaching political philosophy either. You will have to engage metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and contemporary analytic philosophy. Also note that most philosophers will have interests that have nothing to do with your own (also true, but less so, in political science).; 4:52 PM, October 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^The point about democratic theory being available only in political science departments depends on a narrow understanding of what counts as democratic theory. Radical democratic theory and critical approaches to democratic theory are certainly hard to find in philosophy departments. But there is a robust literature of Anglo-American democratic theory that is practiced in both political science and philosophy departments. One of the most prominent current trends in democratic theory, deliberative democracy, mostly fits in this category. And a good many prominent democratic theorists teach in philosophy departments (Estlund, Richardson, Christiano, for example).

Also, if you are interested in the history of political thought, you are likely to be better off in a political science department (unless your interests are very Cambridge-y, in which case you might even consider some history programs).; 5:12 PM, October 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: The Committee on Social Thought has abysmal placement records for professorships. Most of their students go on to non-professorial positions, and most of those that do become professors end up teaching as readers at St. John's (actually a desirable gig in many ways, but if it's not your cup of tea, then you may not like what you see there). Their average time to degree is also something unreasonably long. 9 years or thereabouts?; 7:27 PM, October 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^What does one do as a reader at St. Johns?; 8:52 PM, October 06, 2010
Anonymous said...: read.; 6:16 AM, October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: 3.20,

Bartlett to BC changes the game, no?; 10:14 AM, October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: Not 3:20, but, No. And I think that 3:20's post also implied that.; 10:23 AM, October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm the 3:20 post re Bruell / Bartlett. The latter is a very good scholar, but he's not Bruell - certainly not from the view of his understanding of ancient political philosophy, nor for how he is regarded by others and thus what type of support he may be able to provide in job placement. If I am reading a letter that says "this is one of my five best students ever," that means very different things when coming from Bruell/Mansfield/Pangle vs. almost anyone else.; 5:51 PM, October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Say more, best of men. Bruell was Bartlett's dissertation adviser, so I suspect their reading of the ancients isn't THAT divergent. BTW: I'm not sure what to make of the fact that an institute hired one of its own students to a TT line to replace said student's adviser. It is prima facie incestuous. I hope BC interviewed other senior scholars.; 2:28 PM, October 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: I heard they interviewed Jacob Howland--who is, in my view, better on the Greeks than Bartlett, but perhaps problematic because he comes from philosophy rather than political science.; 9:39 PM, October 10, 2010
Anonymous said...: Straussians being incestuous? To paraphrase Captain Renault, I am shocked, shocked that they would engage in such behavior.

Get real, 2.28. What would be unthinkable is a Straussian ever not being incestuous.; 3:00 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: "I hope BC interviewed other senior scholars."

It's hard to know how BC (or any other single approach program) could make you happy.

They interviewed other ( with various approaches) senior scholars = obvious settup.

They interviewed other (with Straussian approach) senior scholars = obvious setup.

FWIW, the facts of the two year search involve a mix of the two.; 3:17 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: BC did interview other senior scholars, I know of at least two. Since the position was defined as someone who studies the history of political philosophy, focused on the ancients, the choices were really not that large, esp when you are looking for a senior scholar.

With regard to questions of BC hiring a BC alum, why is this a big deal? Clearly then its not ok that Stephen Rosen teaches at Harvard (http://www.gov.harvard.edu/people/faculty/stephen-rosen) and is basically Huntington's replacement, and certainly granting Eric Nelson tenure was dubious at best (he did afterall have a BA from Harvard).

Finally, I wonder about the age of the person who thinks that former students do not disagree with their teachers. Suspect a bit too young.; 4:41 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: "BC did interview other senior scholars, I know of at least two. Since the position was defined as someone who studies the history of political philosophy, focused on the ancients, the choices were really not that large, esp when you are looking for a senior scholar."

Framed in those terms, the choices obviously extend far and wide between people with PhDs from BC or Straussians in general.

"With regard to questions of BC hiring a BC alum, why is this a big deal? learly then its not ok that Stephen Rosen teaches at Harvard (http://www.gov.harvard.edu/people/faculty/stephen-rosen) and is basically Huntington's replacement, and certainly granting Eric Nelson tenure was dubious at best (he did afterall have a BA from Harvard)."

There's a big difference between just doing a BA and doing a PhD, and there's also a big difference between BC and Harvard.

"I wonder about the age of the person who thinks that former students do not disagree with their teachers. Suspect a bit too young."

This isn't a matter of age, it's a matter of experience with Straussians. Someone like Bartlett will have no appreciable differences with someone like Bruell, and that's exactly the appeal to other Straussians. Bartlett has published a book and several articles, most of which reference Bruell: find a critical reference amongst them.

Look, Bartlett is alright. His work certainly isn't up to the standard of Kelly or Shell, but he has a decent record. But it's a measure of how insular the BC brand of Straussianism has gotten that that's the sort of the hire they made.; 6:09 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Framed in those terms, the choices obviously extend far and wide between people with PhDs from BC or Straussians in general."

First,You have no idea of what you are talking about. Actually funny. The truth is they brought in non-Straussians (plural) and Straussians.

Second, name one person who would plausibly go to BC (that is, doesnt teach at Stanford) who is more published and does ancients.; 7:36 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: So will Emory be replacing Bartlett???; 8:05 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Not being a one-person SC, it's not my job to know who would be interested in moving. But there are certainly well published and highly cited people who do ancient political philosophy without being part of the BC crowd, despite your original implication. Anyway, I'm still interested in hearing where in one of those Bartlett publications which you mention with their frequent citations to Bruell has he ever expressed anything approaching a difference of emphasis - let alone serious disagreement -with his old supervisor? (Or with Bolotin or Strauss, say) I like some of those articles. But the incestuousness of it all is plain as daylight. That's one reason internal hires are generally frowned upon in any situation, let alone a situation like this.; 8:10 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: I have an honest question for the Straussians who seem to be posting here. To what is Bruell's high stature to be attributed? His CV reveals two books and seven peer-reviewed articles published in 40 year career, without a high rate of citation to any of his works (one of which is in German). Since I'm not familiar with his work, could someone tell us why he is so revered? An honest question, not looking to inspire any negative words here whatsoever. Just curious to know.; 8:18 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Honest answer: some (not all, but a certain subset) of Straussians consider his book to be pretty much the best thing on Plato ever (no, really, they see it in those terms). The book and the rest of his published work are very dense, but for many Strsussians his published work isn't the key to his reputation anyway - some of them sort of look down on publishing (after all, Socrates never published). So Bruell's reputation with these folks is a very inside baseball sort of thing. I actually think he is pretty smart, but when I asked one of his acolytes why he didn't publish more the person just sort of scoffed at me, so I doubt that all of his fans care all that much about explaining his appeal to the plebs.; 8:29 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: it's not my job to know who would be interested in moving. But there are certainly well published and highly cited people who do ancient political philosophy without being part of the BC crowd, despite your original implication.

-----

so you've demonstrated that you can't name anyone who would have been a better (and plausible) hire.; 10:50 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: If they had wanted to stay Straussian and move away from the BC crowd, wouldn't Mary Nichols have been a better choice?; 11:10 PM, October 11, 2010
Anonymous said...: Regarding the question about Bruell's stature, there are several factors. First, among the core group of students who were with Bloom at either Yale or Cornell (e.g., Pangle, Bruell, Fairbanks, James Nichols, etc. - they were the main intake to Strauss last batch of students except for those of us who came from Chicago undergrad) Bruell is regarded as most brilliant, and since these other students are some of the most prominent Straussians, that helps his reputation. Second, he was Strauss's last research assistant, which gives him added weight. Third, as another writer stated, many Straussians regard Bruell's book on Plato to be the best thing ever - that is indeed true, not all, but a large share of us do think that. And fourth, there is a deep appreciation for Bruell's ability to both maintain the life of the mind and focus on study, while also building one of the most prominent Straussian programs in the country (and being a teacher of many third generation Straussians). Some of my very best students have gone on to study with Bruell and have enjoyed it greatly and done very well coming out of there. Others have not done very well at all, largely because they were exposed to a different style of Straussian undergraduate learning, which fits better with individuals like Mansfield, Pangle, Smith at a graduate level than at BC.

Regarding Bruell's successors: Yes, MN would have been a wonderful choice, and I am sure feelers were put out to see if she'd be interested. But she only a few years ago moved down to Baylor and has become a leader in a fairly good, granted second tier but still very good, Straussian political theory program, which gets a lot of support from the University and has good students. Part of the attraction of Baylor was that they were able to secure a tenured position for her husband as well (who is a specialist in american government / presidency). So I doubt that she would move.

Assuming that Tom Pangle and Cathy Zuckert were not considered as serious possibilities, I can think of about 6 other Strussians who have 10+ years of teaching in them left (which was probably a requirement for BC) and who are also 'senior' enough for this job who are leading authorities on ancient political philosophy: Mary Nichols, Lorraine Pangle and Davin Stauffer at UT (neither of whom will be leaving UT, for obvious reasons, though Stauffer interviewed at BC), Susan Collins (who said no to taking Pangle's old job at Toronto, so I suspect it was unlikely that she'd take the job at BC), and three Benardete students but they are not in political science (Ronna C. Burger; Michael Davis; and Marc Witkin, who is probably least well known of individuals mentioned but widely acknowledged as brilliant), and maybe a couple of more that I am missing. So the choices actually were not that large. There are of course others who could have filled Bruell's role very well as leaders of the program. The best candidate I can think of who may have wanted to "move up" and could have brought very good weight to BC is Jim Stoner. BC all that said, BC did very well with this choice.; 12:44 AM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Regarding the question about Bruell's stature, there are several factors. First, among the core group of students who were with Bloom at either Yale or Cornell (e.g., Pangle, Bruell, Fairbanks, James Nichols, etc. - they were the main intake to Strauss last batch of students except for those of us who came from Chicago undergrad) Bruell is regarded as most brilliant, and since these other students are some of the most prominent Straussians, that helps his reputation. Second, he was Strauss's last research assistant, which gives him added weight. Third, as another writer stated, many Straussians regard Bruell's book on Plato to be the best thing ever - that is indeed true, not all, but a large share of us do think that. And fourth, there is a deep appreciation for Bruell's ability to both maintain the life of the mind and focus on study, while also building one of the most prominent Straussian programs in the country (and being a teacher of many third generation Straussians). Some of my very best students have gone on to study with Bruell and have enjoyed it greatly and done very well coming out of there. Others have not done very well at all, largely because they were exposed to a different style of Straussian undergraduate learning, which fits better with individuals like Mansfield, Pangle, Smith at a graduate level than at BC.; 12:44 AM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Regarding Bruell's successors: Yes, MN would have been a wonderful choice, and I am sure feelers were put out to see if she'd be interested. But she only a few years ago moved down to Baylor and has become a leader in a fairly good, granted second tier but still very good, Straussian political theory program, which gets a lot of support from the University and has good students. Part of the attraction of Baylor was that they were able to secure a tenured position for her husband as well (who is a specialist in american government / presidency). So I doubt that she would move.

Assuming that Tom Pangle and Cathy Zuckert were not considered as serious possibilities, I can think of about 6 other Strussians who have 10+ years of teaching in them left (which was probably a requirement for BC) and who are also 'senior' enough for this job who are leading authorities on ancient political philosophy: Mary Nichols, Lorraine Pangle and Davin Stauffer at UT (neither of whom will be leaving UT, for obvious reasons, though Stauffer interviewed at BC), Susan Collins (who said no to taking Pangle's old job at Toronto, so I suspect it was unlikely that she'd take the job at BC), and three Benardete students but they are not in political science (Ronna C. Burger; Michael Davis; and Marc Witkin, who is probably least well known of individuals mentioned but widely acknowledged as brilliant), and maybe a couple of more that I am missing. So the choices actually were not that large. There are of course others who could have filled Bruell's role very well as leaders of the program. The best candidate I can think of who may have wanted to "move up" and could have brought very good weight to BC is Jim Stoner. BC all that said, BC did very well with this choice.; 12:45 AM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: "Others have not done very well at all, largely because they were exposed to a different style of Straussian undergraduate learning, which fits better with individuals like Mansfield, Pangle, Smith at a graduate level than at BC."

? Not sure how studying a different style of this kind of learning as an undergraduate correlates with being unsuccessful on the job market. So I guess non-Straussian undergraduates are completely up the river? You must hold forth more, comrade.; 10:02 AM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ what are you talking about? The point here was at my liberal arts college we teach differently than they choose to teach at BC, and so as a result, my former students who gone on to graduate school at times have a hard time getting used to what they see as a very rigid, respect for authority type of an environment that you find at BC. I have had students go to BC and do very well, and I have had students go to BC and have a very rough time. In general, my students who choose to pursue a political science ph.d. do better in less hierarchical environments, such as with Mansfield, Pangle, Zuckerts, etc. Most of my students do not become Straussians, and yet manage to do very well, do not get Ph.D.s, so this idiotic commentary is really not necessary.; 11:49 AM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: 11:49. I find it curious that Zuckert, Pangle, and Mansfield command less rigid respect than the faculty at BC, given that the latter have been less influential in and outside Straussian circles than the former. Perhaps there are other hidden variables explaining your students' successes/failures.; 2:07 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: I am interested in studying the political theories of mostly literary figures (Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau, Du Bois) in the history of American political thought. Where should I go?; 2:24 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Ah, the Straussians have been let out of their collective cave again to entertain us with their breathless praise of each other's work.

'You know, man, Bruell's is the best book on Plato, like, ever.'

The prose style reminds one of a pubescent boy gazing at the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition (or of Allan Bloom gazing at the latest Boy's Life).

Oh, well. Straussians fawning over each other is about as surprising and intellectually stimulating as Trekkies at a Spock celebration convention. The mere fact that these people hold so many positions in political theory should make us doubt the seriousness of our profession (and, notice that there was no mention of classicists, who, when they pay any attention to the Straussians at all, merely dismiss them as charlatans).; 3:12 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: fucking hell, you dont know the interview list!!!!!!!!!!!; 3:29 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: because another pretty translation of Ovid -- or a treatise on the pottery in Rome-- qualifies me to make judgment about political theory.; 3:31 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: @2:24: that's too broad to say, really. For instance, Gooding-Williams at Chicago might be appropriate. But so might Catherine Zuckert at Notre Dame. So you probably need to specify your interests a bit more for anyone to make a solid recommendation.

@3:21: your prose style has failed to convince me of your seriousness.; 3:33 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Incidentally, I hope that some mods get involved before this thread turns into a stream of robotic Straussian apparatchiks trading predictable insults with moronic Leiter-philes, or whatever it is that one sees from time to time on that *other* blog. (!!!!!!!); 3:36 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: No. Sorry. It was: !!!!!!!!!!!

fucking hell!!!!!!!!!!!; 3:44 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Why think that people like Emerson have 'a political theory' to study? Maybe it would be better for you to study literature.; 3:51 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Someone asked a question about why was Bruell so well respected among Straussians. At least two people gave an answer, without offering a judgment about whether this view of Bruell is justified or not (actually one of the respondents implied that he did not fully agree with this view). In reply someone wrote the following: "Ah, the Straussians have been let out of their collective cave again to entertain us with their breathless praise of each other's work." Why are you so angry?

As far as cl assists are concerned, they were mentioned and were indeed probably in the running: Burger, Davis, Witkin are all classicists; so are Duskin Clay (Duke Classics), Jenny Clay (UVa Classics), and Danielle Allen (ex-Chicago). The idea that "classicists dismiss Straussians" is some sort of nonsensical commentary by someone who knows very little about Classics and what is happening in the discipline. Forgetting about Straussians for a second, inside the field of classics there is a large debate about how and what to study: one group (see Princeton Classics Department) believes that focus of the Classics scholarship would be on the art, the language, the translation, the style, etc., of the writings, plays, etc.; another group believes that the focus should be on the content. Now certainly the first group will dismiss Straussians, since Straussians offer a powerful challenge to that school of though. However, the second group, of which Straussian political theorists and classicists are a part, but by no means entirety of it, very much respects the work that Straussians are doing. See, for example, the reception in the Classics community of Eva Adler's book on Virgil.; 4:00 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Straussians pose a powerful challenge to no one, and your facile distinction between classicists who pay attention to content and those who pay attention to style, langauge, etc. further demonstrates the complete inability of Straussians to have interesting conversations with anyone outside their own little incestuous gene pool.

And I'm not particularly angry with Straussians, just like I'm not angry with phrenologists or flat earthers. I merely think that the omnipresence of such a worthless bunch is proof that our subfield (political theory) is fundamentally incoherent.; 5:12 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'd like to make another comment about the Straussian love-fest above. Whenever Straussians are criticized for being incestuous, cultish, etc., they almost invariably reply that the other factions of political theory are no different.

So here's a challenge to the Straussians: go through the entire history of these threads and find a single stretch where Cambridge types, analytic liberals, etc., take part in the same kind of fawning, adulatory, slightly creepy discussion of one of their "greats." Really. You'll not find a single instance--and I've been reading these threads for a while.

Straussians need therapy. Specifically, deprogramming.; 6:42 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Although that happens, that's actually not what you're seeing above: several of the non-anti-Straussian comments are a lot more balanced than you're suggesting. Which suggests that a sort of blind or pathological anti-Straussianism is at least as common as a sort of pathological Straussianism. That's what makes Leiteresque-Straussian flame wars that occur on blogs like this so pathetic, I would say.; 7:10 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: Look, it's a dying genre. Ignore them and they'll go away.; 7:57 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: The fewer there are, the stronger they become.; 10:48 PM, October 12, 2010
Anonymous said...: You know what, I think Strauss is awesome. I'm in grad a grad school now that is not receptive to his kind of work, and that's OK. I don't see Straussian style HPT as something to devote one's life to, but it does make for a good tool to frame ancient political thought, though, to be sure, one to be balanced against others. Moreover I have great admiration for the respect that Straussians pay to the art of reading.

So as a non-Straussian I'd like to defend Straussians. As a grad student I don't have a ton of perspective on this, but from what I can tell so far, the criticisms of a cult of personality, obsession with academic genealogy, and in-group jargon that characterize most people's objections with Straussianism can be leveled with varying severity against any superstar in the discipline. Sure the mysticism that surrounds Straussianism, as well as some of their findings and their relationship with US foreign policy leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But for any reader of Foucault, hey, it's not like it's a big surprise.

Basically they have their place, that's all there is to say.; 12:19 AM, October 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: Hi,

I have two questions:

1. Being a double major in Political Science and Comparative Lit. and Culture (focused on critical theories) I'm interested in pursuing political theory in an interdisciplinary aspect. Currently I'm interested in Princeton and Northwestern, and Northwestern seems to have the thing that I'm looking for (democractic theories, critical theories, etc.) but Princeton's Political Philosophy (an interdisciplinary program unlike Political Theory) attracts me as well. What insights can you offer? (Of course, I'm applying to both .. but more information would be nice)

2. As an undergrad I was told and I personally believed that being an undergrad is when you study with breadth, and depth comes when you study at the graduate level. I have touched upon quite a wide range of theorists and ideas but did not delve deep into any one of them -- is this a problem? I'm asking this because my thesis adviser thinks it is.

Thank you.; 5:20 AM, October 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Based on how you've described your interests, I don't think that Princeton is the place for you. You should consider Chicago, UCLA, and Berkeley, though.

In response to (2), what are you writing your thesis on? Surely that involves significant depth on some topic or writer. Nonetheless, I don't think you will be penalized for not having specialized narrowly. After all, grad school is supposed to be the time when you do that. On the other hand, you will have to describe your interests for most graduate school applications. You won't be held to what you say, but you will be expected to demonstrate readiness for graduate school.; 10:06 AM, October 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: I would like the mod to strike the offensive, bigoted, homophobic comment made by 3:12. I have been stewing with indignation since reading it yesterday. I would us to be done with it --- directly.; 12:17 PM, October 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: What's homophobic about 3.12's comment? S/he's comparing adolescent heterosexual lust with Bloom's widely rumored pederastic leanings. Are you suggesting that all homosexuals are members of NAMBLA now? It seems like you should be the one who apologizes.; 2:22 PM, October 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: @5:20-

Apply widely. You would be lucky to go to Northwestern, Princeton, or any of the other schools mentioned. And you will not be penalized for not specializing as long as you are capable of writing a coherent personal statement that doesn't wander across the entire history of political thought.; 6:32 PM, October 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: RE: Emerson et al. as political theorists.

10/12-2:24: Melvin Rogers and Lawrie Balfour at UVA would be good mentors for you. So would Jason Frank at Cornell. And Gooding-Williams at Chicago is always a good choice.

10/12-3:51: You need to read some Stanley Cavell, George Kateb, and Nancy Rosenblum.; 7:03 PM, October 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: yawn; 9:26 PM, October 13, 2010
Anonymous said...: I don't think that either UT or BC are good places for a Straussian to go if they have other options.

Pangle has a VERY narrow conception of what good Straussian work is and will freeze you out if you don't conform to it. BC will not train you broadly enough to get a job in political science.

Go to Yale and study with Steven Smith and Bryan Gartsen: broad minded Straussians who are open to many approaches to political theory and political science.; 1:19 AM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Bryan Garsten is not a Straussian, and saying four hundred times on anonymous message boards won't change that.; 7:35 AM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Denying it eight hundred times won't change it, especially not when your motives have been exposed in a thread which your unhinged monomania on the subject eventually caused to be deleted once you'd been thoroughly exposed and refuted about fifty times over. Go and try to write something which will get published - it will be much more productive for you than going through this sorry routine again.; 9:37 AM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Can we get a little moderation in here?; 9:43 AM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: 9:48 on 10/5 here again. I am currently looking at UNC Chapel Hill's Political Philosophy program - anyone know the general attitude towards Chapel Hill from the academic standpoint?; 9:44 AM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: I think the whole "Garsten is a Straussian" nonsense can only be understood as part of an effort to deny that Straussianism is dying a slow death. Mansfield won't be replaced at Harvard, and Smith, when the time comes, probably won't be replaced at Yale. Straussianism is near dead at Toronto and Chicago. With the exception of Texas, it's not a major part of any remotely serious or respectable graduate program in political theory. (And Pangle is well into his 60's, and once he and his wife retire Texas probably won't replace them either.) It'll soon be relegated to BC, Claremont, schools that have no business granting PhDs like Northern Illinois, Baylor and Dallas, and a number of eccentric liberal arts schools. Claiming non-Cambridge HPT people who share interests with some Straussians as Straussians is an attempt to deny the increasingly clear reality--that this strange little 'school' has no institutional or intellectual future.; 10:38 AM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ You forgot Notre Dame, which is (I think) a respectable program which might try to retain a Straussian presence once the Zuckerts are gone. Whether they'll be able to convince the rest of the department there are any Straussians willing to move to South Bend and deserving of tenure is, of course, an open question (for good reason!).

Of course your larger point is spot-on.; 10:45 AM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: it amazes me how some people here try to behave like they are children - but then again, maybe they are.

eric nelson was just granted tenure at harvard. steve rosen is now one of the most prominent teachers in the department. so there are two straussians at harvard. harvard offered pangle a position and he declined. so the idea that 'mansfield will not be replaced at harvard' is completely off the mark. president faust is not an idiot and meanwhile, bryan garsten was just granted tenure at yale, which makes yale a far more interesting program for a straussian than it used to be in a long-time because now there are two teachers in the department rather than one.

the reality is that there usually always have been two or three prominent, tier 1 straussian programs, usually anchored by one person. for a while it bloom and mansfield, then it was mansfield and pangle, now its pangle and co at texas, smith, folks at duke, and maybe the zuckerts. (i am purposefully excluding here departments where straussians are a majority or control the process, like claremont, msu, etc.) so good luck folks, and stop being so angry.; 12:36 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ You must have a pretty low opinion of the readers of this board if you think they'll believe your claim that Nelson and Rosen, of all people, are Straussians. It's simply an absurd claim; even more facially ridiculous than the Garsten claim. Garsten was, at least, a Mansfield student, lending a bit of prima facie plausibility to the Straussian tag, but Rosen and Nelson were trained in the UK. Rosen identifies himself with analytic philosophy and continental thought on his Harvard faculty page!

Seriously, what is your game here? What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish by claiming a bunch of people who are clearly not Straussians actually are? It's mildly amusing, but also just weird.; 12:51 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: The pseudo-argument about Garsten is exclusively a byproduct of the neuroses of a Yale grad student who I'm doing the favor of not naming (yet), but whose motives were exposed on another blog. Beyond that, the attempt to predict the death of Straussianism is silly. Schools of thought or heremenutical approaches do not necessarily rely on dominating given departments. That is the exception, not the rule. As for what will happen in the future, you're assuming everyone will despise Straussians then just because you do now - but if your assessment were a bellweather, of course they would never have gotten anywhere in the first place. Point is: maybe once the current generation retires they'll produce heirs, maybe not. Personally I would say that the example someone like Garsten, who is eclectic but shows certain Straussian influences bodes well for their future, not because it suggests that they will dominate Yale, but because it shows that work influenced by Strauss can continue to contribute to the broader discipline, without relying on a whole set dogmas or departments. And this is probably what the posters here fear most - something less than a binary dichotomy between Straussian cultists versus Leiter-esque haters. Both types exist of course, but they need not define the terms of work in the discipline.; 12:55 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Here, sorry I misread you. You said Steve Rosen, not Michael.

Even weirder. He's not a political theorist, so I don't see how on earth he's relevant to this discussion.; 12:55 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: The fact that you don't know they're Straussians based on what they "say" in writing just goes to show that you don't know how to read texts. Given the power structures in place at Harvard, along with the broader pressures and threats of a democratic society, wise people will hide what they actually think when writing their webpages. But if you look at the source code and think about the numerological value of the various html tags, then you can see something interesting. That you can't just goes to show that you're unwise.; 12:57 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: "The pseudo-argument about Garsten is exclusively a byproduct of the neuroses of a Yale grad student who I'm doing the favor of not naming (yet), but whose motives were exposed on another blog."

Interesting theory. What, in your estimation, is s/he trying to accomplish be claiming he's a Straussian?; 12:58 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: She is trying to accomplish something by denying that Garsten is a Straussian. This was all hashed out on the other blog so I'm not going back over it, but this person caused that thread to be deleted in their desperate attempt to defend that cause.; 1:01 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Hilarious. Some anonymous person states what would be blindingly obvious to anyone with minimal training who actually took the time to read Garsten's book (or enough of it to see that his core argument is a near-direct repudiation of some core Straussian dogma), and you not only interpret this as a conspiracy on the part of some scheming graduate student (which is crazy enough), but you believe you know exactly who this sneaky person is.

Behold, the great power and insight of Straussian readings!; 1:07 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: As someone who read that thread, I don't think it was ever demonstrated that this individual was or was not posting; I think it was deleted in part because the accusations were being made and also because the debate had become a bit silly. And I think it is better if we don't go down the route of accusing grad students of things without evidence...; 1:09 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: There is nothing esoteric about it - the original poster referenced that the other thread, and their identity was openly discussed their. It would be 'esoteric' for me to suggest that you're the same person now trying to cover for yourself - but not at all implausible, given that person's ways. As for your suggestion that I'm a Straussian, I suppose we since it can't be called esoteric, i'll have to stick with the old-fashioned "unwarranted inference". So that would be one of several things which you present as self-evident which really are not.; 1:15 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: The whole reason the other thread got silly was because of the one person's monomaniacal attempt at denying the obvious with ever-more outlandish claims.; 1:21 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ I have no idea what this "other thread" that keeps being mysteriously referred to is, but how does someone get definitely "exposed" on an anonymous blog. If someone said "I am so and so from Yale and I'm here to tell you Garsten is/isn't a Straussian", why would you believe them, given both the possibility and history of impersonations? Unless they registered the account to that person's email address, I don't see how this is possible.; 1:27 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Jesus...anonymous and unfounded aspersions on the character and behavior of a grad student...based on anonymous postings and unfounded aspersions...anonymous postings which could have been made by literally hundreds of people. How about this whole line of "discussion" gets deleted?; 1:27 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm not a graduate student at Yale--indeed, I've never attended or worked at a University with a thousand mile radius of New Haven, nor set foot in the state of Connecticut--but count me amongst the readers (and fans!) of Saving Persuasion who is puzzled by the application of the straussian label in this case. I could be missing something--wouldn't be the first time--but the argument seems to cut against the Straussian world-view rather directly.; 1:33 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Could be HUNDREDS of people. Yup. No one is being named here.; 1:40 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ I'm not sure how to interpret this remark.; 1:47 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Part of the problem here comes from defining Straussian: some people define it in terms of lineage, in which case Garsten would be a Straussian, some people define it in terms of heremenutical commitments, others in ideological terms, and others in terms of a set of claims about modernity, ancient thought, etc - and on those grounds Garsten's book seems fairly consistent with certain Straussians, but then there is variation among types of Straussians, so this is always going to be difficult to pin down unless a student is just literally repeating their supervisor or Strauss (as some do, but by no means all).; 1:49 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Are the last couple dozen posts supposed to be "helpful" to prospective graduate students by sending them screaming for the hills, rather than joining our profession?

That's the only way to make sense of their presence in this thread. Can't you people keep it in your pants?; 2:21 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Re: "Saving Persuasion." The Straussian elements are in the center of the book, whose typset/page numbers were gone over, in precise detail, by Garsten with HUP.; 3:11 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: (I am the person who first mentioned Garsten in this discussion, and honestly, I have no clue what most of the people here are talking about; I am tenured, way past my 30s, and was lucky enough to take many courses with Strauss, Cropsey, Storing, etc.)

1:49 PM, October 14, 2010 comment has it exactly right: "Part of the problem here comes from defining Straussian"

Those of us who are Straussians and are part of the so-called first and second generation of Straussians (those who actually took classes with Strauss, with first generation being mostly folks from NY and early years at Cornell, and the second generation being early-60s students onward) generally define "Straussian" very much through lineage and whether we follow some basic unifying ways of studying political philosophy. By and large, most Straussians actually DO NOT agree on either interpretations and/or political ideology. The idea that all Straussians have same interpretation of any given author is simply silly, and not even worth discussing because it has no basis in fact. As far as ideology, yes, many are conservative, but many are liberal also (myself included). If someone else wants to pigeonhole Straussianism into something that its not, thats their right, but thats simply not how we view ourselves.

Finally, as far as Rosen is concerned: last I checked, many Straussians work in area of American government as well as political philosophy, myself included. That is largely due to Storing, Diamond, etc. In a similar way, why is it not ok to be a Straussian and interested in statecraft and relations between nations? Folks like Rosen, Fairbanks, Fradkin, Schmitt, do very interesting work in foreign affairs, and are very much informed by political philosophy - thats why it matters.; 3:55 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: I don’t recall Garsten’s Saving Persuaion being narrowly Strausian, but I can’t account for the claims above that it is a “near-direct repudation of Straussian dogma”, or “cuts against the Straussian world-view rather directly”. In this format the argument has to be simplified a bit, but as I recall the book sets up your basic ancients/moderns dichotomy, defending the arts of classical rhetoric partly in support of a role for political elites in checking the limited rationality of the populace. Moderately skeptical about egalitarianism; into thumos, etc. None of these points or others in the book are exclusively Straussian positions, and there are many ways in which Garsten’s book is admirably more capacious than most Straussian work. But maybe someone can point out where the direct cuts against the Straussian worldview are? (Although if there were only “near-direct”, does that mean they were esoteric? Uh oh. Seriously though, I’d be curious to know.); 3:57 PM, October 14, 2010
Anonymous said...: Did somebody really say Eric Nelson - who is as Cambridge School as they come (Cambridge PhD, worked with Skinner, works on history of civic republicanism) - is a Straussian?; 12:49 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: Did somebody really say Eric Nelson - who is as Cambridge School as they come (Cambridge PhD, worked with Skinner, works on history of civic republicanism) - is a Straussian?

Yes. Dude, go ask him. Mansfield never took a class with Strauss, and Eve Adler did not even know the guy. Somehow they are two of the most important Straussians scholars. Stop being so angry folks, and hating people.; 2:05 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: I agree with 2:21 from Oct. 14th: Can we all please get back on topic? This is becoming absurd and I fear that any benefit this thread offers to potential graduate students is dwindling.; 8:04 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: The benefit it offers in part is that potential graduate students can see how much idiocy there is in the discipline.; 8:10 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: My three questions are: 1. what kind of universities tend to be more, in a positive sense, adventurous? the top ranking ones or the 'lower' ranking ones?; 2. I looked at the statistics and it seems Northwestern does not like to give out degrees - is this true?; 3. Generally and realistically, is getting a PhD by 5 years something remarkable as a feat, or is that normal?

Thanks very much.; 8:44 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: 5 years is fast, but possible. It depends a lot on the program and the various requirements it imposes (comps, MA thesis, etc.). 6 years is a reasonable expectation at most places if everything basically goes well.; 9:09 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: 2.05, really?

If you say it over and over again, maybe it will become true.; 9:43 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: michale sandel is a straussian. I heard him confess it over drinks with Harvey.; 10:46 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: Yeah, we're through the looking glass here, when straight-up Cambridge School historians are being pulled into the Straussian club on the "evidence" that Mansfield never took a class with him either. On this new theory, we're all Straussians!; 11:24 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: I've never met garsten or nelson, though I've read their work and seen each of them present at conferences on more than one occasion. i'd be very surprised if either of them was a straussian, especially nelson.

having said that, if i were either of them, trying to get tenure in a department that very rarely grants tenure, and in which the road to tenure runs in part through a straussian senior colleague, then i can imagine finding it in my interest to cultivate some ambiguity on the matter. so maybe that explains some of the confusion here, apart from the (admittedly tempting) hypothesis that straussians are grasping at straws to avoid admitting that theirs is a dying creed.

or maybe this is all just trolling.; 11:46 AM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: I have been actively following this forum for about a year and a half and I've read all of the prior posts on it that are/were accessible during this period and I have never seen anything like this develop on the prospective grad student page.

What happened to ranking departments, discussing potential advisers, and comparing stats?

Honestly this discussion pertains to maybe 10% (and I feel that I'm being generous here) of prospective grad students.; 12:36 PM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: "in terms of a set of claims about modernity, ancient thought, etc - and on those grounds Garsten's book seems fairly consistent with certain Straussians"

Yes. This and the fact that Mansfield supervised BOTH his BA and PhD theses clinch the issue for me.

He's a Straussian AND a great young scholar.; 12:52 PM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: @12:36: These types of posts are all retreads from (deleted) threads on the other, less moderated blog, but because that blog has a temporary registration requirement, a lot of idiots from over there have migrated to here for now; 1:28 PM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: Nelson: obviously not a Straussian.
Garsten: obviously a Straussian.

Anyone denying either of these propositions is a fool and/or is pushing some ridiculous agenda. So that applies to most everyone posting here so far.

But although the work of one is Straussian and the work of the other isn't, they do share the trait of being outstanding young scholars.; 1:31 PM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Well in my mind the only thing that would make it "obvious" is if he came out and said so himself, or gravitated toward other Straussians in his work and professional activities. Neither seems to be the case as far as I can see. The only Straussian who's frequently cited in Saving Persuasion is Mansfield, his advisor. There are a couple of cites to Strauss himself; none at all to Bloom, Orwin, Pangle, Rahe, Smith, Tarcov, or the Zuckerts, except as translators or editors. The acknowledgments thank Mansfield effusively, but otherwise thank a very catholic list of scholars with only a couple of nominal Straussians among them, at least to my untrained eye.

I don't really have a stake in this, and find this kind of a bizarre thread. And I apparently missed the earlier now-deleted discussion over at PSJR. But it's interesting to me (a) that people seem to feel that this is so important, and (b) that people seem so sure of themselves on both sides of the issue. If Garsten's a Straussian, it seems like he'd have to be an awfully cagey one.; 3:39 PM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: Whether someone fits into Straussianism or any political theory "box" is not either/or. Rather, I would represent it on a point scale.

Studied with a Straussian? (check-2 points).
Does interpretive work on ancients? (check-1 point-does ancients but not Plato, but then again he quotes the Republic on the first page).
Is a neo-conservative? (no-no obvious political affiliation).
Writes in an esoteric style? (no) Principally concerned with protecting philosophers from the demos? (no)
Cites only work by recognized Straussians? (no)
Anti-democratic? (check-1 point-seems to have a moderately critical view of the demos as flawed but educable)

You could come up with other metrics but I would say Garsten is about a 4 out of 12. He definitely meets some typical Straussian criteria, but is definitely not obviously a Straussian.; 4:08 PM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: I guess what I find potentially misleading in these kinds of discussions is the extent to which Straussianism is the face of ideological conservatism among American political theorists. I for one think it's kind of bizarre and unfortunate that Strauss rather than, say, Oakeshott -- who to my mind is a much more interesting thinker -- plays this role, but in any case it's important to keep in mind that being a conservative, or a skeptic about democracy, isn't the same thing as being a Straussian.; 4:50 PM, October 15, 2010
Anonymous said...: The strenuous efforts by some to prove Garsten's NOT a Straussian (which are MUCH more intense than those who say he is one) make me suspicious. They protest too much.

("If Garsten is a Straussian then he's a cagey one"--of course, he had to get tenure at Yale!)

All this inclines me to think that Garsten IS a Straussian.

I'm curious about the agenda some have hinted about here that Yale grad students may be pursuing in protecting Garsten from the label.; 2:37 AM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: "which are MUCH more intense than those who say he is one"

Here's a game. Pick out the most intense statement:

(a) "Garsten: obviously a Straussian. Anyone denying [this] proposition is a fool and/or is pushing some ridiculous agenda."

(b) "I don't really have a stake in this...but it's interesting to me (a) that people seem to feel that this is so important, and (b) that people seem so sure of themselves on both sides of the issue. If Garsten's a Straussian, it seems like he'd have to be an awfully cagey one."

(c) "I would say Garsten is about a 4 out of 12. He definitely meets some typical Straussian criteria, but is definitely not obviously a Straussian."; 8:40 AM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: I call egregious "selection bias" on 8:40!!!

(Thereby proving 2:37's point....)

For Christ's sake: This whole debate was started by somebody's histrionic reaction to somebody COMPLIMENTING Garsten and Smith for being unusually eclectic, catholic, generous and broadminded Straussians.

Somebody is clearly, way over-sensitive on the issue.

That Garsten may be a Straussian is a perfectly arguable and plausible position. If you don't agree, fine. But stop making it out to be a completely ridiculous, unsupportable position. You undermine your own case by doing so.; 10:00 AM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: 10:00am has it basically right: what happened here is exactly what would happen repeatedly on that other thread on the other blog - someone would say nice things about Garsten and in passing associate him with Straussianim in some way or other. Then a crazed poster would repeatedly post ever-more outlandish denials of that association (suggesting that it was like trying to call Stephen Macedo a Marxist, for example - or, on this thread, claiming that Garsten's book is a "direct refutation of Straussian dogma" without giving any evidence at all). But what's funniest of all about these exchanges is that no one ever actually criticizes Garsten in any way whatsoever: everyone says nice things about him, but just some person or other takes massive offense at the association with Straussians (in fact, the reviews of Garsten's book also made this association, but they generally made it more critically, whereas on these threads it's not even being done that way).

As for 2:37's question about the grad student agenda, as someone else said above, it's probably most appropriate to maintain a polite silence about that for everyone's sake.; 10:20 AM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: So, how about the Phillies?; 11:04 AM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: "As for 2:37's question about the grad student agenda, as someone else said above, it's probably most appropriate to maintain a polite silence about that for everyone's sake"

Not for the sake of the curious. It is unseemly to wet our appetite and then refuse us food.; 11:27 AM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Not to actually get things back on topic, but I am currently looking at schools and am confronted with a bit of a dilemma. In spite of consistent advice that I find an advisor who does exactly what I want to do in order to sell myself to admissions committees, I a) have been unable to find someone whose research is that identical to my own, I b) have doubts that becoming a clone of my advisor is a good idea professionally (given that all truly successful academics get noticed precisely because they have something new to offer), and I c) know myself well enough to know that I will be miserably unhappy and will drop out if I am not given a little bit of rein to explore what I want. So I'm "stuck" finding a program that is at least moderately flexible with what the students do for their own research and is encouraging of creative work. Any thoughts on how open the following programs programs are to tangential relations between an advisor's work and their students'? To creative or interdisciplinary work?

Chicago
Yale
Princeton
UCLA
Northwestern
Michigan
Duke
Virginia
Indiana

Many thanks.; 12:00 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: "a crazed poster would repeatedly post ever-more outlandish denials of that association"

"some person or other takes massive offense at the association with Straussians"

I'm sorry, but you must be reading a different thread than I am. If you want to call "massive selection bias" on the 8:40 post, then show me where the crazed, outlandish, and massively offended posts are. As far as I can see the only people using all caps and calling other people fools and ridiculous are on the Straussian side. And the most crazed assertion that I've seen in this thread is that Eric Nelson, of all people, is a Straussian.

For the record, I don't really care whether Garsten is a Straussian or not: I don't work in HPT, I don't have any connection to Yale, and I've never met the guy. All I'm saying is that it's not obvious to me that he is. It's *possible*, I guess, but it's not obvious. It seems to me that if he is a Straussian then he's an outlier, at least compared to the other Straussians that I know. And yes, I think that Saving Persuasion is a very good book.; 12:51 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ Impossible to answer your question without knowing something about what your interests are.; 12:52 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: @12:51: yes, I was reading a different thread - the PSJR thread, as I made clear. But you also seem to be conflating me with some other poster(s) here. Still, I am curious to see how the claim here about how Saving Persuasion amounts to a "direct/near direct refutation of Straussian dogma" can be substantiated. That does seem outlandish to me (just look at reviews of the book if you don't believe me).; 1:07 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: @12:00: you would have good options at both Chicago and Virginia, but as for the other places, it's hard to comment without knowing specifically what you would be working on/who you would be working with.; 1:08 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: OK, it's Saturday and I'm bored. So here's a recap of the last couple of days:

October 14

7:35 am: poster claims that "Garsten is not a Straussian"

9:37 am: the 7:35 poster is accused without explanation of "unhinged monomania."

10:37 am: poster asserts that "Straussianism is dying a slow death."

12:36 pm: poster refers to "some posters" as "children," claims that Eric Nelson is a Straussian, and asks people to "stop being so angry."

12:51 pm: poster says that it's "absurd" and "weird" to say that Nelson is a Straussian. Seconded by a couple of subsequent posts.

12:55 pm: poster claims that the effort to deny that Garsten is a Straussian is "exclusively a byproduct of the neuroses of a Yale grad student who I'm doing the favor of not naming (yet)"

1:07 pm: poster claims that it's "blindingly obvious" that Saving Persuasion is "a near-direct repudiation of some core Straussian dogma"

1:21 pm: the grad student alluded to by 12:55 is accused of a "monomaniacal attempt at denying the obvious with ever-more outlandish claims"

1:33: poster declares him/herself "puzzled by the application of the straussian label in this case"

3:57: poster points out that the main themes in Garsten's book, while "not exclusively Straussian," aren't directly at odds with the Straussian view.

October 15

11:46 am: poster says that s/he would be "very surprised" if Garsten was a Straussian

1:31 pm: poster says that anyone who denies that Garsten is a Straussian is "a fool and/or is pushing some ridiculous agenda."

3:39 pm: poster says that "If Garsten's a Straussian, it seems like he'd have to be an awfully cagey one."

4:08 pm: poster says that Garsten "definitely meets some typical Straussian criteria, but is definitely not obviously a Straussian."

October 16

2:37 am: poster says that "the strenuous efforts by some to prove NOT a Straussian (which are MUCH more intense than those who say he is one) make me suspicious," that "they protest too much" and that "all this inclines me to think that Garsten IS a Straussian." Professes to be "curious about the agenda some have hinted about here that Yale grad students may be pursuing in protecting Garsten from the label."

10:00 am: Poster says that "somebody is clearly, way over-sensitive on the issue" of whether Gasten is a Straussian, and urges people to "stop making it out to be a completely ridiculous, unsupportable position."

10:20 am: Poster complains about "a crazed poster...repeatedly post[ing] ever-more outlandish denials," accuses "some person or other" of "tak[ing[ massive offense at the association with Straussians," and suggests that we should "maintain a polite silence" about the Yale grad student alluded to earlier.

12:51 pm: poster says that "it's *possible*, I guess, but it's not obvious" that Garsten is a Straussian, and that "if he is a Straussian then he's an outlier."

That's a pretty comprehensive summary of the debate, such as it is, over the last couple of days. I've left out a couple of general digs at Straussianism more generally which were (I take it) intended humorously but were somewhat uncivil. But on the Garsten issue specifically I see veiled threats against a grad student and accusations of unhinged monomania, neurosis, childishness, craziness, outlandishness, foolishness, and ridiculousness on one side, and, with two exceptions (the "absurd and weird" remark about Nelson, which is frankly correct, and the "blindingly obvious" remark about Garsten), moderate skepticism on the other.

QED; 1:41 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: OK, it's Saturday and I'm bored. So here's a recap of the last couple of days:

October 14

7:35 am: poster claims that "Garsten is not a Straussian"

9:37 am: the 7:35 poster is accused without explanation of "unhinged monomania."

10:37 am: poster asserts that "Straussianism is dying a slow death."

12:36 pm: poster refers to "some posters" as "children," claims that Eric Nelson is a Straussian, and asks people to "stop being so angry."

12:51 pm: poster says that it's "absurd" and "weird" to say that Nelson is a Straussian. Seconded by a couple of subsequent posts.

12:55 pm: poster claims that the effort to deny that Garsten is a Straussian is "exclusively a byproduct of the neuroses of a Yale grad student who I'm doing the favor of not naming (yet)"

1:07 pm: poster claims that it's "blindingly obvious" that Saving Persuasion is "a near-direct repudiation of some core Straussian dogma"

1:21 pm: the grad student alluded to by 12:55 is accused of a "monomaniacal attempt at denying the obvious with ever-more outlandish claims"

1:33: poster declares him/herself "puzzled by the application of the straussian label in this case"

3:57: poster points out that the main themes in Garsten's book, while "not exclusively Straussian," aren't directly at odds with the Straussian view.

October 15

11:46 am: poster says that s/he would be "very surprised" if Garsten was a Straussian

1:31 pm: poster says that anyone who denies that Garsten is a Straussian is "a fool and/or is pushing some ridiculous agenda."

3:39 pm: poster says that "If Garsten's a Straussian, it seems like he'd have to be an awfully cagey one."

4:08 pm: poster says that Garsten "definitely meets some typical Straussian criteria, but is definitely not obviously a Straussian."; 1:41 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: October 16

2:37 am: poster says that "the strenuous efforts by some to prove NOT a Straussian (which are MUCH more intense than those who say he is one) make me suspicious," that "they protest too much" and that "all this inclines me to think that Garsten IS a Straussian." Professes to be "curious about the agenda some have hinted about here that Yale grad students may be pursuing in protecting Garsten from the label."

10:00 am: Poster says that "somebody is clearly, way over-sensitive on the issue" of whether Gasten is a Straussian, and urges people to "stop making it out to be a completely ridiculous, unsupportable position."

10:20 am: Poster complains about "a crazed poster...repeatedly post[ing] ever-more outlandish denials," accuses "some person or other" of "tak[ing[ massive offense at the association with Straussians," and suggests that we should "maintain a polite silence" about the Yale grad student alluded to earlier.

12:51 pm: poster says that "it's *possible*, I guess, but it's not obvious" that Garsten is a Straussian, and that "if he is a Straussian then he's an outlier."

That's a pretty comprehensive summary of the debate, such as it is, over the last couple of days. I've left out a couple of general digs at Straussianism more generally which were (I take it) intended humorously but were somewhat uncivil. But on the Garsten issue specifically I see veiled threats against a grad student and accusations of unhinged monomania, neurosis, childishness, craziness, outlandishness, foolishness, and ridiculousness on one side, and, with two exceptions (the "absurd and weird" remark about Nelson, which is frankly correct, and the "blindingly obvious" remark about Garsten), moderate skepticism on the other.

QED; 1:42 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ whoops sorry for the double post; 1:42 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Your summary of the debate and the quotations provided show selection bias, but regardless they are bound to be misleading since the debate itself all goes back a now-deleted PSJR thread, which is where the source of some of the characterizations come from, as has been pointed out above.

That being said, I had used the term "outlandish" to refer specifically to two of the posts here, namely, those that claimed that Saving Persuasion's "core argument is a near-direct repudiation of some core Straussian dogma" and that "the argument seems to cut against the Straussian world-view rather directly". I would entirely stand by that characterization because it's been utterly unsubstantiated. So my own summary would be rather different from yours: some claims about how Garsten "repudiates" Straussiansim (said to be "blindingly obvious" to anyone with "minimal training", etc), and no evidence whatsoever provided for this claim at any point. On the other hand, there have been several posts discussing the specific ways in which the book is (and is not) congruent with Straussianism.

So you have inflammatory but utterly unsubstantiated assertions about the book's "repudation" of Straussianism on the on the one hand versus specific and balanced discussion about its Straussian features on the other hand. Moreover, these last are supported by the actual reviews of the book. So long as the "blindingly obvious/minimal training repudiation" line is backed by attempt at even supplying evidence, while the contrary position is supported by actual argument, then the former does warrant the description "outlandish".; 2:17 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Very good, my child. You're doing God's work and you will someday be rewarded for it. Here, have a cookie.; 3:19 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Any thoughts on how open the following programs programs are to tangential relations between an advisor's work and their students'? To creative or interdisciplinary work?

I'll take a stab at this:

Chicago--Contrary to popular belief and reasonable expectation, not really.

Yale--NO
Princeton--Good god, NO
UCLA--Yes
Northwestern--Yes
Michigan--probably
Duke--No
Virginia--Absolutely, unequivocally, no
Indiana--I have no clue; 3:21 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ I deny at least one of this poster's claims, and question how they claim to speak with such confidence about so many different places.; 3:34 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: Oof, 12.00 here. Yeah, I know it's not much to go on, but I can't say what I want to do without ultimately becoming non-anonymous. Here's hoping that any lurking admiss. committee members are kind enough to judge me on my own merits and not the company I keep (speaking of which, things have degenerated from their normal collegiality -- can we get a little moderation or something?)

The substantive questions I have concern the tension between freedom and truth. Think the Arendtian claim that perfection = death. Methodologically, I'd like to approach it from an historically inflected angle which is why Michigan and UCLA have prominent places on my list. The quirk is that I'd like to draw in the connections between what's happening in science at a given time with what's happening politically and philosophically (Farr at Northwestern is the best I've uncovered here, but it's not clear to me whether he is even likely to work with students).

From what I can tell, Chicago, UCLA, and Michigan would probably be amenable generally speaking. Yale would not, however, in specifics it seems possible -- I know that Benhabib has worked with quite the range of students on different projects (she advised both Muthu and Markell, yes? Their work is quite different, so she seems amenable to reaches...and despite their differences, they're both quite generous as scholars from what I've seen -- if it has anything to do with her, that makes her all the more appealing) and Garsten's work, as evidenced by this thread, defies easy categorization, which seems to me at least a tentatively good sign.

That help?; 4:35 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Which one?; 4:35 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ Markell was advised by Honig, not Benhabib.

If I'm interpreting your somewhat cryptic description of your research interests, I'd suggest that UCLA might be a very good fit for you. You also might consider UCSD.

But seriously, before worrying this much about which school is perfect for you, try and get admitted. If you apply to the 10 best schools, but only one admits you, then all this hand-wringing will be moot.; 4:45 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: True dat.; 5:02 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: 12:00

Not clear why you think Farr wouldn't want to work with students... Since Honig and DIetz are there, too, it seems like it should be one of your top choices.

But I agree with the sentiment expressed immediately above: we are talking about schools with <4% acceptance rates for theorists (Yale, Northwestern, Chicago...); just apply to the best ones and decide later. Sure, you might be able to exclude a couple from your applications pile (Princeton, for example, does not seem like the place for you), but you should certainly apply to all the schools you mentioned.; 7:06 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: As somebody who knows a number of students at Princeton, I would dispute what was said above. I don't think a faculty member there has ever refused to work on a students project, and I am told there are a number of students who have people from other departments on their committees.; 8:07 PM, October 16, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ you're forgetting about the power of selection bias and grad school socialization. Seriously, do you really think there's anyone at Princeton (in Politics) who would or could advise a dissertation that begins with "the Arendtian claim that perfection = death." Can you imagine the look on Philip Pettit's or Chuck Beitz's face if such a dissertation were proposed to him?; 10:53 AM, October 17, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Imagining that conversation with Pettit is actually pretty hilarious if you know him.; 12:56 PM, October 17, 2010

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Political theory and public law job market

8/07/2010

2010-11 Prospective Graduate Students Post #1

701 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts