Political theory and public law job market: 2010-11 Junior Theory Jobs Post #3

12/19/2010

2010-11 Junior Theory Jobs Post #3

For: Discussion of all junior political theory jobs advertised in 2010-11.

Restrictions: Per house rules, please do not mention names in junior searches until an offer is made.

Want to confirm or correct something you see here? Want me to post a job ad to the thread? Email me at poltheorist@gmail.com. Your anonymity is assured.

THIS DISCUSSION IS OPEN AGAIN AS OF 1/11/11

766 Comments:

administrator said...: Don't carry the Straussian conversation over here.; 11:29 PM, December 19, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12:02 AM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: Wiki update! Apparently, the Dickinson offer has been accepted. Sadly, not by me. :(; 12:17 AM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3:33 AM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: Re 11:01pm call for new info on St Mary's, I can confirm info from the previous thread that a hire has been made.; 8:58 AM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Do you know if it's true that they hired the inside candidate?; 1:33 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: Wiki says offer is out at CMC.; 1:41 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: Any word on Dartmouth? They started the search so early, should be signed, sealed, and delivered at this point...; 1:41 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^^Sorry 1:33pm, all I know is that finalists were told that a hire was made. I can't confirm that it was their inside candidate, but that would make sense.; 1:47 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: wiki says offer out at cmc because i changed it based on info here. i have no other basis for knowing whether that is correct or not. it is merely an echo.; 2:22 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: is ucsd interviewing theorists for the 'diversity' position?; 2:40 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ no one here said cmc had made an offer; 2:42 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: What's up with UC Davis?; 3:00 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: Saint Vincent had a long short list as of a couple weeks ago. Anyone know if they've winnowed it to interviewees?

Word verification: "Facts," which I want, unless they convey the "fact" of someone else getting a job for which I applied. In which case I'll take delusion, as long as it comes with health benefits.; 3:11 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: "is ucsd interviewing theorists for the 'diversity' position?"

All the names are on the wiki under the AP searches.; 4:26 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: no theorist at UCSD as far as I can tell; 5:56 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: CMC offer is out, can confirm.; 7:48 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: cmc offer to...?; 8:04 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: UMBC offer has been accepted according to the wiki. Anyone know who?; 8:17 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: CMC offer to one of the four candidates. Probably best for the person to accept first prior to name leaking.; 9:23 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: seems reasonable. how about we start by leaking the names of the half dozen or so who HAVE accepted offers?; 9:49 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: sounds like a good idea but people are guarding info a lot here lately.; 10:14 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Gee, I can't imagine why.

Given the general nastiness and jerkitude whenever someone's name actually _does_ make it onto the blogs, I wouldn't post the name of my worst enemy on here.

The only thing I need to know? When jobs have moved without me, so that I can cross them off my list. Nothing else really strikes me as helpful.; 10:53 PM, December 20, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Agree, people can be very bitter (compared to IR blog especially).

I am an AP and am not looking to move unless something very special opens up, but it is useful to know what is happening in the market, especially at the top 25 LACs and universities.; 12:18 AM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: Then again, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Even when people get trashed on this board, it gets their name out there. I've never heard of 90% of people whose names get posted.; 10:09 AM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: I think it is way overwrought to say that you wouldn't put your worst enemies name on here. Frankly, I've been coming here for the last few years (as I've been on the market), and there has rarely been a negative word said about a candidate. Nobody really knows anything about these people's work, so there is nothing negative to be said about them.

The process is trashed, but there is a difference between trashing a process and trashing the people who come out on the lucky end of that process. Finally, on the very rare occasions on which there have been negative comments, they are easily seen for what they are -- envy.; 10:18 AM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: Well, surely not *all* critiques of successful candidates reflect nothing but envy. Sometimes people who do poor work get jobs.; 10:27 AM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^But the "trashing" almost never concerns a candidate's actual work. It is usually done in the context of an accusation that the hire was based on pedigree or a bias toward a particular "school" of political theory. I can't recall ever seeing an actual "critique" of a candidate's work.; 10:36 AM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: 10:27 here. Fair enough, 10:36.

Wow, I'm bored by my own posts.; 10:53 AM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: No such thing as bad publicity? Tell that to Mel Gibson.

We go through this every year. There is nothing to be gained from knowing someone's name and much for that person to lose. Nobody wants to be defamed.

Search committees are idiosyncratic and driven by real people with real agendas. There is nothing to be learned. All you can do is publish, get more teaching experience, and keep putting yourself out there.; 11:27 AM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: Then again, there's no such thing as bad publicity

This is one of those stupid slogans that's repeated so often people don't bother to stop and think about whether it actually makes any sense. It's not really ever true. It's almost true for a narrow class of celebrity; those who are essentially famous for being famous.

But really--do you honestly think it's better for your career to be unknown, or to be known as (for example) "that ignorant jackass makes an ass of himself asking pointless, interminable and meandering questions at every conference"? Why?; 1:51 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^That does not represent the comments on this board. I'd be happy to have a reputation as "the guy who got lucky and landed a job." Jealousy at your success would be a great problem to have.; 2:27 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ great! then when you get a job, feel free to post your name here, and expose yourself to the slings and arrows of the embittered many. you may come to a very different conclusion about this "great problem" you describe.

as for outing other people? i think this has been covered many, many, many times before. and, every year, the conclusion is the same. 11:27 has it exactly right. put your head down. do some work. improve your cv. and, if you're really, really desperate to know, the foundations newsletter will tell all in the summer.; 2:53 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: Many comments have been suggesting that the best thing to do (for those of us who seem to be out of luck this year) is to publish, publish, teach, teach, and be more active. I could not agree with you more.

However, I think in many ways it just comes down to sheer luck. I received my PhD from a top program and have been lucky enough to hold an amazing multi-year gig right after I got my PhD. I have designed and taught about 20-very different- courses total, all at two of the finest universities; have published (an excellent one forthcoming this winter), have been way more active professionally than many tenure-track people around me. And guess what: this is my fourth year on the market and this time around (unlike previous years) I received not a single call.

Bottom line: while I don't disagree with previous comments that we all need to do more teaching and more publishing, but at the end of the day, it is really luck that determines the dozen or so people out of the couple of hundred who actually get a tenure track position.; 3:08 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^I don't know you, so don't take this personally, but there are other reasons for job market failure.

For instance, I know people who look good on paper but don't get jobs because they are socially awkward or even have a tendency to say offensive things to strangers without realizing it, etc.

You have to ask yourself, if your file is so awesome, then what's turning people off? It might be luck, but it could be something else. People have a serious inability to self-diagnose, and that seems to be especially the case in those people who are especially in need of self-diagnosis.; 3:43 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: That could be the case, but it could also well not be the case. There is a lot of competition, a lot of luck, few positions, etc.; 4:42 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: 1:51 here--I agree with 2:27. I was just commenting on how stupid that slogan is. It bugs me when smart people just state it as if it contains some sort of meaningful wisdom.; 5:38 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: Of course teaching and publishing is important. But so is relationships, how one interacts with others (politics if you will), and finally the content of your work. There are candidates whose scholarship is such that I'd never want to have them as colleagues - I have no interest in students being taught things I regard as nonsense. So luck may be involved - what school has a position open when certainly is important and is a matter of luck - but most of what drives a candidacy is under candidates's control.; 10:20 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: Right, because the standards for what counts as "nonsense" in political theory are so clear and objective. Excuse me while I--BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...Sorry, what were we talking about?; 10:47 PM, December 21, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm sorry, but I don't think there is really that much luck involved. In my experience, search committees hone in on the best files, then pick the ones that are an especially good fit for the department, and then interview people, and usually only one or two of the people who are interviewed come off well.

So, if you're not getting any interviews at all, the only bad luck you have is the fact that you're looking for a job in a recession. But I wouldn't sit there and think that your file is just being randomly passed over--over and over again--by chance.

That doesn't mean you're not good at what you do; it just means that you're not in the top whatever percent of people who do what you do. I mean, let's say the top 30% of candidates get jobs (roughly, I have no idea really); I'd be willing to bet that few people outside the top 40% get jobs and no one outside the top 50% gets one.; 10:53 AM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: 3:08.

If that's your situation, you need to find out what is wrong with your file. It could be you, or a bad reference, or the content of your work, or the fact that you've been on the market for too long (stringing VAPs together makes people wonder what's wrong with you, whether that's fair or not), etc.

Don't just sit there perplexed. There's something wrong with your file. It could be how you come off in your letters. It could be your writing samples or teaching philosophy. Something is not working.

Get somebody objective to look over your whole file for you.; 10:57 AM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: My two cents: The process is not simply random; in that sense, luck does not play a strong role. However, that does not mean that individuals can control their fate by "doing good work." Search committees use a lot of other decision rules, including pedigree and perceived fit for the position, many of which are out of the candidates' control and go far beyond the merit of their work. The market is also just plain terrible, so you cannot say good work will be rewarded, or that the top 30% will definitely get jobs. To that extent, anyone who manages to get a job in this climate is indeed quite lucky--in addition to having done work that merits a job.; 11:06 AM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^I agree with that, and I should clarify: I meant the top 30% in terms of what committees look for (pedigree, publications, letters, teaching experience, etc.), and not actual, objective quality.; 11:10 AM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: No one has suggested that the process is random or the best files don't rise to the top. But, even for the top folks, success can hinge on a few things that have nothing to do with them. Having served on several search committees,I can tell you some of the reasons we knock out candidates is absolutely stupid. This is more gut feel than most people want to admit.

I rarely find an objective reason to favor #1 over #20. (There is usually a drop off after that). For some reason, however, word gets out among the hiring schools that everyone has to have one of threee candidates, who get all the interviews.I have never been able to figure out why. Speculating on potential is a fool's errand.

Even for those jobs in which we haven't chased the flavor of the hiring season, we could have gone with any number of candidates who did nothing wrong and select folks for interview who did nothing particulary right. I can only conclude that he personalities on the search committee have lots to do with it.

My advice: work on the stuff you can control and hope fate smiles on you at the right time.; 11:57 AM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^What you are talking about describes the mentality and process of about 10-25 of the 100s of schools that have political science departments in this country.

You yourself say there is a drop after 20. I bet 15-20 of those 20 get jobs every year.; 12:33 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: Original 3:08 here- thanks for the comments. I should have probably clarified- this is my fourth year on the market and it is the first year that I did not get any interviews (in each previous year, I had a number of interviews, mostly at good schools). I am still in the same gig that I got right after PhD (so no multiple VAP's or post-docs), continue to diversify teaching portfolio and continue to publish.

My only point was that, in my experience, finding an objective reason to favor #1 candidate over #10 (especially in this market) is, in most cases, sheer luck (rather than randomness). And if departments invite only 3 candidates, tough luck if you are #4 or #5 (not even suggesting that I myself was among the top ten candidates). So, as the previous comments suggests, let's hope fate smiles on us at the right time.; 12:33 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Do you apply to all jobs, even at small teaching colleges with 4-4 loads in the middle of nowhere?

Just wondering what your range is for your applications.; 12:40 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: @12:23. The candidate pool is stronger this year, with more people that have also been beefing up their cvs than in years past, plus new ABDs who are taking longer to go out (thus going out with pubs, teaching etc). It also gets harder every year you go without a TT offer, even if you are not jumping from one position to another. Luck certainly plays a role, no doubt, but more competition every year will hurt your chances. Remember that newly minted PhDs are seen as full of potential. You no longer get that benefit. What you have in your cv is an exact representation of the scholar you are, not what you could be. Many SCs like to think they are getting the next hotshot, not just another solid scholar with a decent record.; 12:58 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: Cannot really agree with this view focused on luck or that you cannot distinguish in the top 20-30 candidates. I am at one of the very prestigious LACs, and usually, about three or four top candidates bubble up to the top very easily, once you exclude people who clearly are focused on research and don't want to be teachers first, researchers second, and you eliminate people who are way out there in terms of things way work on - eg, work Marxism, some anti-American stuff, call things that are not political philosophy "theory", or do very narrow subject areas within Ir or comparative to satisfy us, etc., - you go from 175-200 applicants to about 20 or 30. And this is the case in every subfield I have hired for, not just political philosophy - and in my years, I have been on many a search committee. Then you start to re-review who wrote their letters, and what those letters say, and it becomes pretty obvious who are the top 3 or 4 choices.

I remember few years back we were adding an Asia line (#2) in comparative. We brought three candidates to campus: everyone's clear first choice declined us (she has a great career now), second choice was offered tenure two and a half years ahead of schedule to not leave his top-25 but less prestigious LAC, and third candidate found us too rural for his wife's employment prospects (understandably). We usually don't have to go beyond our top three choices when we hire, and I wanted to end the search and start next year, but others in the department pushed to bring a candidate who had been #4 to campus (from Harvard). I was opposed to this candidate, because I felt the candidate did not pass the "I want to be at an LAC" bar. The person gave a very narrow, albeit good, talk, which no one but my colleagues who actually know Asia very well followed in full. Students hated the candidate - both the talk and personal interactions. The Dept split: most younger tenured faculty generally wanted the candidate, older ones did not, but we eventually decided to make an offer. It was probably the biggest disaster in our college's hiring history in PS, at least in 50 years. In the first year, evaluations from students were miserable, and things got worse from there. This person is now happily teaching at a large, not top tier but a research-focused, state school, where students are less demanding, discussions are not necessary, etc. Suits the candidate well.

My point is that from 200 candidates,we all had clearly agreed that there were three good ones. The fourth one some liked, others did not, those who did not turned out to be correct. We did not have a fifth candidate to bring in, or we would have, even though so many had applied. Oh and of the top three, it was pretty clear who the #1 was.

I agree with the sentiment that in theory about 20-30 people in a given year are the best, and those are the ones that get jobs. I do think folk are ignoring the importance of evaluations and relation that evaluators have with search committee / department at large members in the hiring process. These relationships and what the letters say matters a he'll of a lot more than your publication record, especially for an ABD or a young Ph.D. Eg., when/if the late Sam Huntington wrote in a letter that this was one of his top 10 students ever, publishing record really did not matter.; 1:09 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: "...it is not ordinarily the most ingenious and able for teaching that is pitched upon, but he who is connected, or whose Friends are connected with, and can serve the Men in Power: and this appears to be growing more and more in Fashion. When a Vacancy happens, we hear everyone saying, 'Who will get this Place, who has most Interest with such a Duke or such a Lord.' A Man’s Sufficiency is seldom or never mentioned; his Ability is no Recommendation of him..."

--William Thom, The Defects of a University Education (1762); 3:51 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ whatever let's you sleep at night, buddy.; 4:37 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^Irrelevant. We're not talking about true ability. We're talking about people with strong application files.; 4:40 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: What does this mean: "We're not talking about true ability. We're talking about people with strong application files."

Where else if not in academia does strong application file truly equal strong ability?!; 5:56 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: I was always pretty suspicious the political theory job market was pretty random in outcomes and a lousy approximation of a meritocracy. This suspicion was confirmed when I actually got a job. I know who several of the long-time unemployed job seekers are--I've served as their discussants on panels and given their work favorable reviews at journals. Many of these people are much, much better political theorists than I am. Maybe they're poor interviewers or lousy teachers, but I doubt it.

At any rate, we should avoid the self-serving belief that systems that benefit us were just and well-ordered as self-esteem strategy. That's how libertarianism happens.; 6:03 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: @6:03: well said.; 6:26 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ Or let's not live by the self-serving rationalization that the job market is random.

You can attribute motives to any view of the situation, so that doesn't really help your cause.

Your anonymous, anecdotoal evidence does nothing to sway me. There's no doubt that many employed theorists are lesser than their unemployed counterparts, but that says nothing about what the situation looked like when they were hired. You probably looked promising; too bad you didn't turn out. That doesn't mean your file wasn't superior to the competition's at the time.; 6:44 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: "I know of hardly any career on earth where chance plays such a role."

--Max Weber; 7:11 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: You probably looked promising; too bad you didn't turn out. That doesn't mean your file wasn't superior to the competition's at the time.

(6:03 here)

No, I'm perfectly aware that my file did not by any reasonable metric. I had one OK publication, I can name several people who I know applied for the job who had multiple, in better venues. Moreover, their publications were just better--more original, more interesting, better written. I don't look like a bust to my colleagues--I'm a popular and pretty good teacher, and I've published at what is considered in my department to be an acceptable rate. Tenure looks pretty likely (although with a 95%+ tenure rate at this institution, it's not much of an accomplishment).

Part of the problem is that my colleagues aren't really trained in theory, so they won't see that my work is pretty trivial and unoriginal compared to some of my unemployed peers. If anything, it's lack of sophistication makes it more accessible to non-theorists, which might have helped me get the job in the first place.; 7:35 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: Ok, without going off topic on these philosophic discussions of academia, any real news on who got the offers from (and if they accepted):
- Dartmouth
- Stanford
- UC Davis
- UoT
- WHS

These being the big searches in theory, minus MIT and CMC (former hired, latter offer extended); 8:26 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: WHS?

do you mean Hobart & William Smith?

for "big" searches, you forgot Wisconsin & Barnard.

though they're all big to me.; 10:27 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: Correct, done in a hurry, on both points.; 10:53 PM, December 22, 2010
Anonymous said...: You also left out UC San Diego. Any word from there?

Why is Hobart & William Smith a bigger search than any of the other LACs that advertised this year?; 12:40 AM, December 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: UC San Diego is mot a real political theory job.
Because it's ranked higher than most LACs advertising; 1:40 AM, December 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ HWS? Really?? I'm not sure what rankings system you're working with. But, according to US News, it's ranked below a) Barnard (which might not actually belong here), b) Denison, c) CMC, d) Lafayette, and e) Dickinson.

This is not to say that I believe in some deep wisdom of these rankings (indeed, I think they are deeply problematic). Nor is it to say that HWS is not a fine school and/or place to work. It is just to say that privileging it above the other LACs (on the grounds of rankings) is, frankly... odd.; 12:01 PM, December 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: So someone asks about HWS and the response is "wait, Denison is better"??? So you're offended that the poster thought of those as the "big" searches in theory?; 1:23 PM, December 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Offended? No. I have no connection to any of the schools, so I don't really have a horse in this race. It just struck me as a strange claim to make -- one unfounded by the rankings it purports to reflect.

In any case, it's not terrifically important (except for those who fetishize this sort of thing). And should be put to rest in favor of any actual news about the searches that have not yet closed.; 1:36 PM, December 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: Does it really matter? Rankings are just based on luck anyway.; 2:15 PM, December 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: For all the complaining that people do about the Wiki not being completed, someone really has it in for taking information off about CMC. Folks, offer is out, so stop pretending (whomever it is that takes the info down) that it is not.; 2:37 PM, December 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: @8:26: at least one of those searches has reached a conclusion, but apparently no one cares to share the information yet. Same with CMC, apparently.; 5:06 PM, December 23, 2010
Anonymous said...: Those with information on hires should not post anything here, on the Wiki, or elsewhere. Either that, or post false information. Make up names. Force the pathetic backbiters on here to twist in the wind for a few months till the information comes out in other venues. Then they can return to their normal behavior.

Starve the beast.; 11:34 AM, December 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^Over-dramatic much?

This board has historically done pretty well with not savaging people known to have gotten jobs. I don't know why this year would be any different.

How about people share information and everyone pledge to not be a dick. (Including you, 11:34.)

(And talking about whether someone is or is not a Straussian, while incredibly tedious, does not constitute backbiting.); 11:57 AM, December 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: Merry Christmas, everyone!; 12:13 PM, December 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: 2:15,

If you are referring to the U.S. News & World Report rankings, they may not be based on luck, but they are hardly objective either. Any ranking that puts Wake Forest ahead of Berkeley should be looked at with some skepticism. I may not be right on this, but I have heard that they include endowment size in their formula, which would hurt state schools. Just because you can put a number on it doesn't mean it is obejctive.; 12:14 PM, December 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: has anyone accepted the Stanford job?; 4:49 PM, December 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: santa; 6:09 PM, December 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: Any news of Nebraska?; 11:24 PM, December 24, 2010
Anonymous said...: I am always shocked by how snarky and mean the grad students are who post on this blog. I say this gently, but my department wouldn't hire a snarky mean person with a ten foot pole. Seriously.; 7:59 PM, December 25, 2010
Anonymous said...: Well, I guess Anonymous won't be getting a job in YOUR department!; 7:02 AM, December 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: If Nobody will hire Anybody, can Somebody still get a job?; 3:38 PM, December 26, 2010
Anonymous said...: The Wiki has claims about CMC that contradict one-another. Anyone have any insight there?; 12:54 PM, December 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Anyone heard anything regarding Columbia Society of Fellows? I haven't. Not sure if that's bad or not.; 1:39 PM, December 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Wiki info CMC was yet again removed. What do you mean by contradictory info? Offer is out at CMC, to an ABD, and likely to be accepted. (Student at one of the consortium colleges.); 2:39 PM, December 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: re: Columbia Soc of Fellows, the wiki for humanities and socsci postdocs (http://academicjobs.wikia.com/wiki/Humanities_and_Social_Sciences_Postdocs_2010-11) indicates that before Christmas, people received email invites to interviews. I haven't heard anything either. I think that's a bad sign at this stage.

Still waiting on Princeton Soc of Fellows and UChicago Harper Schmidt, though I'm not holding my breath.; 2:56 PM, December 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Richmond must have a short list. Got a snail mail rejection on Christmas Eve (and I was among those who got the request for a writing sample). Any political theorists land an interview for that one?; 3:46 PM, December 27, 2010
Anonymous said...: Has the Princeton Center for Human Values selected Laurance Rockefeller Visiting Fellows for 2011-12?; 10:54 AM, December 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: re: UChicago Society of Fellows - there are two independent search committees that run this search, one for humanities and one for social sciences, so the timing depends on which division you applied for... but in either case, calls for more materials usually go out in early jan, and on-campus interviews aren't usually held until March.

The number of open "lines" here depends, however, on how current fellows do on the job market... so there is no way to know when this search "ends."; 11:03 AM, December 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: the humanities side has already moved. see the postdoc wiki (which is actually a very good source of info, unlike all the polisci rumor mills. presumably because everyone behaves themselves over there).; 11:39 AM, December 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 11:44 PM, December 29, 2010
Anonymous said...: "reason to believe"? weird.; 9:06 AM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: 11:44 p.m. is not correct.; 9:47 AM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ I also have reason to believe that 11:44 is wrong.; 10:15 AM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12:32 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 2:04 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 2:19 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: Source says Claremont offer is to Areshidze.; 2:36 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: I suppose this isn't confidential anymore:

http://www.claremontconservative.com/2010/12/meet-your-new-government-professors.html; 3:22 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: 11:44 poster: so what was the good authority for spreading false info? Or were you just fishing for information?; 3:29 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: Wonderful to tell, a real victory of the West Coast (Pangle) over the East (Mansfield, Bruell)! It's on.; 3:31 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: @ 3:31. Pangle a West Coaster? Huh?; 3:47 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: Does this mean we're in for a 100 post argument about east and west coast Straussians? Please stop now while there's still time.; 3:53 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: Have no plans to participate and initiate in an argument about East Coast and West Coast Straussians, who is better, who is worse, or even if that sort of a distinction exists, but Tom Pangle is most definitely not a West Coast Straussian. This is a man who was a student of Bloom's in undergrad, then studied with Strauss, Cropsey, and Storing at Chicago, and after the huge upheaval at Yale spent at least a decade, if not longer, training students alongside Allan Bloom at Toronto. Not quite the background that a West Coast Straussian would have. Finally, CMC does have plenty of East Cost Straussians - at least two students of Mansfield teach there.

Finally, congratulations to Giorgi Areshidze for getting the job. Hopefully we can avoid repeat of what happened after the MIT hire's name leaked out.; 4:35 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: Who was the MIT here? (No interest in arguing about any hires and even less in intra-Straussian b.s., just wondering); 4:52 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: I would like to note that there was not a single bad thing said about the person hired by MIT; 5:08 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: who got the other LA job: LMU? wiki sez a hire was made.

Congrats to Areshidze!; 5:39 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ you are kidding right? He was trashed as an unqualified inside candidate, with no potential, since he had no publications. All the posts were then removed by the administrator. It was pretty disgusting actually, not to mention petty.; 5:50 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^ Wrong. It was pointed out, correctly, that the candidate who was hired has a thin resume --. which is not at all surprising, since I take it that he's an ABD or nearly so -- and that a number of other applicants no doubt had thicker ones. That led to a larger discussion about the relative merits of hiring on potential as opposed to performance, and whether the graduates of certain programs get favorable treatment in that regard. The merits, future potential, and even the name of the candidate in question were never mentioned or even alluded to. And the posts haven't been removed; they're still up on the old junior jobs thread, if anyone wants to check the facts for themselves.; 6:12 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: So, are non-Strausslings actually still wasting their time applying for positions like this one (i.e. CMC)? If so, I don't know why. And, Pangle is most definitely not a West-Coaster.; 8:14 PM, December 30, 2010
Anonymous said...: 6.12 raises an ineresting question:

what happens to the market when MIT and CMC hire based only on inside baseball?

is the publication game only for those 1) who can publish and 2) those who are not part of the chosen few? and 3) those who wont get jobs?

PS. Why cant the MIT or Texas ABD publish a simple article? Just one article?

PPS. we all know the answer is not that a book will come out six years from now that will validate everything.

PPPs. my word verification is priceless, at least for a plato scholar.; 12:32 AM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: I'm 6:12, and I didn't raise any questions. And the publication "game" is for everyone, eventually.; 1:07 AM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: 12:32 AM, December 31, 2010:

First, what does this mean "those who are not part of the chosen few". At least as far as Straussians are concerned, my experience as someone who "became" a Straussian as a Freshman in college many years ago, as a graduate student of Straussians, and now as a professor who has had students become Straussians in my own classes much like I did many years ago, no one is "chosen" to be a Straussian. Rather, certain students choose to follow our way of doing the study of political science and most do not. (My goal here is not to pass judgment on how we do things vs. others, but simply to give my sense of how students become Straussians.) It is not like we are out there on the look out, "oh let me choose that student and make him a Straussian". My door is open to anyone and everyone who is interested in serious reading of great books and the study of the American political regime, and if some choose to be Straussian, fine, and if they do not, fine as well.

Second, plenty of my former students are now professors themselves, and many have been fortunate to get very good jobs. However, in general, its much harder to get a job if you are identified as a Straussian than if you are not. It is true that the top two or three Straussians on the market will usually get a fairly decent job each year? Yes. And maybe one of those jobs will be at a place where from the start chances of a non-Straussian behind hired in political philosophy is fairly low (e.g., CMC this year). But there are many more Straussian Ph.D.s than the jobs that are open to them, and for every job that is tilted toward a Straussian, there are many more jobs where a Straussian won't even be interviewed, no matter how many publications they may have or what their academic achievement may be.

Finally, with regard to publications. I cannot speak to the MIT hire, but I have a hunch for why the CMC hire (the Texas ABD) has not yet published. I have no proof of this, but knowing his teachers, I suspect they have pushed him to focus on his dissertation and on developing a very broad set of teaching capabilities, rather than trying to get an early, what is bound to be a mediocre article into a journal while he is still a graduate student. (You will notice that he is teaching American government courses at another top LAC this Spring.) This is what my teachers pushed me to do when I was in school, and what Strauss, Cropsey, Storing pushed them to do when they were in school. This does not mean that we were discouraged from having "publication-ready" writing samples that could be provided to the search committees in applications, especially on subjects other than our dissertations. Most search committees can evaluate the quality of the writing themselves, and can safely tell whether something will or will not get published. This is what I at least view as the question of a candidate's "potential". So yes, everyone needs publications, but in my humble opinion as someone who was once on the market and since has had a chance to evaluate plenty of theory and non-theory job candidates, this is really not that critical until after you are being considered for your third / four year review and then tenure.; 4:15 AM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: None of the ABDs interviewed at CMC had any publications, so that obviously was never what carried weight there. But that's because of the specific kind of job it was. Three APSRs in two years wouldn't have helped a candidate who didn't have the right connections or who had voted for Obama. This isn't a knock against any of the candidates, it's just the reality of the situation. I don't know the situation at MIT. That being said, I do think that it's possible for search cmtes to gauge potential even without publications - some people's projects are just much more interesting, well developed, etc. That being said, in the current environment the pressure to publish is so strong that if someone hasn't you at least have to ask why and come up with a good explanation.; 9:10 AM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: ^^ I'm not a Straussian (sounds very Nixonian, doesn't it?), but I'd like to second the point about not fetishizing early publications. What a publication, *if* it's in a decent journal, will get you at most is a second look. If the work doesn't look good, then the fact that you chose to publish it may actually send a bad signal, at least at the better programs -- that you're the kind of person who will "settle" for a mediocre pub rather than put in the time and effort to do good work.; 9:46 AM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: So work looks good if it's in a decent journal?; 9:53 AM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: No, work gets a second look if it's in a decent journal. Work looks good if it's actually good.; 11:17 AM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: Dear 4.15 am:

I'm 12.32, and I am a Straussian. I agree with almost everything you say, at least in the sense that it is like my own experience.

But this old school, wait to publish and learn how to teach, model is one reason why Straussians dont do so well on the market. It's a little outdated and a professional disservice.

I actually believe that a mediocre pub can be all the difference in the world, especially because non-theorists will be on the search committees. Above all else, it's a signal that the candidate can eventually pull the trigger.; 11:33 AM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12:30 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 12:55 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 1:12 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 1:28 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 1:32 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: Anyone know what's up with Hartford?; 2:11 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3:27 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3:46 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 3:52 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4:11 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4:30 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4:32 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4:34 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4:40 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5:32 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5:36 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5:40 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 6:01 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 7:10 PM, December 31, 2010
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 7:35 PM, December 31, 2010
administrator said...: I am on vacation and can't delete the latest round of sniping, so I am closing this thread for a couple of days until I return and can do some editing.; 8:59 PM, December 31, 2010
administrator said...: Time for a fresh start. Sorry that I had to close the discussion, and thanks for your patience.; 6:21 PM, January 11, 2011
Anonymous said...: 6:48 - "the dynamic that sunk this search" - do you know what the actual dynamic was or should we just assume one of the usual search-sinking dynamics in political science must have been at work?

As I understand it from a Columbia grad student it went something like this:

Barnard faculty have X in mind. They bring in candidates who are X. Meddling Columbia PS theory faculty has a problem with X, and (bafflingly) veto power. Said veto power is exercised. Barnard faculty have no backup plan. fin.; 4:02 AM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Thoughts on the Pan American job just advertised? Any info about the place?

Also, do VAP searches (like the Wooster one) require flyouts, or are they usually done on the basis of a paper sift/phone interview? Sorry for dumb question, newbie here.; 4:25 AM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Note that the Wisconsin job (according to the Wiki) has gone to a Wisconsin Ph.D. He's been out for more than five years and appears to have good credentials--I'm not suggesting he's not qualified. Rather, I'm wondering if people feel that 5 years out is long enough to overcome the general norm against hiring your own PhD and concerns about academic inbreeding.; 8:09 AM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: So did you entirely miss the discussion on the general discussion thread?; 8:14 AM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Why is it baffling that Columbia faculty has veto power over whom Barnard hires. Barnard is not a fully independent college. Yes, it has its own faculty, but ultimately, it has not been absorbed fully into Columbia (unlike say Radcliffe was in the 1980s and 1990s) for one simple reason: by having an x share of students admitted into Barnard, Columbia is able to keep its admissions rate lower than it would otherwise be (Barnard admissions rate is upward of 35-40%). Yet there is always a possibility that it will be absorbed, and so for this reason, Columbia must keep some control over what happens there.; 12:23 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: You could also work with Zuckert at Notre Dame, Deneen and Mitchell at Georgetown, or Saxonhouse at Michigan, if you want to do ancient...; 12:52 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^ or Balot and Orwin at Toronto.; 1:02 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: @12:23 PM you already tried to sell this argument on the other blog. It's just simply not true. CU rarely participates in Barnard hires. The faculty this year was invited to be on the SC because they have few theorists, and no the person does not have veto power. Keep your random uninformed comments to yourself!; 2:26 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^If the SC's decision can't pass without the consent of the Columbia faculty member, then that effectively constitutes veto power, with or without any formal provision.; 2:35 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: 8:09: Kapust's advisors, and in fact every political theorist who was on the UW faculty when he was a student (plus a lot of other faculty besides) have since left. There's been a lot of turnover there in the last 5 years. So it's hard to look at this as a case of "inbreeding."

The only case I can see against making the hire from that standpoint is to say that UW is better off having one of its 2-3 most successful theory graduates in recent memory out there making a name for himself & for the institution, rather than working in house. But on the merits he looks like an excellent hire otherwise.; 2:42 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: 2:26 PM, January 12, 2011
seems to me like i have way more evidence than you do so facts speak for themselves - hire did not happen. as far as barnard, facts are pretty obvious on that one also.; 2:54 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Question:

Does listing two separate B.A.'s indicate the person actually earned two separate B.A.'s or merely double-majored as an undergraduate?; 2:55 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Presumably it means he or she earned two degrees. Otherwise, one could list double major, or something like that.; 2:57 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: it usually means two BA as an undergraduate, which requires more than a double major but less than attending two undergraduate colleges.; 2:58 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: it usually means two BA as an undergraduate--

I meant at the same place, during the same 4-5 years.; 2:59 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: If listed as two separate degrees, i.e. two BAs, presumably they are two separate degrees.; 3:01 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: And this fascinating topic matters because? Any actual rumors?; 3:16 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: 2:55, 2:57, 2:58, 2:59, and 3:01:

You all have been burned, big time.

Well played, 3:16.; 3:37 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: So has anyone accepted lately besides Dan Kapust?; 4:01 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Indeed. Congratulations to Stefan Dolgert, hired by UConn!; 4:06 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Okay, so that's UConn. According to the Wiki, Davis, Dickinson, Loyola Marymount, Saint Mary's, UMBC, and Lafayette have hired. Anyone have any names?; 4:11 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: And Dartmouth has an offer out.; 4:11 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: @2:35 and 2:54. Hire did not happen, but not because CU prof had veto power. Barnard faculty are not at the mercy of one CU faculty, and they constitute a majority of the SC. The committee as a whole decided that none of the people they interviewed were a good fit. That's all. I know it stinks in this market to see good jobs go unfilled, but often schools are willing to try another year and find someone who fits their needs rather than hire someone that doesn't. Random grad student gossip on this one is just wrong.; 4:12 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Any movement on the McGill postdoc?; 4:13 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Sorry, but the grouch in me cannot help but point out that the UConn hire doesn't have any real publications.; 4:19 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Meh, may be true, but his work sounds pretty interesting and unusual, and a good fit for the search (wasn't it some weird environmental theory joint-appointment type thing?); 4:35 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: 4:19 PM, January 12, 2011
First, congratulations.
Second, not true re publications, see his CV.
Third, note that he shares something with the other two hires whose names are public: he's taught.
Fourth, he is also quite a bit older than your average Ph.D. Undergrad class of 1990; I have undergrad students from around the same time with tenure already.; 4:59 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: UConn's hire is versatile. That's a guy that could teach HR, ancient, contemporary, environmental, APT, introductory (and probably upper-level) IR courses. In this job market, it's suicidal to be overly specialized.

His not having any publications is likely outweighed by the fact that he fills lots of gaps in terms of course offerings (and if he got through the job talk and studies at Duke, he probably has plenty of research potential.); 5:12 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: 4:59, I'm looking at his CV. I'm not seeing much in the way of pubs. A book chapter. Some encyclopedia pieces. I imagine this is outdated though.; 5:17 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: The statement was "any real publications" - book chapter is a "real publication". And this is a CV from two years ago.; 5:31 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: "Does listing two separate B.A.'s indicate the person actually earned two separate B.A.'s or merely double-majored as an undergraduate?"

I have two B.A.s on my CV: from a US college and a UK university. It is quite common for the Rhodes, Marshall, etc., group to have two B.A.s, since lots of folks do a fast-two year B.A. and then follow up with a third year M.A. of some type, whilst others do an M.A. and often a D.Phil.; 5:40 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Dolgert has a piece in the latest Political Theory, which probably is not on an out of date cv.; 7:35 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Well, not to quibble, but his PT piece is a 6 page reply to another article. And his book chapter appears in a volume edited by his advisor.

Perhaps he has other publications floating around somewhere?

None of this is to say that he isn't deserving of the job. But his publication record seems a bit thin to me, especially in such a competitive job market.; 8:04 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: "But his publication record seems a bit thin to me, especially in such a competitive job market."

Again, whatever you make of this publication record, as well as that of the Claremont and MIT hires (no publications far), it only goes to prove the point that publications are a nice to have, but are not a requirement for hiring. Will they hurt? Probably not. Will they help? Maybe, but also probably not significantly. What matters is the right school on the CV, or barring that, the right dissertation adviser (top adviser can make up for you having school 5-20 on the CV), and ability to teach well (this is something the three individuals whose names have come out also share, they have all taught classes). So, this whole theory of get your head down and publish, I know where it comes from, and if it makes you feel better, fine, but reality is reality.; 9:06 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: not to quibble... ??
please, you're like a quibbling machine. If you were a superhero, you'd be The Quibbler.; 9:16 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: why does our president think it appropriate to give a longwinded teach-in during a funeral?

I think I prefer the Gettysburg address.; 9:32 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Quibbler here.

The guy seems interesting. I liked his Chronicle article about his dog (I mean that sincerely). He'll probably be a wonderful hire.

But you have to admit, if, 3 years out of grad school, all he has to show for himself is a) 2 encyclopedia entries b) a chapter in a book edited by his advisor and c) a 6 page reaction in what is, admittedly, an important journal...I mean...that's not terribly overwhelming.

I know of several ABD students in my own program who have more impressive publication records than that.

Yes, yes, I know: publications aren't everything, pedigree matters, so does your topic, it helps to have glowing teaching evaluations, etc. etc.

So my claim isn't that this guy doesn't deserve the job, all things considered. Rather, it's that, looking just at publication record, I'm a bit surprised at the hire.

But hey, congratulations to him. That's a great job to get.; 9:37 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Odd. Very odd. Perhaps he's been hanging on to stuff waiting to get a tenure track position before he sends it out.; 10:33 PM, January 12, 2011
Anonymous said...: Maybe he figured that the only thing publications will do is make your CV look a little more impressive than it would otherwise (since what really matters is the ability to include 1/2 exceptional pieces with your file so that the committee can read it), so instead he focused on teaching - he had teaching jobs at three different schools, including one of the top 5 colleges and one of the top 20 colleges. So again, I do not know who is responsible for this "you must publish" mantra, but it was not true 15 years ago when I was looking for a job, and its not true now. We are going to do a search next year, and whether you have or do not have publications will matter about as much as whether you speak German or not. Now if you speak Greek, however, that will matter quite a bit.; 1:10 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: Oh and add to that his teaching experience at UoT.; 1:12 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: But his publication record seems a bit thin to me, especially in such a competitive job market.

What many young scholars fail to recognize is that publication record is but one of many ways in which we evaluate scholars competing for junior positions. It is important, but it is one of several ways in which we evaluate candidates.

To make this point in a slightly less delicate way--there are a couple of job seekers with 3-5 peer reviewed publications in very good journals whose research agenda is....not particularly compelling. A large volume of publications won't overcome that.; 1:19 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: 1:10...you act as if it's a choice. Teach well or publish some competent pieces at solid journals in your field. It's not. Plenty of folks manage to do both.

And honestly, I'd be skeptical of a candidate that hadn't published at least one peer review article despite having been done with the diss. for a couple years. The bottom line is that as soon as the R1-tenure clock starts ticking, they're going to have to publish and quick. It's not "someone" who decided that. It's the system of which we are a part. No one particularly likes it. But it's a fact.

Every department has their reasons for hiring candidates. And who are any of us to judge not knowing what the inside line is...but saying that having publications are next to irrelevant for your search? (or any search). That's mind boggling. Surely, you're exaggerating.; 1:21 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: And to 1:21: I'm not, and don't call me Shirley.; 3:41 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: to 1:19. The fact that people have several peer-reviewed publications means that their research agenda has been vetted more than one time. Do you think your research agenda is compelling? Asshole.; 6:46 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: Leave Dolgert alone already - the job was written, as I recall, with a very clear description - environmental political thought. And it was, I think, some sort of joint position. So you probably really needed to do environmental thought to get the job. Out of the 150-200 applicants (or more) that they got, how many were actually qualified? And of that number, how many had projects that crossed as many fields as Dolgert? (And he has published...not many people come out of grad school with a peer-reviewed article, after all.)

Teaching versus publication? False dichotomy - the best teachers I've known have generally been good researchers. I can think of only a few that I've known who were strong teachers and didn't do much research, and can think of only a few strong researchers who were not good in the classroom.

As to the issue that publications wouldn't matter in a search, though - color me skeptical; I agree with much of 1:21's post - except for calling the prior poster Shirley, which is just strange. Even if they don't matter within the search committee, which I have a tough time believing, imagine the reaction of the non-theorists to a list of candidates who had the following:

1. Candidate from top 5 school with famous advisers, good letters, and no publications, but who seems to have real potential based on a writing sample.

2. Candidate from top 10 school with sort of famous advisers, good letters, and 2-3 mid- to high-level publications (e.g. HPT, JHI, ROP). The pubs would indicate potential to the non-theorists, in my experience.

3. Candidate from top 15 school with even less famous advisers, good letters, an APSR or JPP (or 2), and a book contract.

In my department, the preference of the non-theory faculty would, ceteris paribus (even though they never are), be for candidate 3. Candidate 1 would be a very tough sell.

Now, if 1 outperformed 3 at the talk, then the publications would recede in importance.; 7:04 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: 7.04 is spot on for 90% of RI's.; 9:04 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: "We are going to do a search next year, and whether you have or do not have publications will matter about as much as whether you speak German or not."

I have a tough time believing this. A piece in the APSR, or JPP, or Ethics wouldn't matter much?; 11:42 AM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: "We are going to do a search next year, and whether you have or do not have publications will matter about as much as whether you speak German or not."
----

spoken like an entitled associate at a top 30ish LAC.; 12:19 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: I wrote this reply last night to 1:21 AM, January 13, 2011, but somehow it did not get posted so trying again...

Actually, in my view it is a choice (whether to teach well or to publish), especially for a very young scholar.

First, I belong to those from long time ago who actually believe that a primary job of a professor at a school that awards undergraduate degrees is to teach undergraduates, and if it also awards graduate degrees, to teach graduates, and that publications are secondary. Is this the view of majority of my colleagues in the university? No. But there are those of us who do like to teach, and we are a much larger group than people realize.

Second, I believe earlier this year someone here commented how insane it was that a person was spending two to three hours preparing for each hour of his class. I do not think that's crazy at all. I have been teaching same/similar classes for years, and I still spend at least two hours preparing for each hour I lecture. For example, I teach the Republic at least once a year, quite often twice. I have read it probably at least 50 times. Does this mean I am not going to read it AGAIN for each class? Of course I will, because it would be irresponsible to give a lecture otherwise. Does this mean I do not remember what happens in Book 5? Certainly not, but it must still be read, so that you are fresh for your students. Likewise, I have taught Marbury v. Madison probably at least 20 times. But I will still read it again when it comes up in class next month. Whats my point? If I, having been in the classroom for almost two decades, still spend hours preparing for each class, then certainly someone who is a junior faculty member, just out of graduate school (or still in graduate school), needs to spend even longer hours preparing. A day only has so many hours, and in my view, if you want to be truly prepared for class, you will not have the time or the ability to write and publish truly exceptional work in the very early stages of your career. So in my view, the job of a young scholar in graduate school should be to focus on becoming a good teacher and to focus on finishing his dissertation. Publishing will come, eventually, but it will take time. Finally, there is a publication and there is a publication. Simply because Political Theory published something does not mean its worth the paper its printed on - we could reduce political science publications by about 2/3 across all fields and not lose much. Better to have one article thats quality and game changing (in case of political philosophy, that sheds new light on a particular passage or view in a great book) than three that are not. D
Do not get me wrong, I have published books and plenty of articles, but I believe it would be irresponsible to my department and my students to decide on candidates based on whether they were able to produce an article that is almost certainly to be of secondary value as far as scholarship while they were in graduate school. So no, we will not decide whether to interview a candidate based on whether or not they have a piece in "the APSR, or JPP, or Ethics."

Our search will come down, like I am sure almost all searches do, more than anything, to what each candidate's advisers have to say. If, say Michael Gillspie, writes to say that a particular candidate is one of his very best, that candidate will most certainly make a short list, whether or not he has publications. By contrast, if Gillsepie's letter is positive but not glowing, whether or not this candidate has a publication will not overcome the letter. I and my colleagues write letters also, and so we can easily understand its meaning - there are letters that say, this is one of my best students ever, and then there are letters that say, this is a good student but not one of my best very; we'll be looking for the "very best" types, and everything else will be secondary.; 12:24 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: ^So how often are the letters you read not very strong?; 12:54 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: I have participated in about a dozen searches over the years (not just theory of course). Usually every year you will find about half dozen.; 1:18 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: "I have participated in about a dozen searches over the years (not just theory of course). Usually every year you will find about half dozen."

Well that's interesting. If maybe 6/200 have weak letters, it seems that this is among the least useful criteria for separating out candidates, no? As for eliminating the remaining 190, I suppose one would have to look at publications, etc., right? Or am I missing something?; 1:23 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: A related question about letters. How do committees look upon letters written by folks outside of one's PhD institution, everything else being the same (viz., quality of the letter and status of recommender)? I would think, though I am often wrong about these things, that they would be worth more insofar as these folks have no institutional incentives to write these letters.; 1:26 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: The fact that people have several peer-reviewed publications means that their research agenda has been vetted more than one time.

I said compelling, not vetted. Looking back on my own first publication, it was good solid work, but it wasn't interesting or important. I wouldn't give myself much credit for it, if I were on a hiring committee. I do have much more interesting work, but it too quite a bit longer to get it published. The impact of that work has been much greater.; 1:30 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: I just don't if I can bring myself to tell my grad students, Don't worry about publishing - it's all about your letters.; 1:38 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: According to the Wiki, Davis, Dickinson, Loyola Marymount, Saint Mary's, UMBC, and Lafayette have hired. Anyone have any names?; 1:41 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: 1:23: at what point did I use the term "weak" - I actually did not. My point here is about the distinction between good/positive/fine and exceptional. There is such a thing as exceptional, and we have the ability to recognize it.; 1:51 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: 12:24's position is odd, and likely only applies to searches where the committee is dominated by 1) political theorists and 2) old people. That is, the vast minority of searches.

When a committee includes significant sub-field representation outside theory, which will always be the case for most searches, as most schools don't have enough theorists to populate an entire committee, then the letters will matter very little. The majority of the committee will have no idea whose opinion is trustworthy or not and no idea who is exuberant and who miserly in their praise.

And unless the committee is limited to older faculty who still value the old-boy network, the ideals of merit will dominate. In my department there is a clear divide between those of us who got our PhD's before and after around 1990. The older group wants to hire people from "top" schools, while the younger faculty want to hire the top candidates, regardless of pedigree. As the post 1990 group has come to dominate, demonstrated excellence in teaching and meaningful publications have become the most important variables. And we always find more than enough candidates who can do both well, already, mostly in the pool of faculty who've been in VAP positions for a few years.; 1:54 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: 12:24 also seems to have been so blinded by letters that he hasn't actually looked at the files of his searches. If he thinks young scholars can't both produce significant scholarship AND build a record of great teaching, he is seeing a different pool than I am. This isn't a business for gentleman-amateurs anymore. Yes, you need to put in 2-3 hours prep for each hour you teach. And you need to spend 30-40 hours a week writing. And once you have a job you need to find some time for service as well. The successful candidates are already doing this. If you can't, go work for a bank or something else that's easier.; 1:58 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: Wow. I hope the "it's the letter" line isn't truly applied frequently - if you don't get to the right school, or work with the right person, you're screwed.; 2:07 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: Agreed: as someone at a good R1, 12:24 PM seems rather strange. Letters are given some weight, certainly, as is degree institution, but publications (especially in high-prestige venues) and teaching experience *while one is doing that publishing* counts for far more. We, too, like folks who have been doing VAPs for a year or two and have managed to publish in the best venues at the same time: they have demonstrated that they can hit the ground running and do the very thing they'll need to do to get tenure.; 2:14 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: "teaching experience *while one is doing that publishing*"

Yes, this exactly. At my pretty good LAC we want to hire to tenure. If you've already shown you can do well the things you need for tenure, then you've got a huge advantage. Since we aren't concerned that you do world-changing scholarship, we are happy to let peer review in the publication process serve to validate your work, especially since it's unlikely anyone on the committee has sufficient expertise to sort out good from bad work to any degree of precision greater than the reviewers. If we did have that expertise, we wouldn't be hiring in the AOS described!; 3:25 PM, January 13, 2011
Anonymous said...: Oh come off it 1:58. I find it very hard to believe that anyone with even the slightest semblance of a personal life (not to mention a family) is spending 30-40 hours a week writing ON TOP OF 2+ courses per term (in the lightest of schedules), where each course involves at least 2.5 hours per week actually lecturing, two to three times that preparing, and however many hours grading, talking to students, etc.

Be that as it may, I find the idea that academics are so much busier than everybody else a ridiculous conceit. Give me a break. We have remarkably flexible hours and get at least three months of the year completely open (granted we have to be productive with that free time, but the amount you have to do to keep your job at most places is still relatively low, all things considered). We end up with a huge amount of leisure time and relatively few responsibilities compared to others with similar education and/or earning power.; 3:36 PM, January 13, 2011

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Political theory and public law job market

12/19/2010

2010-11 Junior Theory Jobs Post #3

766 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts