2011-12 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.
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.
posted by administrator at
7/31/2011 04:59:00 PM
194 Comments:
Check out John Maus. He was a professor of Political Theory and Philosophy at University of Hawaii and now he makes pop music and gives intense interviews where he talks about Robocop, Adorno, Kant, Joan Baez, MLK and more - http://www.indie30.com/component/content/article/36-news-archive/365-the-politics-professor-returns.html
I know John somewhat. He wasn't a prof -- he is still a grad student. (He has been an instructor, thus the common mistake people make.) His music is a cool amalgam of 80s synth pop and fuzzed out vocals -- I do occasionally catch a bit of Ranciere or Bennett in the references. I don't think he has published anything yet, but his theorizing has certainly helped his music. I think there's a interview on the NPR All Songs Considered site too.
Given the realities of the job market, should I apply to schools outside the recognized top 10-14?
I have a good shot of getting into at least one of those programs, but there are programs outside where I know I would be happy at and get good training even though they don't have a widely known reputation (yet?). Any words of advice? Thank you.
Prospective Grad Student here,
Given the realities of the job market, should I apply to schools outside the recognized top 10-14?
I have a good shot of getting into at least one of those programs, but there are programs where I know I would be happy at and get good training even though they don't have a widely known reputation (yet?). Any words of advice?
Don't do it. Definitely don't do it if you are doing it in the hope of forging a career rather than for the intrinsic pleasure of it.
Going to a second tier school obviously limits your prospects. But many recent jobs have gone to people from such programs, e.g., Georgetown. The rub, of course, is that these are generally not very good jobs. Clearly, if you want what is generally regarded as a desirable job, then you have to go to a better program. But going to a second tier school does not rule out a career.
E.g., Colorado-Boulder, Baylor, and UCONN as well (this past year). There are always good jobs for good students.
There are always good jobs for good students.
The degree to which some people cling to the myth of meritocracy is just extraordinary. It's a powerful and obviously appealing ideological trope, but theorists really should manage to be a little more self-conscious about that sort of thing...
agreed.
Here's the last two years of hires listed on the wikis. The market recently looks to me very difficult to game by selecting your school. Princeton's unemployed candidates are piling up as much as anybody else's, while some second-tier programs seem to have been doing OK. There's plenty of unemployment to go around, but elite school dominance of the market is starting to look like a near-myth.
Arkansas State University (VAP): Jason Adams (Hawaii ABD)
Bates (VAP): Hired PJ Brendese (Duke PhD).
Belmont Abbey College: Patrick Cain (Baylor PhD)
Bowdoin (VAP): Hired Seth Jaffe (Toronto ABD).
Capital University: Hired Daniel Skinner (CUNY PhD).
Carleton College: Hired Mihaela Czobor-Lupp (Georgetown PhD).
Columbia University: Hired Turkuler Isiksel (Yale ABD).
Drexel (non-West): Hired George Ciccariello-Maher (Berkeley ABD).
Florida International University (Lecturer): Walsh (Florida PhD).
James Madison University (Interdisciplinary "Justice Studies" position, VAP): Hired Robert Glover (UConn ABD).
Lee University: Hired Thomas Pope (Baylor ABD).
Loughborough University (UK): Hired Phil Parvin (LSE, Cambridge and UC Berkeley Post Doc).
Memorial University (CA): Dimitri Panagos (Queen's PhD).
Penn State (Lecturer): Amy Linch (Rutgers PhD)
St. Francis Xavier University (CA): Hired (Brandeis PhD).
Skidmore (VAP): Carl Scott (Fordham PhD).
Smith (VAP): Hired Cyril Ghosh (Syracuse PhD).
Stonehill College: Hired Bettina Scholz (Harvard PhD).
Susquahanna University (VAP Theory/Comparative): Bruno Anili (Oregon ABD).
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa: Hired Naomi Choi (UC Berkeley ABD).
University of Alaska, Fairbanks: Hired Sean Parson (Oregon ABD).
University of Central Arkansas: Hired Mary Beth Sullivan (Texas A&M PhD).
University of Dayton: Hired David Watkins (University of Washington PhD).
University of Hawaii, Hilo: Hired Katherine Young (Colorado State ABD).
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities: Hired Yves Winter (UC Berkeley PhD, Wesleyan Post Doc).
University of Oregon: Hired Anita Chari (Chicago PhD, Chicago SOF).
University of Richmond: Hired Kevin Cherry (Notre Dame PhD, St. Anselm Assistant Prof).
University of Texas - Pan American (VAP): Hired Christie Maloyed (Texas A&M PhD).
University of Wisconsin, River Falls: John C. Evans (University of Wisconsin PHD; CSU-Northridge Assistant Professor.)
University of St Gallen (CH): Klaus Dingwerth (Bremen).
Valparaiso University (Christ College): Hired David Western (Brown PhD, Grinnell Post-Doc).
Williams (VAP): Hired Michael Feola (UC Berkeley, Rhetoric PhD)
Wittenberg (VAP): Daniel Betti (Texas A&M PhD).
Christopher Newport University: Hired Mendham (Emory Postdoc, Notre Dame PhD).
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Offer to Stanczyk (Harvard PhD).
Stanford University: Hired McQueen (Cornell PhD).
University of Connecticut: Hired Dolgert (Toronto Postdoc/Duke PhD).
University of Oxford, UK: Hired David Leopold (Oxford)
University of Wisconsin, Madison: Hired Kapust (UGA/Wisconsin Ph.D.).
But this doesn't mean that it is true that "there are always good jobs for good people." That is demonstrably false. There are lots of good people from excellent and mediocre programs who have been unable to find t-t jobs in recent years. That is the reality.
"Skidmore (VAP): Carl Scott (Fordham PhD)."
Fordham has a PhD program?
used to, and people admitted to it were allowed to finish
Will asking questions on this forum reveal to fellow prospective grad students the field's best kept secrets?
^No, it is a place to share rumors and opinions and seek advice.
Crap. Those were our best kept secrets.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/sep/30/
harassment-victims-speak/
^^ the PSJR thread (assuming that it isn't deleted soon) names someone else (not a theorist). But since the YDN article doesn't name anyone at all we don't really know. Despicable as the behavior sounds, I vote for not smearing anyone before the facts are out. We don't even know who's been accused, let alone whether the accusations have merit.
Sounds like a disgusting place to study whether the actual offender was a theorist or a comparativist.
@3:03, I'm not sure who this was, but the specifics of the case seem to imply that it was not the person you're alleging. The student recounts the professor referring to a harassment case at his previous job. But the person you're discussing has never taught anywhere but at Yale. I agree that the behavior is despicable but it's a serious charge to just start leveling at specific people without any basis.
Posting links about the Yale case and discussing it WITHOUT speculation/hints as to the professor is OK, but until there is something more solid, I will delete anything that connects this with a specific faculty member.
But the original poster was right about this:
This is yet a another reason not to study at Yale if you have other options.
The senior theorists can't get along (they won't even serve on the committees of each other's students).
And if this story is true about the way undergrads are treated as sexual prey, how do you think the graduate students fare?
^ It's a little much to generalize from the creepy behavior of one faculty member (if true) to students generally being "treated as sexual prey." And if you think Yale is the only place with a creepy person on the faculty, then you've lived a very sheltered life. Counting college I've been associated with about half a dozen different departments (none of them Yale), and I've heard rumors like this at every single one.
This isn't a "rumor." Its a formal accusation, under investigation by the Feds.
^ Sorry, I wrote imprecisely. I've heard rumors/stories about behavior like this by certain faculty at every institution that I've been affiliated with. I've never been directly involved in a case (fortunately), so I can't say whether Yale's response is above or below the norm. But the underlying problem is very widespread.
This year's discussion re: sexual harassment at Yale will turn into the 200 post mess that was last year's discussion re: whether or not certain profs are Straussians.
Will this thread ever be helpful/relevant to potential grad students?
Well, on attending graduate school at Yale: the poster above said theory students can't get the faculty to serve together on a committee. That strikes me as off. The two Straussians, Smith and Garsten, regularly serve on committees together.
Yes, but is Garsten a Straussian?
^ ooh, a twofer!
I have to say I always get a kick out of the posters here who take the time out of their busy days to be pre-emptively disgusted with discussions we're about to have.
So I know that analytic dominate philosophy departments. How do we fare in political science?
That should have read analytics*. Also, I forgot to ask another question. I'm planning on applying for Greek political thought and analytic political theory. I don't have any formal training in Greek, but rather have learned the language solely autodidactically. I've gone through about two semesters worth. Will this harm me in my applications, or does it not really matter?
^Be sure to describe yourself as an autodidact.
Seriously, I don't think it will hurt you. Graduate school is the place where you will hone your language/methods training. Mastery of Greek going in would put you ahead of the curve--it's not a prerequisite for admission.
Does contacting POI's during the application process truly make a difference (one way or the other)?
Re: analytic philosophy and political theory:
Analytic approaches do not dominate. Far from it. You realize this when you hit the job market as an analytic political theorist.
My two cents: given your interests, you should go to grad school in philosophy.
>Does contacting POI's during the application process >truly make a difference (one way or the other)?
Its a negative. Don't do it. If your undergrad instructors/advisors have contacts at schools where you're applying, let them write on your behalf.
re: analytic political theory -- in addition to the obvious top few programs (i.e. Princeton and Harvard), what programs in the 'second' and 'third' tiers offer good training in normative political theory of the sort that is frequently published in journals like ethics and philosophy and public affairs? particularly interested here in debates regarding equality, distributive justice, etc. not necessarily to the exclusion of continental theory, though that is not my emphasis.
Take a look at Stanford (Cohen, Reich, and lots of folks outside the department [Satz in philosophy, Fried in law, Callan in ed, Fishkin in communications]) and Brown (Tomasi, Brettschneider, and folks in philosophy [Estlund, Larmore]).
^Yes. Also UVA.
Possibles: Wash U, Toronto, McGill, Queen's.
Also, nowadays Berkeley is starting to look good (Song, Bevir, Hoekstra) and folks in philosophy (Kolodny, Kutz, Munoz-Darde, Wallace).
Oxford - Waldron, Adam Swift, David Miller, Simon Caney, Dan McDermott, Stuart White, all in Politics and IR. Lots in philsophy and law too, including Joseph Raz (retired, tho teaching) and Cecile Fabre.
Also, LSE: Christian List, Chandran Kukuthas, Lea Ypi, Katrin Flickshuh, all in Government.
^ Yes, BUT (i) British universities have worse initial placement records especially in the US, (ii) British universities rarely fund graduate students. So, only do your Ph.d in Britain if you don't care about your job prospects and you get some kind of scholarship. If you have the time and money, however, Britain might be a good place to do a masters before doing a Ph.d in the States.
Poor placement? Oxford-trained political theorists get great post-docs and jobs all over the place (check out recent holders of the Global Justice post-doc at Stanford, for example). Many don't apply for jobs in the US (there are other places in the world)
It is hard to be sure as Oxford does nothing to publicise its placement record - itself perhaps a sign that the record isn't that good - but my suspicion (echoing ^^) is that a lot of Oxford D.Phil students never manage to land an academic job even though they would like to. That was certainly the case when I was there.
Comparing British and American PhD placement is tricky, because a far higher proportion of people who enter British PhD programs (including at the LSE, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) have no intention of embarking on an academic career. When I was at one of those, the figure was nearly 50% of the class - it may be lower now, but will be significant. The reason is simple: the programs are much shorter (3-4 years), so they attract both those who want to be academics, and those who never had that intention in the first place but want, for whatever reason, to do a serious piece of scholarly work. In my graduation year, at least, all those who wanted an academic job got one.
I Just wanted to say I'm in the program at Yale and I think it's a great place to study. I couldn't be happier with the community of graduate students we have, as well as with the faculty supervision. In particular, if you want to do work that combines political theory with other areas of political science, Yale is excellent. And for all the pearl-clutching I heard on this site before coming about a "toxic" environment amongst certain faculty members, I have not felt it to be an issue in the least. I have not heard of anyone not being able to get a committee together. Yes, the faculty have very different approaches to political theory. That is a virtue, not a vice. We aren't just a Rawls factory.
Unlike all those other Rawls factories that exist in political science departments in 2011.
How is Notre Dame's placement for theorists? I'd especially like to see the placement specifically for their theorists who have published (and which journals).
Yale political theory is a snakepit: no matter what was said above, the senior faculty won't speak to each other and the junior faculty take out their alienation on students. The sexual harassment scandal in another field is poisoning the entire department. I can't wait to get out.
^ Wow. I love the deep knowledge and insight from someone with absolutely no familiarity with Yale.
From what I heard, Yale is in New Haven. But it isn't really new, and it isn't a haven. Shameful.
Is it true that in recent years Yale hasn't gotten any theory students at all? Those that visited on prospective's day were so turned off that they all went elsewhere?
Yes. A central problem seems to be a refusal of Straussians (Smith, Garsten) to serve on committees with the democratic theorists (e.g., Shapiro) and vice versa.
So nothing about Notre Dame?
Umm, Garsten isn't really a Straussian, and he's served (with Shapiro) on committees of students doing democratic theory (you can check on Digital Dissertations [Proquest])
"Umm, Garsten isn't really a Straussian...."
Umm, here we go again.
yeah, except the here we go again should refer to two more comments up when Garsten was called a Straussian. In other words "he started it"
Will a JD help a theory PhD (from a top-ten-but-not-top-3 program) get a job? Does the ability to teach con law, law and society classes, etc., help make a PhD more marketable?
Thanks!
The ability to teach those classes may indeed make you more marketable at non-R1 institutions. But getting a JD is not at all necessary to cultivating that ability (though it might make your claims about it more credible).
I don't suppose anyone would be willing to look over my profile and tell me if I'm crazy to be applying where I am (when I say my profile, I just mean my CV, GRE, and GPA, unless you also want my SOP).
If so, please email me at CluelessTheoryApplicant@gmail.com
You're kidding, right?^
Not really. I'm curious whether I'm right to be applying where I am and would rather not post my profile online.
Do you not have a committee, or adviser?
I am in an unusual situation such that I have nobody I can talk to who is informed about political science departments. If it helps, I can assure you that I have a sufficiently unique application (my CV) to be interesting.
this is so weird!!!
^ Who will write your recos?
^^^
People from the cognate field that my degree is in.
In previous debates on the Garsten-Straussian issue, I think that the "Yes" arguments were much more convincing than the "No" ones.
If "what I think" is how you argue, I can see why you're wasting time here instead of interviewing for jobs.
^^ I don't recall there being much in the way of "arguments" on either side; my recollection is that the debate went something like "Garsten is a Straussian because he worked with Harvey Mansfield", to which the response was "OK, but point to something about Garsten's own work that's actually indicative of being a Straussian", to which the response was "Uhhh ..."
I may be forgetting something, though.
^ Yeah, you're forgetting the part where links were provided to multiple (and quite positive!) reviews of Garsten's book by non-Straussians all of which identified it as having Straussian features:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/philosophy_and_rhetoric/v041/41.1aune.html
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-02-18.html
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=715532
Other points were made too, but my guess is that you'll soon have "forgotten" those as well.
^ this argument is ridiculous. Here's an analogy: if a bunch of racists call you a racist, are you a racist?
Note: please do not twist my words to be saying that Straussians are racists.
^That's not quite fair; a closer analogy would be, "if a bunch of non-racists called you a racist, but were otherwise pretty nice about you, you're probably a racist"
That aside, the articles linked to don't strike me as conclusive. First, I don't see anything in Kapust's review that shows Garsten's book to have distinctly Straussian features (and its account of Garsten's reading of Hobbes and Aristotle sounds as much, or more, like what Garsten might've heard from Richard Tuck as what he would've gotten from Strauss). The Philosophy and Rhetoric review does identify Garsten as a Straussian, but this seems to come down to attributing to him (correctly) a "close reading" approach, and a neglect of social and economic determinants on political thought. But these elements aren't unique to Straussians; and the review's recognition of Garsten's debt to Skinner seems to somewhat complicate this identification. The Bryn Mawr review does make a stronger case for Garsten as a Straussian, attributing to him both the elitism and the esoteric approach to writing one associates with Straussians; but it fails to provide knock-down evidence that it's own reading of Garsten's esotericism is correct (which admittedly tends to be a problem for all esoteric readings!) The identification of Ronald Beiner -- an Arendtian -- as also an esoteric reader, and thus a Straussian, and the use of this guilt-by-association to shore up the attribution of Straussianism, doesn't help. And the suggestion that Garsten's citing of Strauss on Hobbes indicates his Straussianism also strikes me as pretty weak. Plenty of readers o Hobbes (again, Tuck included) cite Strauss's Hobbes work approvingly, while rejecting his other interpretations, political commitments, and hermeneutics.
And yes, I just spent *way* too much time commenting on those articles.
Are you saying that Straussians are racists? I am offended.
6:50's analogy makes no sense, since, as 7:15 suggests, this is a case of non-Straussians calling someone a Straussian, the analogy would have to be to non-racists calling someone a racist. Either way, the analogy is silly because a "racist" or "non-racist" is not necessarily an expert in racism, whereas "author of a political theory book review in an academic journal" is supposed to be an expert in the ins-and-outs of political theory. I'm not persuaded by 7:15's reading of the reviews (e.g., Beiner is not really being identified as a Straussian). Either way, all of that analysis is wasted breath if you don't start by establishing what the threshold for Straussianism would be (and thus what "knock-down evidence" would be). Of course, there is no such authoritative standard (which is why significance is often given to whom someone studied with). And of course no one would question that Garsten is ecumenical, but I would just say that that is a strength of his brand of Straussianism. Either way, there's enough there for multiple reviews to pick up on.
For whatever it's worth, the one review linked to which is by a political theorist doesn't say anything about Garsten being a Straussian; the two reviews that link him to Strauss are by people with PhDs in English and Communications, respectively. Which of course doesn't mean that they're not qualified to judge (the Arnt review, at least, seems quite well informed about trends in hist of political thought)
OK, fine, I just looked at the reviews.
I don't find any mention of or allusion to Strauss in Kapust's review for Perspectives. So strike that one.
Here's the relevant passage from the Bryn Mawr review:
"The author's intentions, at times, sound egalitarian, such as when Garsten writes that his version of deliberation "requires...that we pay attention to our fellow citizens and to their opinions" (210). Earlier, however, in a paternalistic moment, Garsten says that we must be "protected against the intrusions of unreflective public opinion" (197). The previous quotations encapsulate a familiar tactic at work throughout the text that is not so much a contradiction overlooked by Garsten and the readers for Harvard University Press, but an exo-esoteric politics that Garsten highlights and endorses in his book, and that some academics share, sometimes consciously. It is no accident that Garsten's reading of Hobbes is, if we can trust the accuracy of the bibliography, influenced, at least in part, by Leo Strauss."
This is what we might politely call a tendentious argument, the telling phrase being "it is no accident that..." And what the hell is an "exo-esoteric politics"?
Here's the relevant passage from the Philosophy & Rhetoric review:
"Saving Persuasion began as a doctoral dissertation in Government at Harvard, under the direction of Harvey Mansfield—after Allan Bloom, perhaps the most influential and controversial of the disciples of Leo Strauss. Although Garsten’s book displays both the virtues and vices of Straussianism, it would be unfair to dismiss it as a neoconservative manifesto for rhetoric...Currently an assistant professor of political science at Yale, Garsten also received an MA from Cambridge in political theory and intellectual history. His book reveals the influence of Quentin Skinner and the Cambridge School of political theory, whose insistence on reading political philosophy in its historical context is the antithesis of the Straussian rejection of historicism. Garsten thus combines the Straussian emphasis on close reading with the contextual-rhetorical perspective of Skinner."
This is what we call an unargued premise, and reads like a half-assed general exam response. Is Straussianism really equivalent to neoconservatism, or "close reading"? How exactly does one go about combining antithetical approaches?
Sorry for the long post, but before reading these reviews I thought this was actually a reasonable debate. I'm glad I checked for myself.
^ Great post, thanks for doing our homework for us. If a Straussian is someone who believes that we have to be "protected against the intrusions of unreflective public opinion," then I guess deliberative democrats are closet Straussians. I should have known!
This is all pretty meaningless. Until you establish what the criteria are for being considered Straussian, it won't make any sense to say that someone either is or isn't.
Read the work: he's a Straussian.
The 2 main people protesting this fact here are students who have worked with him: a particular graduate student worried about her job prospects and a specific assistant professor worried about her tenure prospects.
What is the difference between a StraussIAN and a person who has read and been influenced by Strauss amongst many other theorists?
8:19 is a remarkable individual. Every time Garsten comes up, he or she makes the same insinuation about those who deny the claim that Garsten is a Straussian.
Why does anyone care? Better yet, why does it keep coming up again, and again, and again, and again? Is there nothing else to talk about?
^^^I'm a non-theorist "protesting" this claim because I want to see some standards of evidence. Why do you see the whole world in conspiracies?
8:19 is actually not a remarkable "individual" at all, since I've made the same point in the past and I'm not 8:19. Maybe it's just common sense?
If 9:57 wants a "standard of evidence", then you'll have to start by defining "Straussian". Otherwise the "debate" is meaningless.
9:50's post, despite its length, is one of the densest things I've read in a long time (I'd hate to see his/her general exams). For instance, 9:50 asks: "How exactly does one go about combining antithetical approaches/"; in fact, that's exactly what the review in question discusses, including in the passage quoted by 9:50. 9:50 also asks: "Is Straussianism really equivalent to neoconservatism?" - well, some people would say so, but the review quoted doesn't actually say that at all, it simply notes that Garsten's book doesn't display the sort of connection (not the same concept as "equivalence", 9:50!) between Straussian scholarship and neoconservatism that one often sees - especially, as no one could seriously deny, in many students supervised (as Garsten was) by Harvey Mansfield (William Kristol, anyone?). 9:50 is also barking up an empty tree when he/she asks whether Straussianism is "really equivalent to...close reading". Again, simple equivalence was never at issue, 9:50. Related? Yes. (You might want to learn to read more closely.) 9:50 also declares the BMCR review "a tendentious argument" without any single scrap of argument on his/her part. Maybe the BMCR review is wrong, but at least it has *an* argument, not just an assertion a la 9:50. Then again, given 9:50's questionable reading and/or comprehension and/or logical abilities as illustrated in his/her comments on the other review, I wouldn't want to see him/her try to argue the point out any further.
8:43 makes a good point. The difference isn't well defined partly because there aren't many people in the second category, and partly because both Straussians and non-Straussians often have an incentive to deny that such people could even exist (because Strausianism sometimes functions as a cult, and anti-Straussianism sometimes functions as a prejudice). But I think that Garsten does fall into the second category: he's not a Straussian in the way that Mansfield is, but his work obviously has more in common with someone like Mansfield than with someone like Shapiro or Benhabib.
"8:19 is actually not a remarkable "individual" at all, since I've made the same point in the past and I'm not 8:19. Maybe it's just common sense?"
Yes: common sense dictates that on an anonymous blog with any number of people posting, and any number of people making the claim that Garsten is or is not a Straussian, those denying that he is a Straussian are really just two particular people. It simply couldn't be the case that there might be people posting who have read his book and are not convinced, or that there are people who have read the reviews and are not convinced, or that understand Straussian in a different way than it is being deployed.
Common sense dictates that those saying he is are also engaged in a conspiracy, I suppose.
Hopefully, this ^ poster's (common sense) point - "he's not a Straussian in the way that Mansfield is, but his work obviously has more in common with someone like Mansfield than with someone like Shapiro or Benhabib" - will settle the debate.
I can't believe that last year's Straussian debate has resurfaced on the prospective grad student thread.
This thread really inspires prospective grad students to pursue work in this field... you all seem like happy enough people, not insecure or curmudgeonly at all...who wouldn't want to do this for a living?
I really don't see why people are so fascinated with Garsten. Maybe because he does not fit neatly into pre-conceived boxes about the divisions within political theory? In any case, it is clear to me that he has read Strauss and studied with Mansfield, but he is also conversant with a variety of democratic theorists. There is nothing particularly esoteric about his approach, nor anti-democratic about his substantive views. On a scale of 1 to 10, he is about a 3 in terms of being a Straussian.
9:50 here. Methinks 10:09 doth protest too much, but sure.
Consider the sentence:
"Although Garsten’s book displays both the virtues and vices of Straussianism, it would be unfair to dismiss it as a neoconservative manifesto for rhetoric."
The "although" construction sets up a relationship of equivalence between the subject of the first half of the sentence (Straussianism), and the second half ("a neoconservative manifesto for rhetoric"). Otherwise the latter phrase would be a non sequitur.
Consider the sentence:
"Garsten thus combines the Straussian emphasis on close reading with the contextual-rhetorical perspective of Skinner."
Here the relationship isn't exactly an equivalence, but "close reading" is taken (absurdly) as a sufficient description of Straussian methodology. And contrary to 10:09's protest, there's no explanation in the review of how one can be opposed to historicism and yet committed to reading political philosophy in historical context. I for one don't find any evidence that Garsten is in fact opposed to historicism, and plenty of evidence that he reads contextually (and closely), so I don't see any reason to conclude that he's a Straussian, certainly not on the grounds given in the review.
Tendentiousness is, I guess, in the eye of the beholder, but it seems to me that only someone who was already looking for a Straussian connection would find one in the two completely unexceptionable passages that the Bryn Mawr reviewer quotes.
...oh, and 8:19, I don't know what kind of a mind reader you think you are, but I'm not female, I'm not a grad student or an assistant, and I've never met Bryan Garsten.
In addition to studying with Mansfield at Harvard, Garsten also did an M.Phil. under the direction of Peter Laslett at Cambridge. Just FYI
On the evidence of the babble evinced above, 9:50/1:42 has good reason to worry about the job market!
evinced?!
I really don't care, about this issue. But I was in the audience of an APSA panel a few years ago where Garsten was the commentator. He mysteriously noted the fact that one of the papers discussed religion "on page 13."
It doesn't get any more Straussian than that!
But what was the time and date of the panel? And how many presenters? And where did he sit?
Let's throw him in the lake and see if he floats!
^win
win? you're all losers...
Well, the jerk store called; they're running out of you.
You people are positively witless. This is just a simple statement of fact.
First time poster here. Looking to study critics of political modernity, i.e. Burke, Voegelin, Tocqueville, Babbit, etc. Currently looking at UVA, Harvard, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Princeton, and Duke. Any thoughts?
Some fallback school suggestions would also be appreciated.
Do yourself a favor. Don't go to grad school for political theory.
My research interests lie in critiques of the canon. I want to build a critique that the history of political theory is rife with a) sexism/phallocentrism (all we teach in survey courses are male thinkers), b) racism (said men are universally white), c) classism (said white men are typically well-heeled to pass the time composing verbose "treatises") and d) heteronormative (wealthy white men typically focus on/use language that is virile; see Machiavelli's description of fortune). My overall goal is to challenge and perhaps phase these thinkers out of what goes for a "curriculum" today. Ambitious, yes: but when we speak of the great books, we should at least ponder, WHOSE "great books"?
What programs might cater to such a non-canonical approach? I need some that offer a Pocockian refutation of the myth of a Western "tradition" along with a dollop of contemporary liberalism/deliberative democratic theorists.
I really hope this isn't a troll.
Of course it's a troll.
What is the best way to start a personal statement? I've been having trouble writing the introduction while the body to my statement is nearly finished. I've read a lot that says to avoid "gimicky" phrases, but I am not sure how to "hook" the reader--especially if there are non-theorists on a graduate admissions committee. Any thoughts, especially from anyone on a graduate committee this year?
I am an undergrad at UChicago thinking of applying to a graduate program in political theory. My major advisor is a very eminent Straussian and I am worried—and now even more so given the content of this thread—that this may hurt my chances of being admitted to a good program. He is a wonderful teacher, and I imagine he will be writing a letter for me, along with another member of the political science faculty who is about as removed from Straussianism as one can be.
So: should I be worried.
Chezwick: To the extent that Straussian identification is based on who your professors were, yes. To the extent that you can, at some point, work your way out from under that association (ala Arlene Saxonhouse)-- it will be tough, but is doable.
Chezwick: luckily, admissions committees are not always (ever?) as ridiculously obsessed with ferreting out Straussianism as this thead is. (I say this as a tenured, non-Straussian faculty member who has a lot of respect for the eminent Straussian in Chicago's political science department, and knows from long experience that his students vary widely in their ideological and methodological commitments.) Yes, it's good that you will have letters from non-Straussians as well, but I think you simply have to trust that the departments to which you apply aren't going to be the fetid swamps of bile and resentment that the rumormill might lead you to fear they are; and if they reject you just because your advisor is a Straussian, well, you don't want to go to those places anyway.
^Yes, this.
A very large number of non-Straussian theorists were taught as undergrads by Bloom or Tarcov or Mansfield or Pangle or Orwin or Saxenhouse or the Zuckerts or... Good grad programs welcome those letters of recommendation. Even places that would worry about hiring a grad student primarily advised by one of those scholars isn't going to have the same reaction to admitting an undergrad into grad school.
The situation is somewhat different if you were taught by third-tier fourth-generation Straussians and write your application essay about the problem of the philosopher and the city. But your situation is just fine.
As has been said, the content of your statement will be taken as a stronger indicator than who the referees are. The reference by itself is unlikely to hurt, and may help.
Having one letter from a Straussian won't hurt. After all, there are only so many political theorists to work with at any college. Now, if you say in your statement that you want to study with a Straussian when you are in grad school, this could cause some alarmists to be alarmed.
I'm a non-Straussian, and have problems with some of the more doctrinaire Straussians, but recognize that there are dozens of non-doctrinaire Straussians who do a superlative job teaching undergraduates close reading, measured reasoning, and careful writing. So I would welcome an application from, say, a Tarcov student or a Laurence Cooper student or a Ruth Grant student. The quality of their teaching is legendary.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Did not mean to delete ^. My apologies!
Are there any American graduate schools with strong programs in Chinese political theory? I'm very interested in this subject— particularly in Legalism—and I imagine it will become increasingly important as time goes on. Is it possible, at this point in time, to study Chinese political theory without entering into an East Asian Studies program?
^You might actually look into comparative politics programs that have people doing qualitative/historical work. In such a program, you could major in comparative with a minor in theory (with pretty good job prospects I would imagine).
In political theory, nonwestern/comparative political theory has been hot in recent years, but my sense is that departments are mostly filling those positions with junior people. I can't really think of established political theory programs that have a big name senior person with a specialty in Chinese thought. That said, you can't go wrong with picking one of the established top tier programs, getting a solid background in the subfield as a whole, and then writing a dissertation on Chinese thought. You will probably do work with a wider possible audience than you would if you just went somewhere to work with the leading Sinologist.
Quick question...
660V, 750Q
Are those scores enough to get me a look from the very top programs, or will I get cut right away?
And if I do get a look, do the scores matter after that?
^At my program, scores were not a factor in admission (which was decided by department committee) but they were determinative of funding (which was decided by the university).
^ I'm pretty skeptical this is the case at any program, at least any reputable one. I would expect the difference to go in the opposite direction. It isn't normal for the University to have that kind of meddling say in funding decisions after enrollment. I suspect the author if this comment is making an inaccurate or untrue statement, sadly.
^ Or ^^ goes to a state school which give extra funding to the best students, competitively across different departments. This means, no matter how unfair you may think it is, since those nominated for this extra funding probably have comparably high GPA's, this extra funding must get decided by GRE scores.
11:34 here. Yes, I was at a public university with a strong union.I have no idea if those were factors in the policy. My understanding is that it was not meddling in department business so much as having a standardized way of determining funding across departments. What I can't remember is whether GRE was the only factor or one of a few.
11:34 here. Yes, I was at a public university with a strong union.I have no idea if those were factors in the policy. My understanding is that it was not meddling in department business so much as having a standardized way of determining funding across departments. What I can't remember is whether GRE was the only factor or one of a few.
"Are there any American graduate schools with strong programs in Chinese political theory? I'm very interested in this subject— particularly in Legalism—and I imagine it will become increasingly important as time goes on. Is it possible, at this point in time, to study Chinese political theory without entering into an East Asian Studies program?"
I know that Benjamin Gregg at the University of Texas at Austin has done some work on Chinese political theory and law. (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/government/faculty/bggregg)
Of course, Gregg is not the dominant personality in the department, so you'd have to also find a way of getting along with the Pangles, etc., too.
But I can't think of anyone else in your area of interest than Gregg.
Good luck.
If I am pretty explicitly planing on going into political theory, how much will the committee care about my math GREs?
Much. Some theorists care, using the math GRE as a proxy for logic/ rigor/ smarts. But more importantly, the overall department admissions committee definitely cares. High total GRE is the most important part of convincing the whole committee that you're admittable. Some schools might let the theory faculty do the rankings as among those who are admittable, and maybe the math GRE doesn't matter at that stage, but it certainly matters for getting into the pool in the first place.
It just depends on the people on the committee. In my department, theorists are looked at in just the same way as everyone else. The quant GRE matters. In my former department, the theorists just picked whoever they wanted and worried less about it, although a low GRE is a warning sign regardless of one's interests.
What's the ballpark range you want for your quant GRE to gain admittance at a top theory program?
good to be above 700. file will probably get a look.
very bad to be below 600. file probably wont get a look.
in the middle, it depends.
^ Those numbers aren't how GREs are done anymore. My student who's applying to programs this year had a 159/157. He asked me if that was good; I had no idea.
I have a 3.5 out of a large non-flagship state school, but excluding my Freshman year it moves up to about 3.85. Assuming the rest of my application is very strong and I am a good fit, am I screwed at a CHYMPS?
Probably. But see above re GREs. Acing them has a way of cushioning the blow of weak GPA. It could also matter what grades you got in what courses. If you have a poli sci 4.0 but got dragged down by C's in engineering and hard sciences, people tend to cut you some slack.
It was just a weak freshman year. One of my profs is going to point out in his letter that I had a rough transition but picked up after that. My GRE is over 1500 (took it on the old scale). Is that enough to give me chances? And yeah, I got one B+ in major, so not 4.0 but close.
Admissions committees at top schools occasionally take a flyer on a non-perfect application. However, they pretty much never take a flyer on a non-perfect application from a "large non-flagship public". You may well have what it takes to have an academic career, but it won't begin in a top 10 department.
Hmm, that's too bad. There's something else that might affect my application significantly but I'm not comfortable saying it on here. I understand that you're probably very busy and don't really have time to do this, but taking a cue from an earlier poster, would you be willing to email me at anothercluelessapplicant@gmail.com
In my experience 1500+ GREs get you into the credible pool at top 10s. Maybe not HYP, but beyond that, yes.
Holy cow, so I just look it up and as of this past August GREs are scored on a scale of 130-170. That is very bizarre. Why start the scale at 130? (Why start the old scores at 200, for that matter, but at least then the range was bigger than the starting number.) Now they're just messing with us.
One thing to keep in mind, to follow up on 2:59, is that committees at top schools have the option of filling their entire program with 'perfect' applications--3.9+ GPAs, perfect GREs in quant and near-perfect in verbal, the most superlative letters imaginable from top scholars, etc. In order to bump one of the 'perfects' from an admissions slot, the committee needs to see something in your file that appeals to their sense of vanity regarding their ability to look beyond the obvious and identify what they suspect is a sign of unusual potential. (It also helps if they read your file at a moment they happen to be bored by too many perfect ones).
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the qualities that allow a 'near-perfect' to jump up and take one of the spots of the 'perfect' are idiosyncratic and hard to specify. First, there's a sample size issue; it happens quite rarely. Second, it obviously depends on who is on the committee and their (invariably idiosyncratic) views on what sort of thing constitutes evidence of sufficient potential to turn down a non-perfect file.
In short, it doesn't hurt to apply to top tens with a non-perfect file, assuming the application fee isn't an issue. (If you're a successful academic, you'll spend a lot of time applying for fellowships and grants where the odds are no better, it doesn't hurt to start now!) But the task of predicting or trying to game it so that a non-perfect file can leapfrog the perfects is a fool's errand. Go for it, expect to fail, hope for the best.
Thanks for the responses.
2:00 An "unusual sign of potential" is why I was hoping for an email. I think that I have something (it is certainly quite rare), but I'm not sure if it's enough. The reason that I don't post it on here is because it's sufficiently unusual that I would be instantly identified based on it if an adcom were to read this and my file.
At this point I am expecting to fail but am also hoping that I might receive some more reason to be optimistic.
Here's a stylized but not inaccurate representation of how I read files. I think I'm not alone. Maybe it'll be helpful.
I look quickly at the undergraduate institution and previous graduate institution, if there is one, to see where the applicant is coming from. I check the quantitative data: GPA, GRE, TOEFL if applicable. The quantitative data sets expectations for the personal statement and the letters of recommendation. If you've got a 3.8-4.0 GPA and GREs over 1500, I think to myself: okay, strong priors, but I hope you're not boring. If you've got a 3.5-3.7 and GREs over 1300, I think to myself: in the ballpark, but you'll have to be great. Then I read the statement and the letters. The statement can bump people from both quantitative categories out of the running, either because of fit, or because it suggests that the applicant doesn't understand that grad school isn't just more years of the same thing as undergrad. It can also very easily elevate quantitatively weaker candidates above quantitatively stronger ones in the preliminary formation of a long list, if the fit is great or the statement is brilliant. Same is true with the letters.
Quantitative data can figure in again in boiling down the long list to a short list, depending on who else is on the committee, how permissive you think they'll be about grades and scores, and whether there is any room in that year's procedures for theory to win a spot or two from other subfields (in a subfield-against-subfield contest, it helps if your preferred candidate is 4.0-800-800). But within the expected quota for theory, having a quantitatively perfect application isn't magical, and it's not like we first look for all the perfect applications and then see whether any of the imperfect ones are strong enough to defeat them. Qualititative factors, which I imagine might include ^'s secret weapon (either you published a book or you were born with the gift of second sight, I'm guessing), are very important nearly from the beginning.
All that said, there's never any reason to be optimistic. Not about admission, not about publishing, not about getting a job, and depending on where you are, not about tenure. Right now, the question to be asking yourself is not: is there cause for optimism? It's: do I still feel like this is what I want to try to do with my life even in the absence of any grounds for optimism?
That was extremely helpful. Thanks. And it's in print at OUP.
2:00 An "unusual sign of potential" is why I was hoping for an email. I think that I have something (it is certainly quite rare), but I'm not sure if it's enough.
2:00 here; my point is my own feelings about the value of your ace in the hole, or the views of just about anyone else, doesn't really matter. These things are evaluated in a wildly idiosyncratic way, and it entirely depends on who happens to be reading your file (it also helps if they just finished reviewing a couple of perfect-but-boring files--that's how idiosyncratic it is). So we literally can't answer your question.
I'm curious:
Imagine anything you like, as improbable as it may be. Is there anything a student may have done that would make you immediately want to admit them?
If your numbers are good but not great, one thing you can do is to submit a terrific personal statement or, better yet, a really good writing sample. Both of these possibilities also require that something in your file attracts the attention of at least one person on the admissions committee. But if you can submit a statement or paper that is exceptionally well done, it could make a huge difference.
I've served on the admissions committee for one of the better programs--though not HYP--and we take this stuff seriously. Good writing has helped a lot of students over the years. But this again depends on your being in the ballpark to begin with.
The only thing a student could do that would make me immediately want to admit them is to publish a single authored article in a significant journal (PT, JPP, CPT, RoP, Polity, HPT, APSR, AJPS, JoP). I suppose a book on political theory with a university press would work also, but presses don't publish uncredentialed people, so not gonna happen.
Nothing short of that would merit automatic admission.
If you have a letter from Jean-Paul Gagnon, it would be hard for me not to want to know more, so I'd probably admit you as long as the rest of your application isn't terrible.
I'm starting to get really stressed out. Are committees meeting right now or do they not convene for a bit?
You are definitely right to be nervous. Committees for most tenure track jobs have already decided. Some VAP jobs probably have yet to be posted. Regardless it is a very tough market out there and you are not assured of a job. The best way to ease your nervousness is to have a solid backup plan.
Oops, I thought you meant search committees for jobs. If you are talking about grad student admissions, you can relax. Decisions usually happen around March-April, if memory serves.
A little earlier than that, actually, but right, much too early to panic.
@11:43: more like February-March, but definitely not January. So panic should be reserved for a couple of months yet.
How important is the writing sample? Can an amazing writing sample compensate for a decent but not outstanding GPA, assuming the rest of the file is in order?
^ It depends what you mean by "decent," and what the reasons are for its not being "outstanding." If your GPA was pulled down by, say, an early foray into the hard sciences or a rocky transition from high school into college, or some other explainable discrete event, then you might the able to offset it with a strong trajectory, high GREs and an excellent statement + letters (letters would be crucial to corroborate your story about the low GPA). If you've been pulling B+s in liberal arts courses all through college then it's less likely that you'll be able to explain that away. And remember that the elite programs (Harvard, Princeton and the like) have a strong enough pool that they can (and usually do) set aside any application that has any blemish whatsoever.
Thanks for the response, but I was particularly curious about the impact of a strong writing sample. Let's assume the other factors are strong excepting the GPA, which is decent (say, cum laude but no better).
To answer that I would need to know roughly what GPA we're talking about, and what kind of school it was earned at.
~3.6 caused by a bad freshman year at a large state school with a graduate program. After that, ~3.9.
So basically a 3.8 overall? That shouldn't be a deal breaker, especially if you can isolate the somewhat subpar grades to your first year. Some of the elite programs (Ivies) tend to turn their noses up at candidates from "large state schools" (unless it's Berkeley or Michigan or the like), but with strong test scores, statement and letters you should have a shot at a pretty good program. Not to say that you'll get in, just that you should have a shot if the rest of your app is strong.
Thanks.
Does anyone have any recommendations for a good translation of a Rosa Luxemburg reader? Thanks!
Has anyone ever seen a prospective grad student submit a paper (and be accepted) at a graduate student conference?
It's not at all uncommon, and, in fact, there are applicants who have presented at professional conferences.
^Fact. I presented at a graduate conference as an undergrad (I strongly recommend you go to a conference and see how papers are normally presented before doing this...although there is some merit to learning things the hard way).
Yes.
I was not impressed.
If I have the opportunity to do a free accelerated JD (2 years) along with my PhD, at a top-ten-but-not-top-5 school in both theory and law, should I do it?
Yes. Don't be a moron. It's a way to add immense job prospects at no cost to yourself.
I'm driving myself crazy. Does anyone know of any adcoms that are going to be getting back to applicants this week?
Very, very unlikely. Don't expect anything till early next month at the earliest. Relax.
Emory, Wisconsin, UIUC, and TAMU have gotten back to people already.
This blog is busted but you can access the second and third pages if you click on the link to the time/day of the original post.
(I'm posting this here because people who have not figured this out won't be able to read the instruction on the third page of the main thread...)
Several top 10 programs made their decisions last week. Notifications should come this week.
Does anyone know if Cornell or Northwestern's adcoms have made their deicisons?
Any word yet from the top-10? I'm getting anxious, even though it's only Feb 1...
Duke sent out acceptances. You should check out the grad cafe if you want to keep up with results.
Need some advice: I've read it all about not paying for a PhD. what would you do, realistically: Top 10 program not funded or Top 30 program w/ funds through TA/RA?
DO NOT GO TO GRAD SCHOOL WITHOUT FUNDING*. THE END.
(*Unless you are independently wealthy.)
Go where they want you, which is to say where they provide you with some sort of funding.
If you were to strip away everything you know about yourself and make yourself perfectly rational, where would you go?
Sorry, had to.
It's highly unlikely that a top 10 program would admit someone without funding in any event.
But yes, for God's sake don't dream of paying a dime for PhD in political theory. If you don't get funding, count your blessings and move on.
^ Well does no fellowship=no funding?
^, yes. Even if the Dept. gets the grad school to waive tuition, the Dept. is not devoting any of its resources to getting you to attend. In any case, if a lower ranked school still has a great professor with whom you want to study and if that school is making a place for you, take advantage of what you are offered.
To 4:36pm: None of the above. A Top 30 PhD is highly unlikely to lead to a job, and a Top 10 PhD is not worth going into debt. You will be much better off holding out for another year. Express your interest in the Top 10 program and reapply next year.
^this. tell the top ten you are interested but need funding. if they don't offer, try again next year. there is nothing wrong with taking a year off, it will give you perspective, more intelligence, life skills, friends, and hell, it may even help you realize that there are other things you can do with your life.
^ Why are you presuming that I don't have friends, perspective, or life skills? I've been out of college for two years. you fucking dork
I wouldn't send my worst enemy to study theory in some of the "top ten" political science departments. Leaving that aside, I think that you should not ask advice from the anonymous knuckleheads who post here. Instead, call up a couple of your favorite college professors and find out what they think.
does no fellowship=no funding?
Not necessarily. Funding can take the form of RA/TA work. There are very good departments in which fellowship funding is extremely scarce.
What you absolutely must demand to consider matriculating is a guaranteed 5 years of funding, be it RA, TA, fellowship, or some combination, that covers tuition and provides a stipend. Without that, do not consider attending under any circumstances.
wow, whats with the attitude from 1:08?
...oh, right, getting rejected from all the programs you applied to must be making you a grump! maybe they don't want you cuz youre an ass!
Does anyone know if Northwestern has admitted their theory students yet? There have been some rumors on gradcafe that they've already started admitting theory students and received calls from POIs. Any truth to this? Northwestern is my dream school.
Does anyone know if Northwestern has admitted their theory students yet? There have been some rumors on gradcafe that they've already started admitting theory students and received calls from POIs. Any truth to this? Northwestern is my dream school.
I'm curious as to the difference between doing your PhD in a philosophy department and your PhD in a political science department in regards to placement. Can anyone shed some light on this issue?
^ They are different disciplines. If you go for philosophy, you'll be looking for jobs in Philosophy departments. If you go for political science, you'll be looking for jobs in political science departments.
Crossover is hard. It's slightly more possible for philosophy PHDs to get a job in poli sci departments than the other way around, but on the assistant market there's usually no more than 1-2 a year. There's very little overlap in the job market.
Obviously, if you're considering studying political theory in a philosophy dept. your interest must be contemporary analytic. They have no time for continental, critical, and historical approaches.
Both markets are, of course, terrible, and will be for the forseeable future, in all likelihood. Unless you're very good and very lucky, any job you eventually get will include a fair amount of service teaching, so one question to consider is whether you'd rather teach intro to poli sci/american govt/con law or intro to ethics/phil 101 type stuff when you're not teaching political philosophy. I expect salaries are a bit lower in philosophy depts as well.
Hopkins has made their decisions on grad students for next year - notifications going out now
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home