^^^^^^^^ etc I agree. The comments about the U of T Canadian search candidates are petty and vindictive. Harell had an offer from UQAM, Macfarlane received a postdoc at Harvard, and Cochrane was also interviewed for the quant position at Ottawa, but either withdrew for Toronto or didn't get it. No matter, these candidates are very strong and, with apologies to the conspiracy theorists above, it isn't just the U of T search committee that thinks so.
Political Science Job Rumors » General Job Market Discussion
[closed]
Canadian Politics Job Rumours
(831 posts)-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
Also, personality and reputation matters. Let's just say that some of these other names mentioned earlier may have been hurt on that dimension.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Cute. Care to elaborate?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Nope.
Posted 6 months ago # -
"Pickup;
Rubenson;
Koop;
Bodet;
Gidengil's student from McGill on voting and information;
Esselment"I am friends with or know or have met all of them. They're all lovely people.
Posted 6 months ago # -
...which the hiring committee would have known had they all done their PhDs at the UofT.
Posted 6 months ago # -
You guys are comically immature.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^ Agreed. Look, fellas, we understand that you're still a little miffed that you made the UTSC long-list but not the short-list. We know that you thought you were guaranteed one of those three magic spots, just because you're already an AP. We know you think that you're better than the people who were actually short-listed, either because you've already got a job, or because of your publication record, or because you're a douchbag who thinks he's better than everyone else. But you need to get over it. Rejection is part of academic life. Maybe the search committee wasn't interested in another voting behaviour/political parties clone with a bad attitude to boot. Cutting down the other candidates on an anonymous blog just makes it seem like the SC dodged a bullet when they DIDN'T PICK YOU. M'kay?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Everyone knows that only assistant profs post on this board.
Posted 6 months ago # -
and undergrads
Posted 6 months ago # -
Does Martin Westmacott still teach at UWO?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Yikes. I'm on that list. I'm terrified that people would think I was sitting here on a Friday night writing my own name on this board.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^ I would also be mortified to have my name used here in a positive light to critize colleagues. With friends like some of you have on this board, why would you ever need enemies?
Posted 6 months ago # -
^agreed. Some of the names on that list are surely better on some dimension than the shortlisted people. But, obviously, those weren't the things the committee was most interested in and
the shortlisted candidates were better than the rest, on balance, in whatever it was
the committee valued. This is of course the case in every search.And like the previous two posters, I wouldn't want my name
used in this way either. I'd be pretty surprised if it was someone on that list that supplied the list.Posted 6 months ago # -
Yawn - let's stick with job rumours or trashing CJPS
Posted 6 months ago # -
"I would also be mortified to have my name used here in a positive light to critize colleagues. With friends like some of you have on this board, why would you ever need enemies?"
Give me a break. The question was who are the excellent candidates on the job market right now. Someone produced this list. Doesn't necessarily have to be a friend, and I'm in total agreement with the names on the list.
"Some of the names on that list are surely better on some dimension than the shortlisted people. But, obviously, those weren't the things the committee was most interested in and
the shortlisted candidates were better than the rest, on balance, in whatever it was
the committee valued."This is frightening. Either for its banality, or because some candidates are willing to accept the fact that there are mysterious, invisible criteria that we have no way of knowing about. The market is tight and the UofT is one of the best departments in the country. When they have a wide open Canadian competition that everyone and their dog applies for and then hire an internal candidate for a reason that no one can figure out, sensible people are going to wonder why.
Posted 6 months ago # -
So can we assume that that list was the UTSC long list, plus the three who were shortlisted?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Why do people automatically place a discount on an internal candidate?
Committees have to juggle a number of factors when making decisions. At the shortlist stage, they look at (in no particular order):
-number/quality of publications;
-conference presentations;
-graduate funding;
-evidence of at least competent teaching;
-interesting research agenda;
-letters of reference;At the interview stage, they look for:
-job talk quality and presentation skills;
-ability to handle Q and A effectively;
-interesting research and the ability to speak to the broad discipline of political science;
- collegiality;When making the final decision, committee members have to deal with uncertainty. That means, given the reference letters, application materials, and the interview, how certain are we that this candidate will tenure and be a productive (and collegial) member of the department. Internal candidates have one advantage and that is the level of uncertainty is less (one way or the other).
Posted 6 months ago # -
^Well put. ^^^, sign your name or quit trashing that individual and his work. Sorry to crush your wide eyed beliefs, but all hiring is a bit mysterious, especially in a world where people still respect confidentiality. It's done. Deal with it.
Oh, and CJPS rules!
Posted 6 months ago # -
Seriously, what the hell happened with Saint Thomas More?
Posted 6 months ago # -
^^^^ To simplify my point for you: If any damage is being done to reputations on this site or the last one, that damage is being done to the people and departments mentioned positively here, not to those mentioned negatively. And give me a break about the excellent scholars nonsense. We haven't heard a single substantive comment on this forum about any of their work. So I think it's pretty obvious that what we have here is one or two self-promoters listing themselves along with some others to cover their own identities. Otherwise, we'd be having a discussion about what these scholars have contributed substantively to Canadian politics in a single-authored "signature" article or book that sets their research agenda apart from those who made the shortlist. But nope. We just stick to counting publications, like any data entry clerk at a call centre would be able to do.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Or a UBC PhD.
Posted 6 months ago # -
^ Well played, but kind of out of date. Don't you mean McGill?
^^ Fair point. Maybe what we need are some detailed discussions of the contributions of Cochrane, Harell, Macfarlane, Pickup, Rubenson, Koop, Bodet, Roy, and Esselment. A good place to start would be anything that Cochrane has published. They all have websites and post their working papers and publications. Let's smarten this place up!
Posted 6 months ago # -
Who cares....
Posted 6 months ago # -
No, I think he means Harvard.
Posted 6 months ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.